Global Metrics for Terrestrial Biodiversity

Biodiversity metrics are increasingly in demand for informing government, business, and civil society decisions. However, it is not always clear to end users how these metrics differ or for what purpose they are best suited. We seek to answer these questions using a database of 573 biodiversity-related metrics, indicators, indices, and layers, which address aspects of genetic diversity, species, and ecosystems. We provide examples of indicators and their uses within the state–pressure–response–benefits framework that is widely used in conservation science. Considering complementarity across this framework, we recommend a small number of metrics considered most pertinent for use in decision-making by governments and businesses. We conclude by highlighting five future directions: increasing the importance of national metrics, ensuring wider uptake of business metrics, agreeing on a minimum set of metrics for government and business use, automating metric calculation through use of technology, and generating sustainable funding for metric production

Les Mangroves de l\u27Afrique de l’Ouest et centrale. UNEP-WCMC Biodiversity Series 26

200

Mangroves of Western and Central Africa. UNEP-WCMC Biodiversity Series 26

200

World Atlas of Coral Reefs

200

Weltatlas der Korallen Riffe

200

Terrestrial carbon stocks and biodiversity: key knowledge gaps and some policy implications

The need to understand relationships between biodiversity and carbon cycling (including carbon sequestration) has risen in prominence owing to international interest both in preserving the terrestrial carbon pool and in conserving biodiversity. In this perspective, we highlight that achieving mutual benefits between these aims is clearly promoted by congruence between biodiversity and carbon stocks in tropical latitudes (i.e. high carbon, high biodiversity systems), revealed by recent data and modeling advances, but that mechanisms behind this congruence are not obvious. Furthermore, key processes at subtropical and higher latitudes with less obvious links to biodiversity require policy attention. These processes include wildfire in the subtropics (high biodiversity, low-carbon systems), and ecosystem-level respiration and decomposition at boreal and polar latitudes (low biodiversity, high carbon systems). No clear global relationship between biodiversity and carbon sequestration is apparent, but this does not preclude positive relationships at local to regional scales. There is a growing understanding of the potential value of biodiversity in enhancing carbon management aims, but key knowledge gaps remain that prevent more mature policy development for their co-managemen

[In Press] 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