Contributions of ecological restoration and rehabilitation to the goals of the post-2020 GBF.

Ecological restoration contributes to Goal A of the GBF by increasing natural ecosystem integrity (light and dark green arrows) and to area if it involves restoration of transformed ecosystems towards a natural state (dark green arrows). Ecological restoration also contributes to Goal B by improving NCP in natural ecosystems. Rehabilitation (light orange arrow) contributes to Goal B of the GBF by improving NCP in managed ecosystems and may contribute to enhancing biodiversity, but the degree and type of contributions depend on types and objectives of the rehabilitation action. Most transformed terrestrial ecosystems are managed for agriculture or forestry, and the term “regeneration” is often used in those sectors as an equivalent for rehabilitation. High ecosystem integrity for natural ecosystems is typically defined as having composition, structure, function, and ecological processes close to that of a natural reference ecosystem [11]. This figure is modified from the IPBES Land Degradation and Restoration Assessment [2] to focus on rehabilitation and ecological restoration. This simplified view of restoration does not include many of the important subtleties of the continuum of potential actions [8] nor take into account that some ecosystems are not easily classified as natural versus transformed.</p

Examples of key global restoration objectives for 2030 relevant to the GBF.

Examples of key global restoration objectives for 2030 relevant to the GBF.</p

Assessing the Cost of Global Biodiversity and Conservation Knowledge

<div><p>Knowledge products comprise assessments of authoritative information supported by standards, governance, quality control, data, tools, and capacity building mechanisms. Considerable resources are dedicated to developing and maintaining knowledge products for biodiversity conservation, and they are widely used to inform policy and advise decision makers and practitioners. However, the financial cost of delivering this information is largely undocumented. We evaluated the costs and funding sources for developing and maintaining four global biodiversity and conservation knowledge products: The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems, Protected Planet, and the World Database of Key Biodiversity Areas. These are secondary data sets, built on primary data collected by extensive networks of expert contributors worldwide. We estimate that US$160 million (range: US$116–204 million), plus 293 person-years of volunteer time (range: 278–308 person-years) valued at US$14 million (range US$12–16 million), were invested in these four knowledge products between 1979 and 2013. More than half of this financing was provided through philanthropy, and nearly three-quarters was spent on personnel costs. The estimated annual cost of maintaining data and platforms for three of these knowledge products (excluding the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems for which annual costs were not possible to estimate for 2013) is US$6.5 million in total (range: US$6.2–6.7 million). We estimated that an additional US$114 million will be needed to reach pre-defined baselines of data coverage for all the four knowledge products, and that once achieved, annual maintenance costs will be approximately US$12 million. These costs are much lower than those to maintain many other, similarly important, global knowledge products. Ensuring that biodiversity and conservation knowledge products are sufficiently up to date, comprehensive and accurate is fundamental to inform decision-making for biodiversity conservation and sustainable development. Thus, the development and implementation of plans for sustainable long-term financing for them is critical.</p></div

Development status of the four knowledge products included in this study.

<p>A brief description of each knowledge product is available in [<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0160640#pone.0160640.ref007" target="_blank">7</a>].</p

Sources of funding (midpoints of estimates) until 2013 for all knowledge products.

<p>Others include multilateral donors and financial institutions.</p

Summary of data collection for all four knowledge products.

<p>The table summarises which costs were collected for each of the four knowledge products and how much of the total number of assesments, available in December 2013, these represent. In cases where 100% of the costs were not collected, the total sum for each knowledge product was increased propotionally to reach 100%.</p

Categories, subcategories and funding sources classification used to categorise costs.

<p>Categories, subcategories and funding sources classification used to categorise costs.</p

Estimated costs to reach pre-defined baselines by 2020 for each knowledge product.

<p>Estimated costs to reach pre-defined baselines by 2020 for each knowledge product.</p

Sources of funding (midpoints of estimates) invested until 2013 for each knowledge product.

<p>Sources of funding (midpoints of estimates) invested until 2013 for each knowledge product.</p

Overall funds (midpoints) and volunteer days invested in the four knowledge products between 1979 and 2013, and annual cost in 2013.

<p>The mid-point is the equidistant point between the maximum and minimum values. Full details are available in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0160640#pone.0160640.s004" target="_blank">S4 Table</a>.</p