CORDIO East Africa

Atolls are at risk of losing their ability to physically adapt due to rising sea levels and coral reefs’ reduced sediment supply, resulting in faster erosion of reef islands. This research examines Aldabra, a raised atoll and UNESCO World Heritage Site in the Indian Ocean with diverse coastal ecosystems, to track shoreline changes against a regional sea level rise of 2–3 mm yr⁻¹. Aerial and satellite images in 1960 and 2011 were used to study 85% of the atoll’s shoreline through a Digital Shoreline Analysis System. Over 51 years, 61% of the shoreline remained unchanged, while 24% changed at an average rate of 0.25 ± 0.36 m yr⁻¹, a low rate compared to global atoll changes. Among the areas that did change, rates of accretion and erosion in absolute values were nearly balanced and affected similar percentages (12%) of the shoreline. However, localized changes were pronounced: for example, part of the lagoon shoreline transformed from a sandy beach to a mangrove habitat, accreting by 214 m over the period. Erosion occurred at crucial turtle nesting sites and the research station. The lagoon shoreline underwent more rapid changes than the erosion-resistant ocean shoreline, particularly in areas exposed to wind and waves. Despite its dynamic shoreline, Aldabra maintained its net shoreline and likely total land area over the past 51 years, akin to other Indo-Pacific atolls—underscoring its adaptive capacity. Our research suggests that current knowledge of geomorphological processes of low reef islands is transferable to the raised Aldabra Atoll, reconfirming similar mechanisms of island-building processes at the island crest. These insights highlight an urgent need to minimize local impacts on sediment availability and transfer that might alter the natural dynamics of the shoreline of reef islands and hence limit adaptation potential. Ongoing shoreline monitoring will remain crucial for informing timely adaptation strategies for the conservation of Aldabra’s unique ecosystem.

Atlantic reef-building corals and coral reefs continue to experience extensive decline due to increased stressors related to climate change, disease, pollution, and numerous anthropogenic threats. To understand the impact of ocean warming and reef loss on the estimated extinction risk of shallow water Atlantic reef-building scleractinians and milleporids, all 85 valid species were reassessed under the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria, updating the previous Red List assessment of Atlantic corals published in 2008. For the present assessment, individual species declines were estimated based on the modeled coral cover loss (1989–2019) and projected onset of annual severe bleaching events (2020–2050) across the Atlantic. Species traits were used to scale species’ relative vulnerability to the modeled cover declines and forecasted bleaching events. The updated assessments place 45.88%–54.12% of Atlantic shallow water corals at an elevated extinction risk compared to the previous assessments conducted in 2008 (15.19%–40.51%). However, coral cover loss estimates indicate an improvement in reef coverage compared to the historic time-series used for the 2008 assessments. Based on this, we infer that, although remaining dangerously high, the rate of Atlantic reef coral cover decline has surprisingly slowed in recent decades. However, based on modeled projections of sea-surface temperature that predict the onset of annual severe bleaching events within the next 30 years, we listed 26 (out of 85) species as Critically Endangered in the IUCN Red List. Each of these species had previously been listed under a lower threatened category and this result alone highlights the severe threat future bleaching events pose to coral survival and the reef ecosystems they support.

Countries have committed to conserving and restoring ecosystems after signing the Kunming‐Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF). The IUCN Red List of Ecosystems (RLE) will serve as a headline indicator to track countries' progress toward achieving this goal. Using Kenyan coral reefs, we demonstrate how nations implementing the GBF can use standardized estimates of ecosystem degradation from RLE assessments to support site‐specific management decisions. We undertook a reef‐by‐reef analysis to evaluate the relative decline of four key ecosystem components over the past 50 years: hard corals, macroalgae, parrotfish, and groupers. Using the two benthic indicators, we also calculated standardized estimates of state to identify reef sites which maintain a better condition through time relative to adjacent sites. Kenya's coral reefs have degraded across all four ecosystem components. At more than half the monitored sites parrotfish and grouper abundance declined by more than 50%, while coral cover and macroalgae‐coral ratio declined by at least 30%. This resulted in an Endangered threat status for coral reefs in Kenya (under criterion D of the RLE). The results can guide management actions related to 9 of the 23 GBF targets. For example, we identified several sites with relatively healthy benthic and fish communities as candidate areas for protection measures under Target 3. The RLE has a key role to play in monitoring and meeting the goals and targets of the GBF, and our work demonstrates how using the wealth of data within these assessments can inform local‐scale ecosystem management and amplify the GBF's impact.

Here, we summarise the extinction risk of the sharks and rays endemic to coastal, shelf, and slope waters of the southwest Indian Ocean and adjacent waters (SWIO+, Namibia to Kenya, including SWIO islands). This region is a hotspot of endemic and evolutionarily distinct sharks and rays. Nearly one-fifth (n = 13 of 70, 18.6%) of endemic sharks and rays are threatened, of these: one is Critically Endangered, five are Endangered, and seven are Vulnerable. A further seven (10.0%) are Near Threatened, 33 (47.1%) are Least Concern, and 17 (24.3%) are Data Deficient. While the primary threat is overfishing, there are the first signs that climate change is contributing to elevated extinction risk through habitat reduction and inshore distributional shifts. By backcasting their status, few endemic species were threatened in 1980, but this changed soon after the emergence of targeted shark and ray fisheries. South Africa has the highest national conservation responsibility, followed by Mozambique and Madagascar. Yet, while fisheries management and enforcement have improved in South Africa over recent decades, substantial improvements are urgently needed elsewhere. To avoid extinction and ensure robust populations of the region’s endemic sharks and rays and maintain ecosystem functionality, there is an urgent need for the strict protection of Critically Endangered and Endangered species and sustainable management of Vulnerable, Near Threatened, and Least Concern species, underpinned by species-level data collection and reduction of incidental catch.

Many shark populations are in decline around the world, with severe ecological and economic consequences. Fisheries management and marine protected areas (MPAs) have both been heralded as solutions. However, the effectiveness of MPAs alone is questionable, particularly for globally threatened sharks and rays (‘elasmobranchs’), with little known about how fisheries management and MPAs interact to conserve these species. Here we use a dedicated global survey of coral reef elasmobranchs to assess 66 fully protected areas embedded within a range of fisheries management regimes across 36 countries. We show that conservation benefits were primarily for reef-associated sharks, which were twice as abundant in fully protected areas compared with areas open to fishing. Conservation benefits were greatest in large protected areas that incorporate distinct reefs. However, the same benefits were not evident for rays or wide-ranging sharks that are both economically and ecologically important while also threatened with extinction. We show that conservation benefits from fully protected areas are close to doubled when embedded within areas of effective fisheries management, highlighting the importance of a mixed management approach of both effective fisheries management and well-designed fully protected areas to conserve tropical elasmobranch assemblages globally.

Community-based conservation has been increasingly recognized as critical to achieve both conservation and socio-economic development goals worldwide. However, the long-term sustainability of community-based conservation programs is dependent on a broadly shared perception among community members that management actions are achieving their stated goals. Thus, understanding the underlying factors driving differences in perceptions of management effectiveness can help managers prioritize the processes and outcomes most valued by resource users and thereby promote sustained support for conservation efforts. Here, we utilize large-scale interview survey data and machine learning to identify the factors most strongly associated with differences in perceived management effectiveness between resource users engaged in marine community-based conservation programs in Kenya and Tanzania. Perceptions of management effectiveness were generally favorable in both countries, and the most important predictors of positive perceptions were associated with community and individual empowerment in resource management and use, but within disparate focal domains. Improved perceptions of management effectiveness in Kenya were closely related to increases in women’s empowerment in community-based conservation programs, while inclusionary and transparent governance structures were the most important factors driving improved perceptions in Tanzania. Additionally, the strongest predictors of differences between individuals in both countries often interacted synergistically to produce even higher rates of perceived effectiveness. These findings can help future initiatives in the region tailor management to match community-level priorities and emphasize the need for community-based conservation programs to understand local context to ensure that metrics of “success” are aligned with the needs and desires of local resource users.

Numerous policy and international frameworks consider that “destructive fishing” hampers efforts to reach sustainability goals. Though ubiquitous, “destructive fishing” is undefined and therefore currently immeasurable. Here we propose a definition developed through expert consultation: “Destructive fishing is any fishing practice that causes irrecoverable habitat degradation, or which causes significant adverse environmental impacts, results in long‐term declines in target or nontarget species beyond biologically safe limits and has negative livelihood impacts.” We show strong stakeholder support for a definition, consensus on many biological and ecological dimensions, and no clustering of respondents from different sectors. Our consensus definition is a significant step toward defining sustainable fisheries goals and will help interpret and implement global political commitments which utilize the term “destructive fishing.” Our definition and results will help reinforce the Food and Agricultural Organization's Code of Conduct and meaningfully support member countries to prohibit destructive fishing practices.

Protected and conserved areas (PCAs) are key ecosystem management tools for conserving biodiversity and sustaining ecosystem services and social cobenefits. As countries adopt a 30% target for protection of land and sea under the Global Biodiversity Framework of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, a critical question emerging is, which 30%? A risk‐based answer to this question is that the 30% that returns the greatest reductions in risks of species extinction and ecosystem collapse should be protected. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List protocols provide practical methods for assessing these risks. All species, including humans, depend on the integrity of ecosystems for their well‐being and survival. Africa is strategically important for ecosystem management due to convergence of high ecosystem diversity, intense pressures, and high levels of human dependency on nature. We reviewed the outcomes (e.g., applications of ecosystem red‐list assessments to protected‐area design, conservation planning, and management) of a symposium at the inaugural African Protected Areas Congress convened to discuss roles of the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems in the design and management of PCAs. Recent progress was made in ecosystem assessment, with 920 ecosystem types assessed against the IUCN Red List criteria across 21 countries. Although these ecosystems spanned a diversity of environments across the continent, the greatest thematic gaps were for freshwater, marine, and subterranean realms, and large geographic gaps existed in North Africa and parts of West and East Africa. Assessment projects were implemented by a diverse community of government agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and researchers. The assessments have influenced policy and management by informing extensions to and management of formal protected area networks supporting decision‐making for sustainable development, and informing ecosystem conservation and threat abatement within boundaries of PCAs and in surrounding landscapes and seascapes. We recommend further integration of risk assessments in environmental policy and enhanced investment in ecosystem red‐list assessment to fill current gaps.

The persistence of diverse yet threatened ecosystems like coral reefs will require urgent action underpinned by effective assessments of resilience. Resilience potential assessments are commonly used to identify coral reefs likely to be more resilient to disturbances, based on indicators of state and function. Assessments are intended to support decision‐making, therefore, using principles from decision‐science and indicator design theory, we evaluated the selection, design and analysis of indicators from 68 resilience potential assessments conducted between 2008 and 2022. These principles include justifying and testing indicators and aggregation approaches, representing key parts of the ecosystem, considering uncertainty and meaningful normalisation of indicators. Although a broad range of indicators were typically evaluated, assessments rarely present structured processes to guide and justify indicator selection, such as selection criteria and conceptual models of ecosystem function. We also found that certain key ecosystem components that confer resilience were represented by indicators in almost all assessments, such as corals, herbivory, competition and reef structure. Other factors were rarely considered, such as abundance and diversity of key fish trophic groups other than herbivores, for example groupers and corallivores, other aspects of biodiversity and competitive interactions with corals. Reference points used to translate variables into resilience indicators were typically derived from the data, such as the highest indicator value of assessed sites. Ecologically meaningful thresholds, such as collapse or historic levels, were used less often as references. In most cases, indicators were not tested or validated against independent data, uncertainties were not presented, and there was a tendency to simplify results into composite indices to rank sites, without justifying aggregation methods. Despite resource constraints, most resilience potential assessments collect quantitative data that are useful for coral reef management. However, the shortcomings identified can make indicator interpretation difficult, limiting the capacity to predict the resilience of the system and support decisions. Implementation of robust approaches drawn from indicator design and selection theory can help strengthen resilience potential assessments of coral reefs and other ecosystems, ultimately improving the prospects of conservation.

The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity set the agenda for global aspirations and action to reverse biodiversity loss. The GBF includes an explicit goal for maintaining and restoring biodiversity, encompassing ecosystems, species and genetic diversity (goal A), targets for ecosystem protection and restoration and headline indicators to track progress and guide action1. One of the headline indicators is the Red List of Ecosystems2, the global standard for ecosystem risk assessment. The Red List of Ecosystems provides a systematic framework for collating, analysing and synthesizing data on ecosystems, including their distribution, integrity and risk of collapse3. Here, we examine how it can contribute to implementing the GBF, as well as monitoring progress. We find that the Red List of Ecosystems provides common theory and practical data, while fostering collaboration, cross-sector cooperation and knowledge sharing, with important roles in 16 of the 23 targets. In particular, ecosystem maps, descriptions and risk categories are key to spatial planning for halting loss, restoration and protection (targets 1, 2 and 3). The Red List of Ecosystems is therefore well-placed to aid Parties to the GBF as they assess, plan and act to achieve the targets and goals. We outline future work to further strengthen this potential and improve biodiversity outcomes, including expanding spatial coverage of Red List of Ecosystems assessments and partnerships between practitioners, policy-makers and scientists.

Non-technical summary We identify a set of essential recent advances in climate change research with high policy relevance, across natural and social sciences: (1) looming inevitability and implications of overshooting the 1.5°C warming limit, (2) urgent need for a rapid and managed fossil fuel phase-out, (3) challenges for scaling carbon dioxide removal, (4) uncertainties regarding the future contribution of natural carbon sinks, (5) intertwinedness of the crises of biodiversity loss and climate change, (6) compound events, (7) mountain glacier loss, (8) human immobility in the face of climate risks, (9) adaptation justice, and (10) just transitions in food systems. Technical summary The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Assessment Reports provides the scientific foundation for international climate negotiations and constitutes an unmatched resource for researchers. However, the assessment cycles take multiple years. As a contribution to cross- and interdisciplinary understanding of climate change across diverse research communities, we have streamlined an annual process to identify and synthesize significant research advances. We collected input from experts on various fields using an online questionnaire and prioritized a set of 10 key research insights with high policy relevance. This year, we focus on: (1) the looming overshoot of the 1.5°C warming limit, (2) the urgency of fossil fuel phase-out, (3) challenges to scale-up carbon dioxide removal, (4) uncertainties regarding future natural carbon sinks, (5) the need for joint governance of biodiversity loss and climate change, (6) advances in understanding compound events, (7) accelerated mountain glacier loss, (8) human immobility amidst climate risks, (9) adaptation justice, and (10) just transitions in food systems. We present a succinct account of these insights, reflect on their policy implications, and offer an integrated set of policy-relevant messages. This science synthesis and science communication effort is also the basis for a policy report contributing to elevate climate science every year in time for the United Nations Climate Change Conference. Social media summary We highlight recent and policy-relevant advances in climate change research – with input from more than 200 experts.

Safe and just Earth system boundaries (ESBs) for surface water and groundwater (blue water) have been defined for sustainable water management in the Anthropocene. Here we assessed whether minimum human needs could be met with surface water from within individual river basins alone and, where this is not possible, quantified how much groundwater would be required. Approximately 2.6 billion people live in river basins where groundwater is needed because they are already outside the surface water ESB or have insufficient surface water to meet human needs and the ESB. Approximately 1.4 billion people live in river basins where demand-side transformations would be required as they either exceed the surface water ESB or face a decline in groundwater recharge and cannot meet minimum needs within the ESB. A further 1.5 billion people live in river basins outside the ESB, with insufficient surface water to meet minimum needs, requiring both supply- and demand-side transformations. These results highlight the challenges and opportunities of meeting even basic human access needs to water and protecting aquatic ecosystems.

Monitoring the governance and management effectiveness of area‐based conservation has long been recognized as an important foundation for achieving national and global biodiversity goals and enabling adaptive management. However, there are still many barriers that prevent conservation actors, including those impacted by governance and management systems and/or implementing conservation activities and programs, from gathering and using data on governance and management to inform decision‐making across spatial scales and through time. Here, we explore current and past efforts for assessing governance and management effectiveness and the barriers that different actors have faced in using the resulting data and insights to inform conservation decision‐making. To help overcome these barriers, we introduce Elinor, a free and open‐source monitoring tool that builds upon the work of Nobel Prize winner Elinor Ostrom, to facilitate the gathering, storing, sharing, analyzing, and use of data on environmental governance and management across spatial scales and for areas under different governance and management types. We discuss the process of co‐designing and piloting Elinor with conservation scientists and practitioners, and introduce the main components of the assessment and the online data system. We situate Elinor within the context of existing approaches for assessing governance and management, and demonstrate how Elinor complements existing approaches by (1) addressing both governance and management in a single assessment for different types of area‐based conservation, (2) introducing flexible options for data collection, and (3) integrating a data system with an assessment which can support data use and sharing across different spatial scales. We conclude by recognizing the challenges conservationists will continue to face when using governance and management data to inform decision‐making and offer tangible solutions that can help navigate these in support of more effective, inclusive, and durable area‐based conservation. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

The rate and extent of global biodiversity change is surpassing our ability to measure, monitor and forecast trends. We propose an interconnected worldwide system of observation networks — a global biodiversity observing system (GBiOS) — to coordinate monitoring worldwide and inform action to reach international biodiversity targets.

Coral reefs are losing the capacity to sustain their biological functions¹. In addition to other well-known stressors, such as climatic change and overfishing¹, plastic pollution is an emerging threat to coral reefs, spreading throughout reef food webs², and increasing disease transmission and structural damage to reef organisms³. Although recognized as a global concern⁴, the distribution and quantity of plastics trapped in the world’s coral reefs remains uncertain³. Here we survey 84 shallow and deep coral ecosystems at 25 locations across the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian ocean basins for anthropogenic macrodebris (pollution by human-generated objects larger than 5 centimetres, including plastics), performing 1,231 transects. Our results show anthropogenic debris in 77 out of the 84 reefs surveyed, including in some of Earth’s most remote and near-pristine reefs, such as in uninhabited central Pacific atolls. Macroplastics represent 88% of the anthropogenic debris, and, like other debris types, peak in deeper reefs (mesophotic zones at 30–150 metres depth), with fishing activities as the main source of plastics in most areas. These findings contrast with the global pattern observed in other nearshore marine ecosystems, where macroplastic densities decrease with depth and are dominated by consumer items⁵. As the world moves towards a global treaty to tackle plastic pollution⁶, understanding its distribution and drivers provides key information to help to design the strategies needed to address this ubiquitous threat.