Co-occurrence of biodiversity, carbon storage, coastal protection, and fish and invertebrate production to inform global mangrove conservation planning

Mangrove forests support unique biodiversity and provide a suite of ecosystem services (ES) that benefit people. Decades of continual mangrove loss and degradation have necessitated global efforts to protect and restore this important ecosystem. Generating and evaluating asset maps of biodiversity and ES is an important precursor to identifying locations that can deliver conservation outcomes across varying scales, such as maximising the co-occurrence of specific ES. We bring together global datasets on mangrove-affiliated biodiversity, carbon stocks, fish and invertebrate production, and coastal protection to provide insight into potential trade-offs, synergies and opportunities from mangrove conservation. We map opportunities where high ES provision co-occurs with these areas that could be leveraged in conservation planning, and identify potential high-value opportunities for single ES that might otherwise be missed with a biodiversity focus. Hotspots of single ES, co-occurrence of multiple ES, and opportunities to simultaneously leverage biodiversity and ES occurred throughout the world. For example, efforts that focus on conserving or restoring mangroves to store carbon can be targed to deliver multiple ES benefits. Some nations, such as Vietnam, Oman, Ecuador and China, showed consistent (although not necessarily strong) correlations between ES pairs. A lack of clear or consistent spatial trends elsewhere suggests that some nations will likely benefit more from complementarity-based approaches that focus on multiple sites with high provision of different services. Individual sites within these nations, however, such as Laguna de Terminos in Mexico still provide valuable opportunities to leverage co-benefits. Ensuring that an ES focused approach is complemented by strategic spatial planning is a priority, and our analyses provide a precursor towards decisions about where and how to invest.

Areas of global importance for conserving terrestrial biodiversity, carbon and water

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.

Mapping co-benefits for carbon storage and biodiversity to inform conservation policy and action

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'.

A Conceptual Framework for Integrated Ecosystem Assessment

This short communication presents an ecosystem assessment framework developed within ESMERALDA; a Horizon2020-funded EU project aimed at delivering a ‘flexible methodology’ to assist towards pan-European and regional Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystem Services (MAES).

The framework we present is closely aligned with assessment frameworks developed within the MAES (2014) and Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2010) initiatives. Mapping, fundamental to the work of MAES as well as ESMERALDA, is placed at the heart of a wider suite of activities carried out within ecosystem assessment. This enables flexibility in where and how integration takes place. Beyond the biophysical parameters at the core of the framework, emphasis is given to the inclusion of social and economic factors to ensure policy relevance.

Consultation, both internal to the ESMERALDA Consortium and external - amongst those already conducting ecosystem assessments across Europe - helped guide the development of the framework. Online consultation will provide information about the development of guidance around the framework and initiate the collation of good practice examples. The framework and accompanying guidance will contribute towards a final guidance tool due at the end of the ESMERALDA project lifetime.

Mapping and assessing ecosystem services in the EU - Lessons learned from the ESMERALDA approach of integration

The European Union (EU) Horizon 2020 Coordination and Support Action ESMERALDA aimed at developing guidance and a flexible methodology for Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services (MAES) to support the EU member states in the implementation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy’s Target 2 Action 5. ESMERALDA’s key tasks included network creation, stakeholder engagement, enhancing ecosystem services mapping and assessment methods across various spatial scales and value domains, work in case studies and support of EU member states in MAES implementation. Thus ESMERALDA aimed at integrating various project outcomes around four major strands: i) Networking, ii) Policy, iii) Research and iv) Application. The objective was to provide guidance for integrated ecosystem service mapping and assessment that can be used for sustainable decision-making in policy, business, society, practice and science at EU, national and regional levels. This article presents the overall ESMERALDA approach of integrating the above-mentioned project components and outcomes and provides an overview of how the enhanced methods were applied and how they can be used to support MAES implementation in the EU member states. Experiences with implementing such a large pan-European Coordination and Support Action in the context of EU policy are discussed and recommendations for future actions are given.

Measuring the extent of overlaps in protected area designations

Over the past decades, a number of national policies and international conventions have been implemented to promote the expansion of the world’s protected area network, leading to a diversification of protected area strategies, types and designations. As a result, many areas are protected by more than one convention, legal instrument, or other effective means which may result in a lack of clarity around the governance and management regimes of particular locations. We assess the degree to which different designations overlap at global, regional and national levels to understand the extent of this phenomenon at different scales. We then compare the distribution and coverage of these multi-designated areas in the terrestrial and marine realms at the global level and among different regions, and we present the percentage of each county’s protected area extent that is under more than one designation. Our findings show that almost a quarter of the world’s protected area network is protected through more than one designation. In fact, we have documented up to eight overlapping designations. These overlaps in protected area designations occur in every region of the world, both in the terrestrial and marine realms, but are more common in the terrestrial realm and in some regions, notably Europe. In the terrestrial realm, the most common overlap is between one national and one international designation. In the marine realm, the most common overlap is between any two national designations. Multi-designations are therefore a widespread phenomenon but its implications are not well understood. This analysis identifies, for the first time, multi-designated areas across all designation types. This is a key step to understand how these areas are managed and governed to then move towards integrated and collaborative approaches that consider the different management and conservation objectives of each designation.