Search

Amid a global infrastructure boom, there is increasing recognition of the ecological impacts of the extraction and consumption of construction minerals, mainly processed as concrete, including significant and expanding threats to global biodiversity. We investigated how high-level national and international biodiversity conservation policies address mining threats, with a special focus on construction minerals. We conducted a review and quantified the degree to which threats from mining these minerals are addressed in biodiversity goals and targets under the 2011–2020 and post-2020 biodiversity strategies, national biodiversity strategies and action plans, and the assessments of the Intergovernmental Science–Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Mining appeared rarely in national targets but more frequently in national strategies. Yet, in most countries, it was superficially addressed. Coverage of aggregates mining was greater than coverage of limestone mining. We outline 8 key components, tailored for a wide range of actors, to effectively mainstream biodiversity conservation into the extractive, infrastructure, and construction sectors. Actions include improving reporting and monitoring systems, enhancing the evidence base around mining impacts on biodiversity, and modifying the behavior of financial agents and businesses. Implementing these measures could pave the way for a more sustainable approach to construction mineral use and safeguard biodiversity.

Large-scale ecological restoration is crucial for effective biodiversity conservation and combating climate change. However, perspectives on the goals and values of restoration are highly diverse, as are the different approaches to restoration e.g. ranging from the restoration of cultural ecosystems to rewilding. We assess how the future of nature is envisioned in participatory scenarios, focusing on which elements of rewilding and nature contributions to people have been considered in scenario narratives across Europe. We used the Nature Futures Framework archetypes as a template to synthesize pluralistic perspectives of nature. We found that different values of nature are often represented as counteracting elements and fail to integrate the plural views of nature. Nature as Culture was the main archetype found in the scenarios, usually associated with positive impacts on the non-material benefits to people. Intrinsic values of nature (i.e., Nature for Nature) were associated with positive impacts on regulating benefits and negative impacts on material benefits, being the only archetype of future associated with positive impacts on all three components of rewilding. Nature for Society was associated with moderate positive impacts on material and regulatory nature contributions to people. Business as usual futures were associated with negative impacts on regulating and non-material benefits to people and on all three components of rewilding. Our results highlight two major gaps in the scenarios that should be addressed in participatory restoration planning and models. Firstly, there is a paucity of spatially explicit approaches, with most studies failing to transform the results of participatory scenario planning into model projections. Secondly, we found scenarios that explored co-benefits between multiple nature perspectives were overall missing from the literature. Novel scenario narratives and approaches that explore synergies among different nature values are n

The practice of rewilding has been both promoted and criticized in recent years. Benefits include flexibility to react to environmental change and the promotion of opportunities for society to reconnect with nature. Criticisms include the lack of a clear conceptualization of rewilding, insufficient knowledge about possible outcomes, and the perception that rewilding excludes people from landscapes. Here, we present a framework for rewilding that addresses these concerns. We suggest that rewilding efforts should target trophic complexity, natural disturbances, and dispersal as interacting processes that can improve ecosystem resilience and maintain biodiversity. We propose a structured approach to rewilding projects that includes assessment of the contributions of nature to people and the social-ecological constraints on restoration.

The ability to monitor changes in biodiversity, and their societal impact, is critical to conserving species and managing ecosystems. While emerging technologies increase the breadth and reach of data acquisition, monitoring efforts are still spatially and temporally fragmented, and taxonomically biased. Appropriate long-term information remains therefore limited. The Group on Earth Observations Biodiversity Observation Network (GEO BON) aims to provide a general framework for biodiversity monitoring to support decision-makers. Here, we discuss the coordinated observing system adopted by GEO BON, and review challenges and advances in its implementation, focusing on two interconnected core components — the Essential Biodiversity Variables as a standard framework for biodiversity monitoring, and the Biodiversity Observation Networks that support harmonized observation systems — while highlighting their societal relevance.

Measurements of the status and trends of key indicators for the ocean and marine life are required to inform policy and management in the context of growing human uses of marine resources, coastal development, and climate change. Two synergistic efforts identify specific priority variables for monitoring: Essential Ocean Variables (EOVs) through the Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS), and Essential Biodiversity Variables (EBVs) from the Group on Earth Observations Biodiversity Observation Network (GEO BON) (see Data Sheet 1 in Supplementary Materials for a glossary of acronyms). Both systems support reporting against internationally agreed conventions and treaties. GOOS, established under the auspices of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC), plays a leading role in coordinating global monitoring of the ocean and in the definition of EOVs. GEO BON is a global biodiversity observation network that coordinates observations to enhance management of the world's biodiversity and promote both the awareness and accounting of ecosystem services. Convergence and agreement between these two efforts are required to streamline existing and new marine observation programs to advance scientific knowledge effectively and to support the sustainable use and management of ocean spaces and resources. In this context, the Marine Biodiversity Observation Network (MBON), a thematic component of GEO BON, is collaborating with GOOS, the Ocean Biogeographic Information System (OBIS), and the Integrated Marine Biosphere Research (IMBeR) project to ensure that EBVs and EOVs are complementary, representing alternative uses of a common set of scientific measurements. This work is informed by the Joint Technical Commission for Oceanography and Marine Meteorology (JCOMM), an intergovernmental body of technical experts that helps international coordination on best practices for observing, data management and services, combined with capacity development expertise. Characterizing bi