Indicators to monitor the status of the tree of life

Following the failure to fully achieve any of the 20 Aichi biodiversity targets, the future of biodiversity rests in the balance. The Convention on Biological Diversity's Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) presents the opportunity to preserve nature's contributions to people (NCPs) for current and future generations by conserving biodiversity and averting extinctions. There is a need to safeguard the tree of life-the unique and shared evolutionary history of life on Earth-to maintain the benefits it bestows into the future. Two indicators have been adopted within the GBF to monitor progress toward safeguarding the tree of life: the phylogenetic diversity (PD) indicator and the evolutionarily distinct and globally endangered (EDGE) index. We applied both to the world's mammals, birds, and cycads to show their utility at the global and national scale. The PD indicator can be used to monitor the overall conservation status of large parts of the evolutionary tree of life, a measure of biodiversity's capacity to maintain NCPs for future generations. The EDGE index is used to monitor the performance of efforts to conserve the most distinctive species. The risk to PD of birds, cycads, and mammals increased, and mammals exhibited the greatest relative increase in threatened PD over time. These trends appeared robust to the choice of extinction risk weighting. EDGE species had predominantly worsening extinction risk. A greater proportion of EDGE mammals (12%) had increased extinction risk compared with threatened mammals in general (7%). By strengthening commitments to safeguarding the tree of life, biodiversity loss can be reduced and thus nature's capacity to provide benefits to humanity now and in the future can be preserved.

Biodiversity policy beyond economic growth

Increasing evidence-synthesized in this paper-shows that economic growth contributes to biodiversity loss via greater resource consumption and higher emissions. Nonetheless, a review of international biodiversity and sustainability policies shows that the majority advocate economic growth. Since improvements in resource use efficiency have so far not allowed for absolute global reductions in resource use and pollution, we question the support for economic growth in these policies, where inadequate attention is paid to the question of how growth can be decoupled from biodiversity loss. Drawing on the literature about alternatives to economic growth, we explore this contradiction and suggest ways forward to halt global biodiversity decline. These include policy proposals to move beyond the growth paradigm while enhancing overall prosperity, which can be implemented by combining top-down and bottom-up governance across scales. Finally, we call the attention of researchers and policy makers to two immediate steps: acknowledge the conflict between economic growth and biodiversity conservation in future policies; and explore socioeconomic trajectories beyond economic growth in the next generation of biodiversity scenarios.

Mapping opportunities and challenges for rewilding in Europe

Farmland abandonment takes place across the world due to socio-economic and ecological drivers. In Europe agricultural and environmental policies aim to prevent abandonment and halt ecological succession. Ecological rewilding has been recently proposed as an alternative strategy. We developed a framework to assess opportunities for rewilding across different dimensions of wilderness in Europe. We mapped artificial light, human accessibility based on transport infrastructure, proportion of harvested primary productivity (i.e., ecosystem productivity appropriated by humans through agriculture or forestry), and deviation from potential natural vegetation in areas projected to be abandoned by 2040. At the continental level, the levels of artificial light were low and the deviation from potential natural vegetation was high in areas of abandonment. The relative importance of wilderness metrics differed regionally and was strongly connected to local environmental and socio-economic contexts. Large areas of projected abandonment were often located in or around Natura 2000 sites. Based on these results, we argue that management should be tailored to restore the aspects of wilderness that are lacking in each region. There are many remaining challenges regarding biodiversity in Europe, but megafauna species are already recovering. To further potentiate large-scale rewilding, Natura 2000 management would need to incorporate rewilding approaches. Our framework can be applied to assessing rewilding opportunities and challenges in other world regions, and our results could guide redirection of subsidies to manage social-ecological systems.

Evolution in biodiversity policy - current gaps and future needs

The intensity and speed of human alterations to the planet's ecosystems are yielding our static, ahistorical view of biodiversity obsolete. Human actions frequently trigger fast evolutionary responses, affect extant genetic variation and result in the establishment of new communities and co-evolutionary networks for which we lack past analogues. Contemporary evolution interplays with ecological changes to determine the response of organisms and ecosystems to anthropogenic pressures. Examples on wild species include responses to harvest (e.g. fisheries, hunting, angling), habitat loss and fragmentation (e.g. genetic effects of isolation), biotic exchange (e.g. evolutionary responses to control measures), climate change (e.g. local adaptation and its interplay with dispersal processes) and the responses of endangered species to conservation measures. A review of international and EU biodiversity policies showed numerous opportunities for the integration of evolutionary knowledge, with the realistic prospect of improving their efficacy. Such opportunities should be extended to other sectoral policies of direct relevance for biodiversity – notably nature conservation, fisheries, agriculture, water resources, spatial planning and climate change. These avenues for improvement are, however, challenged by the low level of enforcement of biodiversity policies, linked to the nonbinding nature of most biodiversity-policy documents, and the decreasing representation of biodiversity in EU's research policy.