1
|
Luxton SJ, Smith GS, Williams KJ, Ferrier S, Bond AJ, Prober SM. An introduction to key ecological concepts, financial opportunities, and risks underpinning aspirations for nature positive. Bioscience 2024; 74:450-466. [PMID: 39156612 PMCID: PMC11328145 DOI: 10.1093/biosci/biae040] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/24/2023] [Revised: 03/08/2024] [Accepted: 04/14/2024] [Indexed: 08/20/2024] Open
Abstract
Global biodiversity is in decline, and businesses and society are being required to urgently create new operating models to ameliorate the crisis. Among the strategies proposed to do this, implementing the concept of nature positive has captured worldwide attention. Critical to its success will be effective collaboration between ecologists and businesspeople, driven by a shared understanding of key nature positive terminology, concepts, and risks. To this end, we introduce three core aspects: the ecological concepts in the definition of nature positive (health, abundance, diversity, and resilience), a typology of financial instruments that may be applied to achieving nature positive, and an overview of risks to biodiversity and society. The pivotal findings include that ecological complexity and uncertainty belie the simplicity of the definition of nature positive and that managing risk requires embedding aspirations into existing and emerging biodiversity conservation and restoration science and policy. Although it is challenging, nature positive deserves pursuit.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sarah J Luxton
- Commonwealth Scientific and Research Organisation (CSIRO), Canberra, ACT and Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
| | - Greg S Smith
- Commonwealth Scientific and Research Organisation (CSIRO), Canberra, ACT and Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
| | - Kristen J Williams
- Commonwealth Scientific and Research Organisation (CSIRO), Canberra, ACT and Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
| | - Simon Ferrier
- Commonwealth Scientific and Research Organisation (CSIRO), Canberra, ACT and Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
| | - Anthelia J Bond
- School of Economics and Public Policy, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Suzanne M Prober
- Commonwealth Scientific and Research Organisation (CSIRO), Canberra, ACT and Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Simmonds JS, Suarez-Castro AF, Reside AE, Watson JEM, Allan JR, Atkinson SC, Borrelli P, Dudley N, Edwards S, Fuller RA, Game ET, Linke S, Maxwell SL, Panagos P, Puydarrieux P, Quétier F, Runting RK, Santini T, Sonter LJ, Maron M. Retaining natural vegetation to safeguard biodiversity and humanity. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY : THE JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY FOR CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 2023; 37:e14040. [PMID: 36424859 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.14040] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/01/2021] [Revised: 11/05/2022] [Accepted: 11/15/2022] [Indexed: 05/30/2023]
Abstract
Global efforts to deliver internationally agreed goals to reduce carbon emissions, halt biodiversity loss, and retain essential ecosystem services have been poorly integrated. These goals rely in part on preserving natural (e.g., native, largely unmodified) and seminatural (e.g., low intensity or sustainable human use) forests, woodlands, and grasslands. To show how to unify these goals, we empirically derived spatially explicit, quantitative, area-based targets for the retention of natural and seminatural (e.g., native) terrestrial vegetation worldwide. We used a 250-m-resolution map of natural and seminatural vegetation cover and, from this, selected areas identified under different international agreements as being important for achieving global biodiversity, carbon, soil, and water targets. At least 67 million km2 of Earth's terrestrial vegetation (∼79% of the area of vegetation remaining) required retention to contribute to biodiversity, climate, soil, and freshwater conservation objectives under 4 United Nations' resolutions. This equates to retaining natural and seminatural vegetation across at least 50% of the total terrestrial (excluding Antarctica) surface of Earth. Retention efforts could contribute to multiple goals simultaneously, especially where natural and seminatural vegetation can be managed to achieve cobenefits for biodiversity, carbon storage, and ecosystem service provision. Such management can and should co-occur and be driven by people who live in and rely on places where natural and sustainably managed vegetation remains in situ and must be complemented by restoration and appropriate management of more human-modified environments if global goals are to be realized.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jeremy S Simmonds
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia
- School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia
| | - Andres Felipe Suarez-Castro
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia
- Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt, Bogotá, D.C., Colombia
| | - April E Reside
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia
- School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia
| | - James E M Watson
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia
- School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia
- Global Conservation Program, Wildlife Conservation Society, Bronx, New York, USA
| | - James R Allan
- Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics (IBED), University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Pasquale Borrelli
- Department of Science, Roma Tre University, Rome, Italy
- Department of Biological Environment, Kangwon National University, Chuncheon, Republic of Korea
| | | | - Stephen Edwards
- International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), Gland, Switzerland
| | - Richard A Fuller
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia
- School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia
| | - Edward T Game
- The Nature Conservancy, South Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| | - Simon Linke
- Australian Rivers Institute, Griffith University, Nathan, Queensland, Australia
- CSIRO Land & Water, Dutton Park, Queensland, Australia
| | - Sean L Maxwell
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia
- School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia
| | - Panos Panagos
- Joint Research Centre (JRC), European Commission, Ispra, Italy
| | | | | | - Rebecca K Runting
- School of Geography, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
| | - Talitha Santini
- School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia
- School of Agriculture and Environment, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, Western Australia, Australia
| | - Laura J Sonter
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia
- School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia
| | - Martine Maron
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia
- School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Taylor I, Bull JW, Ashton B, Biggs E, Clark M, Gray N, Grub HMJ, Stewart C, Milner-Gulland EJ. Nature-positive goals for an organization's food consumption. NATURE FOOD 2023; 4:96-108. [PMID: 37118582 DOI: 10.1038/s43016-022-00660-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/16/2022] [Accepted: 11/04/2022] [Indexed: 04/30/2023]
Abstract
Organizations are increasingly committing to biodiversity protection targets with focus on 'nature-positive' outcomes, yet examples of how to feasibly achieve these targets are needed. Here we propose an approach to achieve nature-positive targets with respect to the embodied biodiversity impacts of an organization's food consumption. We quantify these impacts using a comprehensive database of life-cycle environmental impacts from food, and map exploratory strategies to meet defined targets structured according to a mitigation and conservation hierarchy. By considering the varying needs and values across the organization's internal community, we identify a range of targeted approaches towards mitigating impacts, which balance top-down and bottom-up actions to different degrees. Delivering ambitious nature-positive targets within current constraints will be challenging, particularly given the need to mitigate cumulative impacts. Our results evidence that however committed an organization is to being nature positive in its food provision, this is unachievable in the absence of systems change.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- I Taylor
- Wild Business Ltd., Kershen Fairfax, London, UK.
| | - J W Bull
- Wild Business Ltd., Kershen Fairfax, London, UK
- Durrell Institute for Conservation and Ecology, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK
| | - B Ashton
- Lady Margaret Hall, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - E Biggs
- Department of Biology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - M Clark
- Department of Biology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - N Gray
- Department of Biology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - H M J Grub
- Department of Biology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - C Stewart
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Primary Care Building, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Oxford, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
A Critical Assessment of the Congruency between Environmental DNA and Palaeoecology for the Biodiversity Monitoring and Palaeoenvironmental Reconstruction. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND PUBLIC HEALTH 2022; 19:ijerph19159445. [PMID: 35954801 PMCID: PMC9368151 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19159445] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/01/2022] [Revised: 07/25/2022] [Accepted: 07/27/2022] [Indexed: 02/01/2023]
Abstract
The present study suggests that standardized methodology, careful site selection, and stratigraphy are essential for investigating ancient ecosystems in order to evaluate biodiversity and DNA-based time series. Based on specific keywords, this investigation reviewed 146 publications using the SCOPUS, Web of Science (WoS), PUBMED, and Google Scholar databases. Results indicate that environmental deoxyribose nucleic acid (eDNA) can be pivotal for assessing and conserving ecosystems. Our review revealed that in the last 12 years (January 2008–July 2021), 63% of the studies based on eDNA have been reported from aquatic ecosystems, 25% from marine habitats, and 12% from terrestrial environments. Out of studies conducted in aquatic systems using the environmental DNA (eDNA) technique, 63% of the investigations have been reported from freshwater ecosystems, with an utmost focus on fish diversity (40%). Further analysis of the literature reveals that during the same period, 24% of the investigations using the environmental DNA technique were carried out on invertebrates, 8% on mammals, 7% on plants, 6% on reptiles, and 5% on birds. The results obtained clearly indicate that the environmental DNA technique has a clear-cut edge over other biodiversity monitoring methods. Furthermore, we also found that eDNA, in conjunction with different dating techniques, can provide better insight into deciphering eco-evolutionary feedback. Therefore, an attempt has been made to offer extensive information on the application of dating methods for different taxa present in diverse ecosystems. Last, we provide suggestions and elucidations on how to overcome the caveats and delineate some of the research avenues that will likely shape this field in the near future. This paper aims to identify the gaps in environmental DNA (eDNA) investigations to help researchers, ecologists, and decision-makers to develop a holistic understanding of environmental DNA (eDNA) and its utility as a palaeoenvironmental contrivance.
Collapse
|
5
|
Carroll C, Noss RF. How percentage-protected targets can support positive biodiversity outcomes. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY : THE JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY FOR CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 2022; 36:e13869. [PMID: 34856009 PMCID: PMC9540251 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13869] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/12/2021] [Revised: 10/07/2021] [Accepted: 11/19/2021] [Indexed: 05/26/2023]
Abstract
Global targets for the percentage area of land protected, such as 30% by 2030, have gained increasing prominence, but both their scientific basis and likely effectiveness have been questioned. As with emissions-reduction targets based on desired climate outcomes, percentage-protected targets combine values and science by estimating the area over which conservation actions are required to help achieve desired biodiversity outcomes. Protected areas are essential for achieving many biodiversity targets, in part because many species are highly sensitive to human-associated disturbance. However, because the contribution of protected areas to biodiversity outcomes is contingent on their location, management, governance, threats, and what occurs across the broader landscape matrix, global percentage-protected targets are unavoidably empirical generalizations of ecological patterns and processes across diverse geographies. Percentage-protected targets are insufficient in isolation but can complement other actions and contribute to biodiversity outcomes within a framework that balances accuracy and pragmatism in a global context characterized by imperfect biodiversity data. Ideally, percentage-protected targets serve as anchors that strengthen comprehensive national biodiversity strategies by communicating the level of ambition necessary to reverse current trends of biodiversity loss. If such targets are to fulfill this role within the complex societal process by which both values and science impel conservation actions, conservation scientists must clearly communicate the nature of the evidence base supporting percentage-protected targets and how protected areas can function within a broader landscape managed for sustainable coexistence between people and nature. A new paradigm for protected and conserved areas recognizes that national coordination, incentives, and monitoring should support rather than undermine diverse locally led conservation initiatives. However, the definition of a conserved area must retain a strong focus on biodiversity to remain consistent with the evidence base from which percentage-protected targets were originally derived.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Carlos Carroll
- Klamath Center for Conservation ResearchOrleansCaliforniaUSA
| | - Reed F. Noss
- Florida Institute for Conservation ScienceMelroseFloridaUSA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Frankham R. Evaluation of proposed genetic goals and targets for the Convention on Biological Diversity. CONSERV GENET 2022. [DOI: 10.1007/s10592-022-01459-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/03/2022]
Abstract
AbstractIn the current negotiations regarding revision of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) proposals have been made to strengthen the genetic goals, indicators, and targets for wild species in natural habitats by specifying “tolerable” losses of genetic diversity. However, they have not been subjected to evaluations of their continued use over 100 years, a common conservation time frame. I evaluated six scenarios (3, 5 or 10% loss of genetic diversity [heterozygosity] over 8 or 32 years) proposed as targets for revision of genetic indicators in CBD by predicting their consequences on genetic diversity, inbreeding, fitness, and evolutionary potential when applied at the same rate for 100 years. All proposals lead to substantial genetic harm to species when continued for 100 years that will compromise species persistence, especially in the context of environmental change. Consequently, none of the proposals are suitable for inclusion in the CBD. However, alternative indicators are proposed that would reflect improvements in the genetic status of populations and species, namely (1) the number of species and their populations being maintained at sizes sufficient to retain evolutionary potential in perpetuity, and (2) the number of species for which population genetic connectivity has been improved.
Collapse
|
7
|
Simmonds JS, Hase A, Quétier F, Brownlie S, Maron M, Possingham HP, Souquet M, zu Ermgassen SOSE, ten Kate K, Costa HM, Sonter LJ. Aligning ecological compensation policies with the Post‐2020 Global Biodiversity Framework to achieve real net gain in biodiversity. CONSERVATION SCIENCE AND PRACTICE 2022. [DOI: 10.1111/csp2.12634] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/28/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Jeremy S. Simmonds
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science The University of Queensland Brisbane Australia
- School of Earth and Environmental Sciences The University of Queensland Brisbane Australia
| | - Amrei Hase
- Independent Consultant Cape Town South Africa
| | | | | | - Martine Maron
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science The University of Queensland Brisbane Australia
- School of Earth and Environmental Sciences The University of Queensland Brisbane Australia
| | - Hugh P. Possingham
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science The University of Queensland Brisbane Australia
- School of Biological Sciences The University of Queensland Brisbane Australia
- The Nature Conservancy Brisbane Australia
| | | | - Sophus O. S. E. zu Ermgassen
- Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology, School of Anthropology and Conservation University of Kent Canterbury UK
| | | | - Hugo M. Costa
- Wildlife Conservation Society Mozambique Program Maputo Mozambique
| | - Laura J. Sonter
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science The University of Queensland Brisbane Australia
- School of Earth and Environmental Sciences The University of Queensland Brisbane Australia
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
|
9
|
Integrating Ecology into Land Planning and Development: Between Disillusionment and Hope, Questioning the Relevance and Implementation of the Mitigation Hierarchy. SUSTAINABILITY 2021. [DOI: 10.3390/su132212726] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Scientific research on the mitigation hierarchy has steadily increased over the past few years at the international level. While some seek to improve the application of this public action instrument, others point out its shortcomings and risks. This opinion paper—which focuses on the French context—does not provide an exhaustive overview of existing research but instead targets specific issues considered to be a “priority”. We mainly investigate the relevance and implementation of the mitigation hierarchy, especially from an ecological point of view. Part of this paper thus questions the very principle of biodiversity offsetting (BO)—the last resort of the mitigation hierarchy that brings together numerous controversies—and the adequacy of the mitigation hierarchy with the objective of no net loss (NNL) of biodiversity. The general idea underlying this paper is to show how the mitigation hierarchy has been built and based on what values (mainly economic and legal, which leads us to conclude about the lack of ecology in the policy itself). In doing so, we provide a few perspectives as to what should be done to (better) integrate ecology into land use planning and development.
Collapse
|