Degradation and forgone removals increase the carbon impact of intact forest loss by 626%

Intact tropical forests, free from substantial anthropogenic influence, store and sequester large amounts of atmospheric carbon but are currently neglected in international climate policy. We show that between 2000 and 2013, direct clearance of intact tropical forest areas accounted for 3.2% of gross carbon emissions from all deforestation across the pantropics. However, full carbon accounting requires the consideration of forgone carbon sequestration, selective logging, edge effects, and defaunation. When these factors were considered, the net carbon impact resulting from intact tropical forest loss between 2000 and 2013 increased by a factor of 6 (626%), from 0.34 (0.37 to 0.21) to 2.12 (2.85 to 1.00) petagrams of carbon (equivalent to approximately 2 years of global land use change emissions). The climate mitigation value of conserving the 549 million ha of tropical forest that remains intact is therefore significant but will soon dwindle if their rate of loss continues to accelerate

Applying Ecosystem Services Approaches for Biodiversity Conservation: Benefits and Challenges

Ecosystem services as a concept and framework for understanding the way in which nature benefits people has led to a suite of approaches that are increasingly being used to support sustainable management of biodiversity and ecosystems. However, the utility of the ecosystem services framework and associated tools for supporting biodiversity conservation are the subject of ongoing debates among conservationists. In this paper, we discuss several general ways in which ecosystem services approaches are supporting biodiversity conservation, which may not have been possible otherwise. The new opportunities that ecosystem services approaches provide for biodiversity conservation include: the development of broader constituencies for conservation and expanded possibilities to influence decision-making; opportunities to add or create new value to protected areas; and the opportunities to manage ecosystems sustainably outside of protected areas. We also review areas in which ecosystem services approaches may not effectively conserve certain aspects of biodiversity. Areas of particular concern in this regard include: species without utilitarian or economic value; ecological processes that do not directly benefit people; and critical ecological functions that may be undermined in attempts to optimize a target service. Understanding the benefits and limitations of using ecosystem services approaches for achieving biodiversity conservation will help ensure that the finite resources available for biodiversity conservation and sustainable development are used as strategically and effectively as possible to maintain the multiple components of biodiversity and to support human well-being

Applying Ecosystem Services Approaches for Biodiversity Conservation: Benefits and Challenges

Ecosystem services as a concept and framework for understanding the way in which nature benefits people has led to a suite of approaches that are increasingly being used to support sustainable management of biodiversity and ecosystems. However, the utility of the ecosystem services framework and associated tools for supporting biodiversity conservation are the subject of ongoing debates among conservationists. In this paper, we discuss several general ways in which ecosystem services approaches are supporting biodiversity conservation, which may not have been possible otherwise. The new opportunities that ecosystem services approaches provide for biodiversity conservation include: the development of broader constituencies for conservation and expanded possibilities to influence decision-making; opportunities to add or create new value to protected areas; and the opportunities to manage ecosystems sustainably outside of protected areas. We also review areas in which ecosystem services approaches may not effectively conserve certain aspects of biodiversity. Areas of particular concern in this regard include: species without utilitarian or economic value; ecological processes that do not directly benefit people; and critical ecological functions that may be undermined in attempts to optimize a target service. Understanding the benefits and limitations of using ecosystem services approaches for achieving biodiversity conservation will help ensure that the finite resources available for biodiversity conservation and sustainable development are used as strategically and effectively as possible to maintain the multiple components of biodiversity and to support human well-being

Response: Where Might We Find Ecologically Intact Communities?

[Extract] In an attempt to identify areas of the world that represent outstanding examples of ecological integrity, Plumptre et al. (2021) concluded that just 2.8% of Earth's terrestrial area could be considered to qualify. This analysis contrasts with other global assessments that show the extent of areas important for ecological integrity to be at least an order of magnitude higher (Newbold et al., 2016; Watson et al., 2016a; Beyer et al., 2020; Grantham et al., 2020; Hansen et al., 2020; Mokany et al., 2020; Riggio et al., 2020; Williams et al., 2020; De Palma et al., 2021). Plumptre et al. (2021) further argue their methodology and findings can inform Key Biodiversity Area (KBA) delineation

How to prioritize species recovery after a megafire

Due to climate change, megafires are increasingly common and have sudden, extensive impacts on many species over vast areas, leaving decision makers uncertain about how best to prioritize recovery. We devised a decision-support framework to prioritize conservation actions to improve species outcomes immediately after a megafire. Complementary locations are selected to extend recovery actions across all fire-affected species' habitats. We applied our method to areas burned in the 2019-2020 Australian megafires and assessed its conservation advantages by comparing our results with outcomes of a site-richness approach (i.e., identifying areas that cost-effectively recover the most species in any one location). We found that 290 threatened species were likely severely affected and will require immediate conservation action to prevent population declines and possible extirpation. We identified 179 subregions, mostly in southeastern Australia, that are key locations to extend actions that benefit multiple species. Cost savings were over AU$300 million to reduce 95% of threats across all species. Our complementarity-based prioritization also spread postfire management actions across a wider proportion of the study area compared with the site-richness method (43% vs. 37% of the landscape managed, respectively) and put more of each species' range under management (average 90% vs. 79% of every species' habitat managed). In addition to wildfire response, our framework can be used to prioritize conservation actions that will best mitigate threats affecting species following other extreme environmental events (e.g., floods and drought)

Restoring habitat for fire-impacted species' across degraded Australian landscapes

In the summer of 2019-2020, southern Australia experienced the largest fires on record, detrimentally impacting the habitat of native species, many of which were already threatened by past and current anthropogenic land use. A large-scale restoration effort to improve degraded species habitat would provide fire-affected species with the chance to recover and persist in burnt and unburnt habitat. To facilitate this, decision-makers require information on priority species needs for restoration intervention, the suite of potential restoration interventions, and the priority locations for applying these interventions. We prioritize actions in areas where restoration would most likely provide cost-effective benefits to priority species (defined by each species proportion of habitat burned, threat status, and vulnerability to fires), by integrating current and future species habitat suitability maps with spatially modelled costs of restoration interventions such as replanting, removing invasive species, and implementing ecologically appropriate fire management. We show that restoring the top similar to 69% (112 million hectares) of the study region (current and future distributions of priority species) accounts for, on average, 95% of current and future habitat for every priority species and costs similar to AUD$73 billion yr(-1) (AUD$650 hectare(-1) yr(-1)) annualized over 30 years. This effort would include restoration actions over 6 million hectares of fire-impacted habitat, costing similar to AUD$8.8 billion/year. Large scale restoration efforts are often costly but can have significant societal co-benefits beyond biodiversity conservation. We also show that up to 291 MtCO2 (similar to 150 Mt DM) of carbon could be sequestered by restoration efforts, resulting in approximately AUD$253 million yr(-1) in carbon market revenue if all carbon was remunerated. Our approach highlights the scale, costs, and benefits of targeted restoration activities both inside and outside of the immediate bushfire footprint over vast areas of different land tenures

Net positive outcomes for nature

Much research and policy effort is being expended on seeking ways to conserve living nature while enabling the economic and social development needed to increase global equity and end poverty. We propose that this will only be possible if the language of policy shifts away from setting conservation targets that focus on avoiding losses and towards developing processes that consider net outcomes for biodiversity

A national-scale dataset for threats impacting Australia's imperiled flora and fauna

Australia is in the midst of an extinction crisis, having already lost 10% of terrestrial mammal fauna since European settlement and with hundreds of other species at high risk of extinction. The decline of the nation's biota is a result of an array of threatening processes; however, a comprehensive taxon-specific understanding of threats and their relative impacts remains undocumented nationally. Using expert consultation, we compile the first complete, validated, and consistent taxon-specific threat and impact dataset for all nationally listed threatened taxa in Australia. We confined our analysis to 1,795 terrestrial and aquatic taxa listed as threatened (Vulnerable, Endangered, or Critically Endangered) under Australian Commonwealth law. We engaged taxonomic experts to generate taxon-specific threat and threat impact information to consistently apply the IUCN Threat Classification Scheme and Threat Impact Scoring System, as well as eight broad-level threats and 51 subcategory threats, for all 1,795 threatened terrestrial and aquatic threatened taxa. This compilation produced 4,877 unique taxon–threat–impact combinations with the most frequently listed threats being Habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation (n = 1,210 taxa), and Invasive species and disease (n = 966 taxa). Yet when only high-impact threats or medium-impact threats are considered, Invasive species and disease become the most prevalent threats. This dataset provides critical information for conservation action planning, national legislation and policy, and prioritizing investments in threatened species management and recovery