Search

The successful implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity’s post-2020Global Biodiversity Framework will rely on effective translation of targets from global tonational level and increased engagement across diverse sectors of society. Species conserva-tion targets require policy support measures that can be applied to a diversity of taxonomicgroups, that link action targets to outcome goals, and that can be applied to both global andnational data sets to account for national context, which the species threat abatement andrestoration (STAR) metric does. To test the flexibility of STAR, we applied the metric to vascular plants listed on national red lists of Brazil, Norway, and South Africa. The STARmetric uses data on species’ extinction risk, distributions, and threats, which we obtainedfrom national red lists to quantify the contribution that threat abatement and habitatrestoration activities could make to reducing species’ extinction risk. Across all 3 coun-tries, the greatest opportunity for reducing plant species’ extinction risk was from abatingthreats from agricultural activities, which could reduce species’ extinction risk by 54% inNorway, 36% in South Africa, and 29% in Brazil. Species extinction risk could be reducedby a further 21% in South Africa by abating threats from invasive species and by 21% inBrazil by abating threats from urban expansion. Even with different approaches to red-listing among countries, the STAR metric yielded informative results that identified wherethe greatest conservation gains could be made for species through threat-abatement andrestoration activities. Quantifiably linking local taxonomic coverage and data collection toglobal processes with STAR would allow national target setting to align with global targetsand enable state and nonstate actors to measure and report on their potential contributionsto species conservation. habitat restoration, national red lists, species’ extinction risk, threat reduction, threatened species, vascular plants

Next week, the United Nations Biodiversity Conference (COP 15) convenes in Kunming, China, to discuss a new global plan to conserve nature and improve the sharing of its benefits across humankind. If such a plan is successfully implemented, it will mark a turning point in the millennia-long decline of the natural world due to human activity. This prospect has been boosted by the United Nations General Assembly decision to declare 2021–2030 as the Decade of Ecosystem Restoration (the “Decade”), which aims to prevent, halt, and reverse the degradation of ecosystems across the planet.

Natural forest regrowth is a cost-effective, nature-based solution for biodiversity recovery, yet different socioenvironmental factors can lead to variable outcomes. A critical knowledge gap in forest restoration planning is how to predict where natural forest regrowth is likely to lead to high levels of biodiversity recovery, which is an indicator of conservation value and the potential provisioning of diverse ecosystem services. We sought to predict and map landscape-scale recovery of species richness and total abundance of vertebrates, invertebrates, and plants in tropical and subtropical second-growth forests to inform spatial restoration planning. First, we conducted a global meta-analysis to quantify the extent to which recovery of species richness and total abundance in second-growth forests deviated from biodiversity values in reference old-growth forests in the same landscape. Second, we employed a machine-learning algorithm and a comprehensive set of socioenvironmental factors to spatially predict landscape-scale deviation and map it. Models explained on average 34% of observed variance in recovery (range 9-51%). Landscape-scale biodiversity recovery in second-growth forests was spatially predicted based on socioenvironmental landscape factors (human demography, land use and cover, anthropogenic and natural disturbance, ecosystem productivity, and topography and soil chemistry); was significantly higher for species richness than for total abundance for vertebrates (median range-adjusted predicted deviation 0.09 vs. 0.34) and invertebrates (0.2 vs. 0.35) but not for plants (which showed a similar recovery for both metrics [0.24 vs. 0.25]); and was positively correlated for total abundance of plant and vertebrate species (Pearson r = 0.45, p = 0.001). Our approach can help identify tropical and subtropical forest landscapes with high potential for biodiversity recovery through natural forest regrowth.Predicción de la Recuperación de la Biodiversidad a Escala de Paisaje según la Regeneración Natural del Bosque Tropical Resumen La regeneración natural del bosque es una solución rentable para la recuperación de la biodiversidad basada en la naturaleza, sin embargo, los diferentes factores socioambientales pueden derivar en resultados variables. Cómo predecir la ubicación en donde la regeneración natural del bosque recuperará los niveles de biodiversidad, los cuales son un indicador del valor de la conservación y un suministro potencial de diferentes servicios ambientales, es un vacío de conocimiento importante en la planeación de la restauración forestal. Buscamos predecir y mapear la recuperación a escala de paisaje de la riqueza de especies y la abundancia total de vertebrados, invertebrados y plantas en bosques tropicales y subtropicales de segundo crecimiento para guiar la planeación de la restauración. Primero, realizamos un metaanálisis mundial para cuantificar la medida a la que se desvió la recuperación de la riqueza y la abundancia total de especies en los bosques de segundo crecimiento de los valores de biodiversidad en los bosques antiguos referenciales en el mismo paisaje. Después, utilizamos un algoritmo de aprendizaje automático y un conjunto integral de factores socioambientales para predecir espacialmente la desviación a escala de paisaje para después mapearla. Los modelos explicaron en promedio el 34% de la varianza observada en la recuperación (rango de 9-51%). La recuperación de la biodiversidad a escala de paisaje en los bosques de segundo crecimiento pudo predecirse espacialmente con base en los factores socioambientales del paisaje (demografía humana, uso y cobertura del suelo, alteraciones naturales y antropogénicas, productividad del ecosistema, tipo de topografía y de suelo); fue significativamente más alta para la riqueza de especies que para la abundancia total de vertebrados (desviación media pronosticada ajustada al rango de 0.09 versus 0.34) e invertebrados (0.2 versus 0.35) pero no para las plantas (las cuales mostraron una recuperación similar para ambas medidas [0.24 versus 0.25]); y tuvo una correlación positiva para la abundancia de especies de plantas y vertebrados (Pearson r =0.45, p=0.001). Nuestra estrategia puede ayudar a identificar los paisajes de bosques tropicales y subtropicales con un potencial alto para la recuperación de la biodiversidad por medio de la regeneración natural del bosque.

The new global biodiversity framework (GBF) being developed under the Convention on Biological Diversity must drive action to reverse the ongoing decline of the Earth's biodiversity. Explicit, measurable goals that specify the outcomes we want to achieve are needed to set the course for this action. However, the current draft goals and targets fail to set out these clear outcomes. We argue that distinct outcome goals for species, ecosystems, and genetic diversity are essential and should specify net outcomes required for each. Net outcome goals such as “no net loss” do, however, have a controversial history, and loose specification can lead to perverse outcomes. We outline seven general principles to underpin net outcome goal setting that minimize risk of such perverse outcomes. Finally, we recommend inclusion of statements of impact in action targets that support biodiversity goals, and we illustrate the importance of this with an example from the draft GBF action targets. These modifications would help reveal the specific contribution each action would make to achieving the outcome goals and provide clarity on whether the successful achievement of action targets would be adequate to achieve the outcome goals and, in turn, the 2050 vision: living in harmony with nature.

Understanding the perception of Sustainable Development can help to identify misconceptions surrounding the concept in order to design better education plans and public policies on this subject. Evaluating the perception of sustainability issues by focusing on the young generation as is an important proxy to imagine what the future holds for in terms of addressing sustainable development. We conducted 177 in-person interviews on a heterogeneous group of students and random volunteers in four cities in Poland to assess their perception of Sustainable Development. The vast majority (89.3%) of the respondents were familiar with the term ‘Sustainable Development’. However, part of them (57%) associated it only to the human and social development dimensions and its institutions, whereas 17.5% related it with its environmental aspects. The results supported by the literature review highlight challenges concerning the path towards a comprehensive perception of Sustainable Development and hence the achievement of the SDGs. Based on these results, we identify opportunities and incentives to bring Poland towards 2030 Agenda.

Natural regeneration is key for large‐scale forest restoration, yet it may lead to different biodiversity outcomes depending on socio‐environmental context. We combined the results of a global meta‐analysis to quantify how biodiversity recovery in naturally regenerating forests deviates from biodiversity values in reference old‐growth forests, with structural equation modeling, to identify direct and indirect associations between socioeconomic, biophysical and ecological factors and deviation in biodiversity recovery at a landscape scale. Low deviation within a landscape means higher chances of multiple sites in naturally regenerating forests successfully recovering biodiversity compared to reference forests. Deviation in biodiversity recovery was directly negatively associated with the percentage of cropland, forest cover, and positively associated with the percentage of urban areas in the surrounding landscape. These three factors mediated the indirect associations with rural population size, recent gross deforestation, time since natural regeneration started, mean annual temperature, mean annual water deficit, road density, land opportunity cost, percentage cover of strictly protected forest areas, and human population variation in the surrounding landscape. We suggest that natural forest restoration should be prioritized in landscapes with both low socioeconomic pressures on land use conversion to pasturelands and urban areas, and high percentage of forest cover.

To meet the ambitious objectives of biodiversity and climate conventions, the international community requires clarity on how these objectives can be operationalized spatially and how multiple targets can be pursued concurrently. To support goal setting and the implementation of international strategies and action plans, spatial guidance is needed to identify which land areas have the potential to generate the greatest synergies between conserving biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people. Here we present results from a joint optimization that minimizes the number of threatened species, maximizes carbon retention and water quality regulation, and ranks terrestrial conservation priorities globally. We found that selecting the top-ranked 30% and 50% of terrestrial land area would conserve respectively 60.7% and 85.3% of the estimated total carbon stock and 66% and 89.8% of all clean water, in addition to meeting conservation targets for 57.9% and 79% of all species considered. Our data and prioritization further suggest that adequately conserving all species considered (vertebrates and plants) would require giving conservation attention to ~70% of the terrestrial land surface. If priority was given to biodiversity only, managing 30% of optimally located land area for conservation may be sufficient to meet conservation targets for 81.3% of the terrestrial plant and vertebrate species considered. Our results provide a global assessment of where land could be optimally managed for conservation. We discuss how such a spatial prioritization framework can support the implementation of the biodiversity and climate conventions.

The Brazilian Atlantic Forest has undergone adverse land-use change due to deforestation for urbanization and agriculture. Numerous restoration initiatives have been taken to restore its ecosystem services. Deforested areas have been restored through active intervention or natural regeneration. Understanding the impact of those different reforestation approaches on soil quality should provide important scientific and practical conclusions on increasing forest cover in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest biome. However, studies evaluating active planting versus natural regeneration in terms of soil recovery are scarce. We evaluate soil dynamics under those two contrasting strategies at an early stage (&lt, 10 years). Reforestation was conducted simultaneously on degraded lands previously used for cattle grazing and compared to an abandoned pasture as a reference system. We examined soil physicochemical properties such as: pH, soil organic matter content, soil moisture, N, P, K, Ca, Mg, Na, Fe, Mn, Cu, Al, and soil texture. We also present the costs of both methods. We found significant differences in restored areas regarding pH, Na, Fe, Mn content, and the cost. Soil moisture was significantly higher in pasture. Our research can contribute to better decision-making about which restoration strategy to adopt to maximize restoration success regarding soil quality and ecosystem services in the tropics.

In 2010, the Convention on Biological Diversity adopted the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020. As international attention turns to the development of the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, discussions are focusing on the way in which other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) should be reflected in the Framework. To inform this discussion, we gathered in-depth perspectives and expert elicitation on the opportunities and challenges that OECMs offer and present to biodiversity conservation. To do so, we conducted semi-structured interviews with experts involved in OECM-related deliberations. The explicit consideration of OECMs in conservation policy represents a recognition that there are sites outside of formal protected area networks that benefit biodiversity and ecosystems in important ways. However, these benefits and the future social and ecological impacts of OECMs will depend largely on robust guidelines for their identification, effective monitoring, and whether relevant actors report the areas they govern as OECMs. (C) 2021 Associao Brasileira de Ciencia Ecologica e Conservao. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Many global environmental agendas, including halting biodiversity loss, reversing land degradation, and limiting climate change, depend upon retaining forests with high ecological integrity, yet the scale and degree of forest modification remain poorly quantified and mapped. By integrating data on observed and inferred human pressures and an index of lost connectivity, we generate a globally consistent, continuous index of forest condition as determined by the degree of anthropogenic modification. Globally, only 17.4 million km

Many global environmental agendas, including halting biodiversity loss, reversing land degradation, and limiting climate change, depend upon retaining forests with high ecological integrity, yet the scale and degree of forest modification remain poorly quantified and mapped. By integrating data on observed and inferred human pressures and an index of lost connectivity, we generate a globally consistent, continuous index of forest condition as determined by the degree of anthropogenic modification. Globally, only 17.4 million km2 of forest (40.5%) has high landscape-level integrity (mostly found in Canada, Russia, the Amazon, Central Africa, and New Guinea) and only 27% of this area is found in nationally designated protected areas. Of the forest inside protected areas, only 56% has high landscape-level integrity. Ambitious policies that prioritize the retention of forest integrity, especially in the most intact areas, are now urgently needed alongside current efforts aimed at halting deforestation and restoring the integrity of forests globally., Mapping and quantifying degree of forest modification is critical to conserve and manage forests. Here the authors propose a new quantitative metric for landscape integrity and apply it to a global forest map, showing that less than half of the world’s forest cover has high integrity, most of which is outside nationally designed protected areas.

Made available in DSpace on 2020-12-12T01:14:03Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2020-12-01 Brazil is a megadiversity country with more tropical forest than any other, and is a leading agricultural producer. The technical potential to reconcile these roles by concentrating agriculture on existing farmland and sparing land for nature is well-established, but the spatial overlap of this potential with conservation priorities and institutional constraints remains poorly understood. We mapped conservation priorities, food production potential and socio-economic variables likely to influence the success of land sparing. Pasture occupies 70% of agricultural land but contributes ≤11% of the domestic food supply. Increasing yields on pasture would add little to Brazil’s food supply but – if combined with concerted conservation and restoration policies – provides the greatest opportunities for reducing land demand. Our study illustrates a method for identifying municipalities where land-sparing policies are most likely to succeed, and those where further effort is needed to overcome constraints such as land tenure insecurity, lack of access to technical advice, labour constraints, and non-compliance with environmental law. International Institute of Sustainability Ecology Department Spatial Ecology and Conservation Lab (LEEC) São Paulo State University UNESP, Avenida 24 A, Bela Vista Laboratório de Genética & Biodiversidade Instituto de Ciências Biológicas Universidade Federal de Goiás World Resources Institute Department of Zoology University of Cambridge Rio Conservation and Sustainability Science Centre Department of Geography and the Environment Pontifícia Universidade Católica Institute of Agricultural Engineering and Informatics Faculty of Production and Power Engineering University of Agriculture in Kraków, Balicka 116B School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Programa de Pós Graduação em Ecologia Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro Botanical Garden Research Institute of Rio de Janeiro Instituto de Biologia Universidade Federal da Bahia Parque das Aves Ecology Department Spatial Ecology and Conservation Lab (LEEC) São Paulo State University UNESP, Avenida 24 A, Bela Vista

International audience; 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.

International audience; The Convention on Biological Diversity’s post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework will probably include a goal to stabilize and restore the status of species. Its delivery would be facilitated by making the actions required to halt and reverse species loss spatially explicit. Here, we develop a species threat abatement and restoration (STAR) metric that is scalable across species, threats and geographies. STAR quantifies the contributions that abating threats and restoring habitats in specific places offer towards reducing extinction risk. While every nation can contribute towards halting biodiversity loss, Indonesia, Colombia, Mexico, Madagascar and Brazil combined have stewardship over 31% of total STAR values for terrestrial amphibians, birds and mammals. Among actions, sustainable crop production and forestry dominate, contributing 41% of total STAR values for these taxonomic groups. Key Biodiversity Areas cover 9% of the terrestrial surface but capture 47% of STAR values. STAR could support governmental and non-state actors in quantifying their contributions to meeting science-based species targets within the framework.

Humanity is on a deeply unsustainable trajectory. We are exceeding planetary boundaries and unlikely to meet many international sustainable development goals and global environmental targets. Until recently, there was no broadly accepted framework of interventions that could ignite the transformations needed to achieve these desired targets and goals. As a component of the IPBES Global Assessment, we conducted an iterative expert deliberation process with an extensive review of scenarios and pathways to sustainability, including the broader literature on indirect drivers, social change and sustainability transformation. We asked, what are the most important elements of pathways to sustainability? Applying a social–ecological systems lens, we identified eight priority points for intervention (leverage points) and five overarching strategic actions and priority interventions (levers), which appear to be key to societal transformation. The eight leverage points are: (1) Visions of a good life, (2) Total consumption and waste, (3) Latent values of responsibility, (4) Inequalities, (5) Justice and inclusion in conservation, (6) Externalities from trade and other telecouplings, (7) Responsible technology, innovation and investment, and (8) Education and knowledge generation and sharing. The five intertwined levers can be applied across the eight leverage points and more broadly. These include: (A) Incentives and capacity building, (B) Coordination across sectors and jurisdictions, (C) Pre-emptive action, (D) Adaptive decision-making and (E) Environmental law and implementation. The levers and leverage points are all non-substitutable, and each enables others, likely leading to synergistic benefits. Transformative change towards sustainable pathways requires more than a simple scaling-up of sustainability initiatives—it entails addressing these levers and leverage points to change the fabric of legal, political, economic and other social systems. These levers and leverage points build upon those approved within the Global Assessment's Summary for Policymakers, with the aim of enabling leaders in government, business, civil society and academia to spark transformative changes towards a more just and sustainable world. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article. Fil: Chan, Kai M. A.. University of British Columbia; Canadá Fil: Boyd, David R.. University of British Columbia; Canadá Fil: Gould, Rachelle. University of Vermont; Estados Unidos Fil: Jetzkowitz, Jens. Staatliches Museum fur Naturkunde Stuttgart; Alemania Fil: Liu, Jianguo. Michigan State University; Estados Unidos Fil: Muraca, Bárbara. University of Oregon; Estados Unidos Fil: Naidoo, Robin. University of British Columbia; Canadá Fil: Beck, Paige. University of British Columbia; Canadá Fil: Satterfield, Terre. University of British Columbia; Canadá Fil: Selomane, Odirilwe. Stellenbosch University; Sudáfrica Fil: Singh, Gerald G.. University of British Columbia; Canadá Fil: Sumaila, Rashid. University of British Columbia; Canadá Fil: Ngo, Hien T.. Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services; Alemania Fil: Boedhihartono, Agni Klintuni. University of British Columbia; Canadá Fil: Agard, John. The University Of The West Indies; Trinidad y Tobago Fil: de Aguiar, Ana Paula D.. Stockholms Universitet; Suecia Fil: Armenteras, Dolors. Universidad Nacional de Colombia; Colombia Fil: Balint, Lenke. BirdLife International; Reino Unido Fil: Barrington-Leigh, Christopher. Mcgill University; Canadá Fil: Cheung, William W. L.. University of British Columbia; Canadá Fil: Díaz, Sandra Myrna. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal; Argentina Fil: Driscoll, John. University of British Columbia; Canadá Fil: Esler, Karen. Stellenbosch University; Sudáfrica Fil: Eyster, Harold. University of British Columbia; Canadá Fil: Gregr, Edward J.. University of British Columbia; Canadá Fil: Hashimoto, Shizuka. The University Of Tokyo; Japón Fil: Hernández Pedraza, Gladys Cecilia. The World Economy Research Center; Cuba Fil: Hickler, Thomas. Goethe Universitat Frankfurt; Alemania Fil: Kok, Marcel. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency; Países Bajos Fil: Lazarova, Tanya. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency; Países Bajos Fil: Mohamed, Assem A. A.. Central Laboratory for Agricultural Climate; Egipto Fil: Murray-Hudson, Mike. University Of Botswana; Botsuana Fil: O'Farrell, Patrick. University of Cape Town; Sudáfrica Fil: Palomo, Ignacio. Basque Centre for Climate Change; España Fil: Saysel, Ali Kerem. Boğaziçi University; Turquía Fil: Seppelt, Ralf. Martin-universität Halle-wittenberg; Alemania Fil: Settele, Josef. German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research-iDiv; Alemania Fil: Strassburg, Bernardo. International Institute for Sustainability, Estrada Dona Castorina; Brasil Fil: Xue, Dayuan. Minzu University Of China; China Fil: Brondízio, Eduardo S.. Indiana University; Estados Unidos

High costs of tree planting are a barrier to meeting global forest restoration targets. Natural forest regeneration is more cost‐effective than tree planting, but its potential to foster restoration at scale is poorly understood. We predict, map, and quantify natural regeneration potential within 75.5 M ha of deforested lands in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Of 34.1 M ha (26.4%) of current forest cover, 2.7 M ha (8.0%) regenerated naturally from 1996 to 2015. We estimate that another 2.8 M ha could naturally regenerate by 2035, and a further 18.8 M ha could be restored using assisted regeneration methods, thereby reducing implementation costs by US$ 90.6 billion (77%) compared to tree planting. These restored forests could sequester 2.3 GtCO2 of carbon, reduce the mean number of expected species at risk of extinction by 63.4, and reduce fragmentation by 44% compared to current levels. Natural regeneration planning is key for achieving cost‐effective large‐scale restoration.

The Białowieża Forest World Heritage site is one of the last remaining primeval forests in lowland Europe and is a refuge for European Bison (Bison bonasus), the largest land mammal on the continent (Table 1).

The conservation community must be able to track countries’ progress in protecting wetlands, reefs, forests and more, argue James Watson and colleagues. The conservation community must be able to track countries’ progress in protecting wetlands, reefs, forests and more, argue James Watson and colleagues.

New remote sensing data on vegetation cover and restoration opportunities bring hope to the Brazilian Atlantic Forest, one of the hottest of the 36 global biodiversity hotspots. Available estimates of remaining vegetation cover in the biome currently range from 11% to 16%. However, our new land-cover map, prepared at the highest resolution ever (5 m), reveals a current vegetation cover of 28%, or 32 million hectares (Mha) of native vegetation. Simultaneously, we found 7.2 Mha of degraded riparian areas, of which 5.2 Mha at least must be restored before 2038 by landowners for legislation compliance. Restoring the existing legal debt could increase native vegetation cover in the Atlantic Forest up to 35%. Such effort, if well planned and implemented, could reduce extinction processes by increasing connectivity of vegetation remnants and rising total native cover to above the critical biodiversity threshold established for different taxonomic groups. If undertaken, this process can be adaptive to climate change and boost sustainable development in this most populous biome in Brazil, turning it into a hopespot.

Ambitious aims have been set for the ecological restoration of degraded land worldwide. The first step to reach this goal is to identify suitable areas for restoration. Here, we advocate for the restoration of roadsides, an often neglected landscape that is usually degraded. Using Brazil as an example, we calculate the potential of roadside restoration for carbon storage, and discuss other additional positive environmental impacts. We show that in Brazil more than 566 thousand hectares of roadsides along federal and state highways are potentially available for restoration. This corresponds to a sequestration of up to 55.3 million tons of carbon, representing up to US$ 26.5 billion in the carbon market. Additional benefits would include erosion control, prevention of landslides, increased landscape value, pollinator habitat provisioning, and contribution to biodiversity conservation. We push for roadside restoration for its many environmental benefits and other practical reasons: roadsides in Brazil are governmentally owned, reducing the needing for negotiations with stakeholders in proposed interventions. Roadside restoration, however, is unlikely to re-establish predisturbance ecosystem conditions in all cases, but it may significantly contribute to biodiversity conservation, for instance, by providing habitat and increasing ecological connectivity for specific taxa and biomes. Thus, the restoration of roadsides in Brazil represents an immense potential for carbon sequestration, with other important environmental benefits. Proper management is necessary, and concrete strategies and goals in restoration planning will vary among different Brazilian biomes. The restoration of these currently undervalued public lands can make the financial and environmental benefits of land restoration evident to stakeholders and thus stimulate ecological restoration.

Providing food and other products to a growing human population while safeguarding natural ecosystems and the provision of their services is a significant scientific, social and political challenge. With food demand likely to double over the next four decades, anthropization is already driving climate change and is the principal force behind species extinction, among other environmental impacts. The sustainable intensification of production on current agricultural lands has been suggested as a key solution to the competition for land between agriculture and natural ecosystems. However, few investigations have shown the extent to which these lands can meet projected demands while considering biophysical constraints. Here we investigate the improved use of existing agricultural lands and present insights into avoiding future competition for land. We focus on Brazil, a country projected to experience the largest increase in agricultural production over the next four decades and the richest nation in terrestrial carbon and biodiversity. Using various models and climatic datasets, we produced the first estimate of the carrying capacity of Brazil's 115 million hectares of cultivated pasturelands. We then investigated if the improved use of cultivated pasturelands would free enough land for the expansion of meat, crops, wood and biofuel, respecting biophysical constraints (i.e., terrain, climate) and including climate change impacts. We found that the current productivity of Brazilian cultivated pasturelands is 32–34% of its potential and that increasing productivity to 49–52% of the potential would suffice to meet demands for meat, crops, wood products and biofuels until at least 2040, without further conversion of natural ecosystems. As a result up to 14.3Gt CO2 Eq could be mitigated. The fact that the country poised to undergo the largest expansion of agricultural production over the coming decades can do so without further conversion of natural habitats provokes the question whether the same can be true in other regional contexts and, ultimately, at the global scale.

Ecological restoration provides a range of ecosystem services. However, the social aspects of restoration are rarely reported. Here we assess the socioeconomic effects of the restoration project called "Mutirao Reflorestamento" (MR), located in an urban fragment of Atlantic Forest in Rio de Janeiro. We conducted a survey in eight communities, involving 139 residents, where 62 worked for the MR Project, and 77 were not directly involved. To collect the data, we conducted focus groups (N = 23, totalling 62 participants) and personal interviews (N = 44). We found that the main positive contributions of the MR Project were job creation and increased income. The presence of Forest was also associated with the improvement of air and life quality, for example through the provision of recreational areas. The lack of formal work benefits and recently reduced budget for the project were indicated as negative aspects of the MR Project. The main recommendations to improve the Project were: enhance communication between city hall, residents and MR participants, and the appraisal and recognition of the project participants. The results represent the voices of communities directly involved and impacted by restoration, and they may contribute to improving restoration projects in tropical countries.

Governments and international organizations are promoting or drafting programs to undertake Forest and Landscape Restoration (FLR) of hundreds of millions of hectares of degraded tropical landscapes to support the provision of ecosystem goods and services. But the challenge to recover economic and ecological functionality could be far beyond their financial capacity. Here, we explore the potential of markets and their interaction with policies to leverage investment for FLR in the tropics. We first review the challenges and opportunities of exploiting market forces for FLR, which can be essential for kick-starting the implementation of programs globally. We identify four key opportunities for regulating markets to promote FLR: economic mechanisms; technological, educational or infrastructural investment; legal and enforcement mechanisms; and market-led standards and certification schemes. Finally, we present five pitfalls that may arise when relying on markets to promote FLR. Governments will need to play a critical role in establishing appropriate policy frameworks and institutional arrangements to leverage investments when market signals are not strong enough to initiate changes in traditional land use or farming practices, or to regulate reforestation activities when market signals become so strong that they overwhelm all other land-use activities, leading to a transformed and homogenized landscape.

Scenarios are important tools to facilitate the communication among scientists, practitioners, and decision-makers, and, thus to support policy and management decisions. The use of scenarios has an enormous potential to reduce ecosystem restoration costs and to optimize benefits, but this potential remains poorly explored. Here, we recommend and illustrate six best practices to guide the use of scenarios for planning native ecosystem restoration. We argue, first, for a participatory process to consider aspirations of multiple stakeholders along the whole scenario building process, from planning to implementation and review phases. Second, targeted restoration outcomes should be defined by key-actors (those who have direct interests in restoration) and directly involved stakeholders, within a clear socio-environmental context and under a well-defined problem statement, considering a broad range of nature and human benefits that can be derived from ecosystem restoration. Third, methodological choices, such as scenario types, spatial and temporal scales, drivers, restoration-related variables, and indicators, should be defined according to the multiple desired outcomes. Fourth, we encourage the consideration of the interactions among variables, within a spatially explicit, and temporally dynamic multi-criteria approach. Fifth, analysis and dissemination of scenario results should highlight the trade-offs and synergies among different restoration outcomes, identifying the scenarios that maximize benefits and minimize costs and resistance (i.e. the cost-effective and most feasible scenario) for multiple targets. Finally, promoting capacity building, through a wider consultation process including interaction with a broader group of stakeholders, is critical for the successful implementation and review of restoration interventions. Scenarios that support ecosystem restoration should follow an adaptive and iterative process, aiming to continuously improve restoration interventions and outcomes.

The low productivity of many tropical pasturelands is a major driver of deforestation and other negative environmental and socio-economic impacts. In Brazil, the second biggest meat producer in the world, 85% of cattle farms remain within extensive pasture systems, and cattle farming is by far the most important proximate driver of deforestation. It is possible to expand Brazilian agriculture with zero deforestation through improvements to rangeland productivity yet understanding of the challenges and motivations of the actual cattle farmers in the face of such a transition remains sparse. To better understand the importance of the underlying factors that lead to or inhibit improvements to land management, we used focus groups and semi-structured interviews (N = 250) with farmers from the state of Mato Grosso in the Brazilian Amazon. We found that the majority of the respondents (60%) claimed that the principal benefit of adopting good agricultural practices was increased productivity, followed by increased income (43%) and better farm administrative management (34%). The adoption of improved pasture management techniques was positively correlated with stocking rates (p

Humanity will soon define a new era for nature – one that seeks to correct 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. But persistent shortfalls in ecological representation, management effectiveness and measurable biodiversity outcomes diminish the potential role of area-based conservation in stemming biodiversity loss. Here we show how protected area expansion by governments since 2010 has had limited success in increasing biodiversity coverage, and identify four emergent issues that –if addressed – will enhance the performance of area-based conservation post-2020. We close with recommendations for a broad biodiversity agenda that maximises the potential of area-based conservation. Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity must recognise that area-based conservation primarily focuses on local threats to species and ecosystems, and needs enhanced emphasis on biodiversity outcomes to better track and fund its contribution to global conservation efforts.

Integrated high-resolution maps of carbon stocks and biodiversity that identify areas of potential co-benefits for climate change mitigation and biodiversity conservation can help facilitate the implementation of global climate and biodiversity commitments at local levels. However, the multi-dimensional nature of biodiversity presents a major challenge for understanding, mapping and communicating where and how biodiversity benefits coincide with climate benefits. A new integrated approach to biodiversity is therefore needed. Here, we (a) present a new high-resolution map of global above- and below-ground carbon stored in biomass and soil, (b) quantify biodiversity values using two complementary indices (BIp and BIr) representing proactive and reactive approaches to conservation, and (c) examine patterns of carbon–biodiversity overlap by identifying 'hotspots' (20% highest values for both aspects). Our indices integrate local diversity and ecosystem intactness, as well as regional ecosystem intactness across the broader area supporting a similar natural assemblage of species to the location of interest. The western Amazon Basin, Central Africa and Southeast Asia capture the last strongholds of highest local biodiversity and ecosystem intactness worldwide, while the last refuges for unique biological communities whose habitats have been greatly reduced are mostly found in the tropical Andes and central Sundaland. There is 38 and 5% overlap in carbon and biodiversity hotspots, for proactive and reactive conservation, respectively. Alarmingly, only around 12 and 21% of these proactive and reactive hotspot areas, respectively, are formally protected. This highlights that a coupled approach is urgently needed to help achieve both climate and biodiversity global targets. This would involve (1) restoring and conserving unprotected, degraded ecosystems, particularly in the Neotropics and Indomalaya, and (2) retaining the remaining strongholds of intactness.This article is part of the theme issue ‘Climate change and ecosystems: threats, opportunities and solutions’.

Fil: Díaz, Sandra. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales. Departamento de Diversidad Biológica y Ecología. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal; Argentina. Fil: Díaz, Sandra. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnica. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal; Argentina. Fil: Zafra Calvo, Noelia. Future Earth; España. Fil: Purvis, Andy. Natural History Museum; Reino Unido. Fil: Verburg, Peter H. VU University Amsterdam. Institute for Environmental Studies: Países Bajos. Fil: Obura, David. Coastal Oceans Research and Development Indian Ocean; Kenia. Fil: Leadley, Paul. Université Paris-Sud. Ecologie Systématique Evolution; Francia. Fil: Chaplin Kramer, Rebecca. Stanford University. Natural Capital Project; Estados Unidos. Fil: De Meester, Luc. Leibniz Institut für Gewässerökologie und Binnenfischerei; Alemania. Fil: Dulloo, Ehsan. Bioversity International; Mauricio. Fil: Martín- López, Berta. Leuphana University of Lüneburg. Faculty of Sustainability; Alemania. Fil: Shaw, Rebecca. The World Wide Fund for Nature; Estados Unidos. Fil: Visconti, Piero. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. Ecosystem Services and Management Program; Austria. Fil: Broadgate, Wendy. Future Earth; Suecia. Fil: Bruford, Michael W. Cardiff University. School of Biosciences and Sustainable Places Institute; Reino Unido. Fil: Burgess, Neil D. UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre; Reino Unido. Fil: Cavender Bares, Jeannine. University of Minnesota. Department of Ecology, Evolution and Behavior; Estados Unidos. Fil: DeClerck, Fabrice. EAT Foundation; Noruega. Fil: Fernández Palacios, José María. Universidad de La Laguna. Instituto Universitario de Enfermedades Tropicales y Salud Pública de Canarias; España. Fil: Garibaldi, Lucas A. Universidad Nacional de Río Negro. Instituto de Investigaciones en Recursos Naturales, Agroecología y Desarrollo Rural. Río Negro, Argentina. Fil: Garibaldi, Lucas A. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Instituto de Investigaciones en Recursos Naturales, Agroecología y Desarrollo Rural. Río Negro, Argentina. Fil: Hill, Samantha L. L. UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre; Reino Unido. Fil: Isbell, Forest. University of Minnesota. Department of Ecology, Evolution and Behavior; Estados Unidos. Fil: Khoury, Colin K. International Center for Tropical Agriculture; Colombia. Fil: Krug, Cornelia B. University of Zurich. Department of Geography; Suiza. Fil: Liu, Jianguo. Michigan State University; Estados Unidos. Fil: Maron, Martine. The University of Queensland; Australia. Fil: McGowan, Philip J. K. Newcastle University. School of Natural and Environmental Sciences; Reino Unido. Fil: Pereira, Henrique M. German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research; Alemania. Fil: Reyes García, Victoria. Catalan Institution for Research and Advanced Studies; España. Fil: Rocha, Juan. Future Earth; Suecia. Fil: Rondinini, Carlo. Sapienza University of Rome. Department of Biology and Biotechnologies. Global Mammal Assessment Program; Italia. Fil: Shannon, Lynne. University of Cape Town. Department of Biological Sciences; Sudáfrica. Fil: Shin, Yunne-Jai. University of Cape Town. Department of Biological Sciences; Sudáfrica. Fil: Snelgrove, Paul V. R. Memorial University of Newfoundland. Departments of Ocean Sciences and Biology; Canada. Fil: Spehn, Eva M. Swiss Academy of Sciences. Swiss Biodiversity Forum; Suiza. Fil: Strassburg, Bernardo. Pontifical Catholic University. Department of Geography and the Environment. Rio Conservation and Sustainability Science Centre; Brasil. Fil: Subramanian, Suneetha M. United Nations University. Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability; Japón. Fil: Tewksbury, Joshua J. University of Colorado; Estados Unidos. Fil: Watson, James E. M. Wildlife Conservation Society; Estados Unidos. Fil: Zanne, Amy E. George Washington University. Department of Biological Sciences; Estados Unidos. Global biodiversity policy is at a crossroads. Recent global assessments of living nature (1, 2) and climate (3) show worsening trends and a rapidly narrowing window for action. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) has recently announced that none of the 20 Aichi targets for biodiversity it set in 2010 has been reached and only six have been partially achieved (4). Against this backdrop, nations are now negotiating the next generation of the CBD's global goals [see supplementary materials (SM)], due for adoption in 2021, which will frame actions of governments and other actors for decades to come. In response to the goals proposed in the draft post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) made public by the CBD (5), we urge negotiators to consider three points that are critical if the agreed goals are to stabilize or reverse nature's decline. First, multiple goals are required because of nature's complexity, with different facets—genes, populations, species, deep evolutionary history, ecosystems, and their contributions to people—having markedly different geographic distributions and responses to human drivers. Second, interlinkages among these facets mean that goals must be defined and developed holistically rather than in isolation, with potential to advance multiple goals simultaneously and minimize trade-offs between them. Third, only the highest level of ambition in setting each goal, and implementing all goals in an integrated manner, will give a realistic chance of stopping—and beginning to reverse—biodiversity loss by 2050.

Extensive ecosystem restoration is increasingly seen as being central to conserving biodiversity1 and stabilizing the climate of the Earth2. Although ambitious national and global targets have been set, global priority areas that account for spatial variation in benefits and costs have yet to be identified. Here we develop and apply a multicriteria optimization approach that identifies priority areas for restoration across all terrestrial biomes, and estimates their benefits and costs. We find that restoring 15% of converted lands in priority areas could avoid 60% of expected extinctions while sequestering 299 gigatonnes of CO2—30% of the total CO2 increase in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution. The inclusion of several biomes is key to achieving multiple benefits. Cost effectiveness can increase up to 13-fold when spatial allocation is optimized using our multicriteria approach, which highlights the importance of spatial planning. Our results confirm the vast potential contributions of restoration to addressing global challenges, while underscoring the necessity of pursuing these goals synergistically. Fil: Strassburg, Bernardo B. N.. Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro; Brasil. Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro; Brasil Fil: Iribarrem, Alvaro. Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro; Brasil Fil: Beyer, Hawthorne L.. The University of Queensland; Australia. University of Queensland; Australia Fil: Cordeiro, Carlos Leandro. Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro; Brasil Fil: Crouzeilles, Renato. Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro; Brasil. Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro; Brasil Fil: Jakovac, Catarina C.. Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro; Brasil Fil: Braga Junqueira, André. Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro; Brasil Fil: Lacerda, Eduardo. Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro; Brasil. Universidade Federal Fluminense; Brasil Fil: Latawiec, Agnieszka E.. University of East Anglia; Reino Unido. Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro; Brasil Fil: Balmford, Andrew. University of Cambridge; Estados Unidos Fil: Brooks, Thomas M.. University Of The Philippines Los Banos; Filipinas. Institute For Marine And Antarctic Studies; Australia. International Union For Conservation Of Nature And Natural Resources; Suiza Fil: Butchart, Stuart H. M.. University of Cambridge; Estados Unidos Fil: Chazdon, Robin L.. University Of The Sunshine Coast; Australia. University of Connecticut; Estados Unidos Fil: Erb, Karl-Heinz. Universitat Fur Bodenkultur Wien; Austria Fil: Brancalion, Pedro. Universidade de Sao Paulo; Brasil Fil: Buchanan, Graeme. Royal Society For The Protection Of Birds; Reino Unido Fil: Cooper, David. Secretariat Of The Convention On Biological Diversity; Canadá Fil: Díaz, Sandra Myrna. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal; Argentina Fil: Donald, Paul F.. University of Cambridge; Estados Unidos Fil: Kapos, Valerie. United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre; Reino Unido Fil: Leclère, David. International Institute For Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg; Austria Fil: Miles, Lera. United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre; Reino Unido Fil: Obersteiner, Michael. Oxford Social Sciences Division; Reino Unido. International Institute For Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg; Austria Fil: Plutzar, Christoph. Universitat Fur Bodenkultur Wien; Austria. Universidad de Viena; Austria Fil: de M. Scaramuzza, Carlos Alberto. International Institute For Sustainability; Brasil Fil: Scarano, Fabio R.. Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro; Brasil Fil: Visconti, Piero. International Institute For Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg; Austria

Summary paragraphTo meet the ambitious objectives of biodiversity and climate conventions, countries and the international community require clarity on how these objectives can be operationalized spatially, and multiple targets be pursued concurrently1. To support governments and political conventions, spatial guidance is needed to identify which areas should be managed for conservation to generate the greatest synergies between biodiversity and nature’s contribution to people (NCP). Here we present results from a joint optimization that maximizes improvements in species conservation status, carbon retention and water provisioning and rank terrestrial conservation priorities globally. We found that, selecting the top-ranked 30% (respectively 50%) of areas would conserve 62.4% (86.8%) of the estimated total carbon stock and 67.8% (90.7%) of all clean water provisioning, in addition to improving the conservation status for 69.7% (83.8%) of all species considered. If priority was given to biodiversity only, managing 30% of optimally located land area for conservation may be sufficient to improve the conservation status of 86.3% of plant and vertebrate species on Earth. Our results provide a global baseline on where land could be managed for conservation. We discuss how such a spatial prioritisation framework can support the implementation of the biodiversity and climate conventions.

Increased efforts are required to prevent further losses to terrestrial biodiversity and the ecosystem services that it provides1,2. Ambitious targets have been proposed, such as reversing the declining trends in biodiversity3; however, just feeding the growing human population will make this a challenge4. Here we use an ensemble of land-use and biodiversity models to assess whether—and how—humanity can reverse the declines in terrestrial biodiversity caused by habitat conversion, which is a major threat to biodiversity5. We show that immediate efforts, consistent with the broader sustainability agenda but of unprecedented ambition and coordination, could enable the provision of food for the growing human population while reversing the global terrestrial biodiversity trends caused by habitat conversion. If we decide to increase the extent of land under conservation management, restore degraded land and generalize landscape-level conservation planning, biodiversity trends from habitat conversion could become positive by the mid-twenty-first century on average across models (confidence interval, 2042–2061), but this was not the case for all models. Food prices could increase and, on average across models, almost half (confidence interval, 34–50%) of the future biodiversity losses could not be avoided. However, additionally tackling the drivers of land-use change could avoid conflict with affordable food provision and reduces the environmental effects of the food-provision system. Through further sustainable intensification and trade, reduced food waste and more plant-based human diets, more than two thirds of future biodiversity losses are avoided and the biodiversity trends from habitat conversion are reversed by 2050 for almost all of the models. Although limiting further loss will remain challenging in several biodiversity-rich regions, and other threats—such as climate change—must be addressed to truly reverse the declines in biodiversity, our results show that ambitious conservation efforts and food system transformation are central to an effective post-2020 biodiversity strategy. To promote the recovery of the currently declining global trends in terrestrial biodiversity, increases in both the extent of land under conservation management and the sustainability of the global food system from farm to fork are required.

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.

The Cerrado biome is Brazil's breadbasket and a major provider of ecosystem services, though these dual roles are increasingly at odds, in part because there are few mechanisms to protect remaining vegetation from large‐scale agricultural expansion. We assessed Cerrado conversion to soy using over 580,000 property boundaries, covering 77% of the biome that is eligible for commercial land use, and using microwatersheds, to cover 100% of eligible areas. Soy expansion accounted for 22% of conversion during 2003–14. Only 15% of clearing exceeded restrictions on private properties under the Forest Code (FC). However, 51% of soy farms have violated the FC, five times the rate of other farms. As a leading cause of both Cerrado conversion and FC violations, the soy sector has environmental and economic incentives to shift production to already cleared land. We used suitability maps to identify potential pathways for soy expansion across both old and new cropland frontiers.

Assessment of socioenvironmental benefits and feasibility identifies priority areas for restoring global tropical rainforests., Over 140 Mha of restoration commitments have been pledged across the global tropics, yet guidance is needed to identify those landscapes where implementation is likely to provide the greatest potential benefits and cost-effective outcomes. By overlaying seven recent, peer-reviewed spatial datasets as proxies for socioenvironmental benefits and feasibility of restoration, we identified restoration opportunities (areas with higher potential return of benefits and feasibility) in lowland tropical rainforest landscapes. We found restoration opportunities throughout the tropics. Areas scoring in the top 10% (i.e., restoration hotspots) are located largely within conservation hotspots (88%) and in countries committed to the Bonn Challenge (73%), a global effort to restore 350 Mha by 2030. However, restoration hotspots represented only a small portion (19.1%) of the Key Biodiversity Area network. Concentrating restoration investments in landscapes with high benefits and feasibility would maximize the potential to mitigate anthropogenic impacts and improve human well-being.

In this Review, the affiliation to which authors Victor Cazalis and Ana S. L. Rodrigues are attributed (affiliation 2) should be corrected from ‘Centre d’Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive CEFE UMR 5175, CNRS, Univ. de Montpellier, Univ. Paul-Valery Montpellier, EPHE, Montpellier, France’ to ‘CEFE, Univ. Montpellier, CNRS, EPHE, IRD, Univ. Paul Valery Montpellier 3, Montpellier, France’. This error has been corrected online.