ArticlePublisher preview available

The Dasgupta Review: resetting the stage for a new paradigm

Wiley
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment
Authors:
Priya Priyadarshini at Banaras Hindu University
Priya Priyadarshini
Pradeep K. Dubey at IRRI-SARC
Pradeep K. Dubey
  • IRRI-SARC
Ajeet Singh at Banaras Hindu University
Ajeet Singh
Rajan Chaurasiya at Shree murli Manohar Town Degree College Ballia Uttar Pradesh
Rajan Chaurasiya
  • Shree murli Manohar Town Degree College Ballia Uttar Pradesh
Show all 5 authorsHide
Read publisher preview
Download citation
To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the authors.

Abstract and Figures

Assessing the impacts of unprecedented biodiversity loss on planetary resilience, The Economics of Biodiversity: the Dasgupta Review (“Dasgupta Review”) asserts that sustainable engagement with nature is crucial for sustaining the livelihoods of present and future generations. It further urges the integration of biodiversity into national accounting and science‐based decision‐making processes in order to advance the well‐being of both people and the planet. Here, we present the salient features of the Dasgupta Review along with several recommendations for strengthening global biodiversity and ecosystem conservation efforts. Although institutional transformations at regional and national scales are essential to facilitate the recognition of economies’ dependence on nature, behavioral changes at the level of the individual are also needed to better understand, value, manage, and utilize biodiversity. Formulation of inclusive policies prioritizing biodiversity conservation and sustainable resource consumption is also essential for averting future public health risks associated with ecosystem degradation and species loss.
Figures - available from: Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
A preview of this full-text is provided by Wiley.
Learn more
Content available from Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Front Ecol Environ doi:10.1002/fee.2451 © 2021 The Ecological Society of America.
240 REVIEWS
Front Ecol Environ 2022; 20(4): 240–246, doi:10.1002/fee.2451
The stability of the Holocene epoch – preserved primarily
by the variety and richness of the planet’s flora and
fauna– has been severely impacted by disruptive anthropo-
genic activities and lifestyles that have resulted in unprece-
dented biodiversity loss (Myers et al. 2000; Seddon et al. 2016).
Implementation of conservation strategies is essential, as
numerous species around the world are on the verge of extinc-
tion (Kueffer and Kaiser- Bunbury 2014). Both indirect (eg
technology, consumption patterns) and direct (eg pollution,
habitat degradation) drivers, along with pressure created by
human activities like agriculture and mining, are responsible
for biodiversity loss, with approximately one- fifth of wild spe-
cies presently facing the risk of extinction as a consequence of
expected climate- change impacts (Leclère et al. 2020; WWF
2020). Likewise, the Convention on Biological Diversity’s
(CBD’s) recent publication, Global Biodiversity Outlook 5
(https://www.cbd.int/gbo5), concluded that none of the 20
Aichi Biodiversity Targets (structured for addressing drivers
and pressures of biodiversity loss, along with improvements in
benefit sharing and governance) have been fully achieved
globally. Moreover, traditional animal migrations and move-
ments are now substantially restricted in areas with large
human populations and extensive infrastructure development,
leading to detrimental effects on ecosystem functioning and
nutrient cycling, as well as to changes in food- web dynamics
(Tuck er et al. 2018). Therefore, it is essential that humanity
realize that biodiversity is a finite resource requiring protec-
tion, and that it is time for fundamental shifts in how we
approach biodiversity management (Pascual et al. 2017). Given
this backdrop, the release of The Economics of Biodiversity: the
Dasgupta Review (hereafter, “the Dasgupta Review” or simply
“the Review”) – a global review led by Sir Partha Dasgupta,
Frank Ramsey Professor Emeritus at Cambridge University,
and published by the UK Government, that calls for pragmatic
changes in the way humans exploit and value biodiversity –
comes at a critical moment (Dasgupta 2021). Here, we briefly
discuss the aspirations and critiques of the Dasgupta Review.
Resetting the stage: salient features of the Dasgupta
Review
e crux of the Dasgupta Review endorses the concept that
nature is the planet’s most important asset, and that its
The Dasgupta Review: resetting the stage for a
new paradigm
Priya Priyadarshini, Pradeep Kumar Dubey, Ajeet Singh, Rajan Chaurasia, and Purushothaman Chirakkuzhyil Abhilash*
Assessing the impacts of unprecedented biodiversity loss on planetary resilience, The Economics of Biodiversity: the Dasgupta
Review (“Dasgupta Review”) asserts that sustainable engagement with nature is crucial for sustaining the livelihoods of present
and future generations. It further urges the integration of biodiversity into national accounting and science- based decision-
making processes in order to advance the well- being of both people and the planet. Here, we present the salient features of the
Dasgupta Review along with several recommendations for strengthening global biodiversity and ecosystem conservation efforts.
Although institutional transformations at regional and national scales are essential to facilitate the recognition of economies’
dependence on nature, behavioral changes at the level of the individual are also needed to better understand, value, manage, and
utilize biodiversity. Formulation of inclusive policies prioritizing biodiversity conservation and sustainable resource consumption
is also essential for averting future public health risks associated with ecosystem degradation and species loss.
Institute of Environment & Sustainable Development, Banaras Hindu
University, Varanasi, India *(pca.iesd@bhu.ac.in)
In a nutshell:
• Unsustainable anthropogenic activities and lifestyles are
the major drivers of unprecedented biodiversity loss and
ecosystem degradation
• We discuss the salient features of The Economics of
Biodiversity: the Dasgupta Review (“the Review”), which,
at its core, advocates that for development to be sustain-
able, “economy” must be embedded within “nature”
• e Review identifies the disregard of natural capital from
measurements of economic growth as a major underlying
cause behind the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem ser-
vices, and proposes that “inclusive wealth” be quantified
• e role of effective governance and institutions, sustain-
able consumption patterns, and financial investments for
averting nature- related risks are also discussed
• e Review’s authors further emphasize “experiential learning”
in education, promoting changes in individuals’ behavior to
foster conservation of biodiversity and respect for nature
... Since many current agricultural practices are becoming eco-friendly, there is still a need to amplify the efficacies of these practices for attaining sustainable agriculture and multiple United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN-SDGs). Therefore, reviewing these practices at different steps and levels is imperative to achieve optimum yield and promote the best practices for further development (Priydarshini et al. 2021;. The application of fertilizers must be augmented to minimize the costs and protect ecosystems. ...
Global and Regional Sustainability Challenges for Plant and Soil Nutrient Management
Chapter
  • Nov 2024
The global population is expected to reach 9.5 billion people by 2050. It is projected to cross 11 billion by the end of the century. Consequently, there is a need to expand crop production by 1.5 folds to satisfy the projected demand. Therefore, a major emphasis is ironically made on increasing the quantity of agricultural produce through different mismanaged agricultural practices. These practices are intensified in developing and underdeveloped nations facing socio-economic issues to feed their ever-increasing population. Therefore, there is an urgent requirement for smart, semi-sustainable nutrient management to improve soil and plant productivity, focusing on their resilience and endurance. Moreover, plant nutrient management often connects with food and nutrition security, mitigating pollution and climate change, limiting biodiversity loss, and other associated socio-economic issues. This management refers to improving the soil’s overall vital nutrient resources and their transformation for improving plant vigor. However, the fortification of nutrients also does not meet the sustainability scenario standards. Furthermore, this prospective practice also seeks to be overhauled under the appropriate socio-economic framework to offer wider benefits to the end-users. Therefore, there are multiple bottlenecks in various adopted practices under sustainable plant nutrition management at the regional and global levels. Hence, examining the role of plant and soil nutrient management and its plausible limitation in providing agroecosystem services is essentially required to develop a holistic framework. Therefore, the present chapter discusses the diverse efforts in managing the plant and soil nutrients and highlights some tipping challenges at the regional and global levels, providing a window of opportunity for further exploratory research.
View
... Territorial space as a carrier of human activity consists of the ecosystem, people, and their interactions. A responsible attitude is necessary to effectively harness the potential of territories through sustainable technologies to address ongoing planetary crises, [1]. Every region of the world strives to make every effort to achieve positive results in achieving a high level of sustainable development. ...
Sustainable Development of Territories during the Period of Post-War Environmental Restoration
Article
Full-text available
  • May 2023
The aim of the article was to substantiate the transformations of the conceptual foundations of sustainable development of territories during the period of postwar ecological restoration of states. The main methodological tools were the methods of modelling, experiment, and morphological analysis. The research showed that countries faced a globally important task in the ecological restoration of territories in the postwar period. The destruction of the environment and its pollution caused by military actions sharply reduce the positive indicators of the state of the environment. It was proved that sustainable development goals act as effective vectors for improving the state of the environment in the period of postwar ecological recovery. The implementation of ecologically significant actions during the postwar ecological recovery in Bosnia and Herzegovina shows that this process is complex and difficult. The problems of contradictory decisions, corruption, and lack of transparency should be considered. The environmental strategy of BiH ESAP 2030+ of Bosnia and Herzegovina, developed by the SDG, can be an example of the corresponding legislative regulation in Ukraine. The UNDP's project Sustainability of Protected Areas (SPA) implemented in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the context of popularizing ecotourism is also worth noting. A similar project can be implemented in Ukraine in the context of sustainable development of the country during the period of postwar ecological restoration. The main long-term problem in the territory of Ukraine is the demining of regions, which will also determine the terms of implementation of recovery procedures.
View
... Territorial space as a carrier of human activity consists of the ecosystem, people, and their interactions. A responsible attitude is necessary to effectively harness the potential of territories through sustainable technologies to address ongoing planetary crises, [1]. Every region of the world strives to make every effort to achieve positive results in achieving a high level of sustainable development. ...
Sustainable Development of Territories during the Period of Post-War Environmental Restoration
Article
Full-text available
  • Apr 2023
The aim of the article was to substantiate the transformations of the conceptual foundations of sustainable development of territories during the period of post-war ecological restoration of states. The main methodological tools were the methods of modelling, experiment, and morphological analysis. The research showed that countries faced a globally important task in the ecological restoration of territories in the post-war period. The destruction of the environment and its pollution caused by military actions sharply reduce the positive indicators of the state of the environment. It was proved that sustainable development goals act as effective vectors for improving the state of the environment in the period of post-war ecological recovery. The implementation of ecologically significant actions during the post-war ecological recovery in Bosnia and Herzegovina shows that this process is complex and difficult. The problems of contradictory decisions, corruption, and lack of transparency should be considered. The environmental strategy of BiH ESAP 2030+ of Bosnia and Herzegovina, developed by the SDG, can be an example of the corresponding legislative regulation in Ukraine. The UNDP’s project Sustainability of Protected Areas (SPA) implemented in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the context of popularizing ecotourism is also worth noting. A similar project can be implemented in Ukraine in the context of sustainable development of the country during the period of post-war ecological restoration. The main long-term problem in the territory of Ukraine is the demining of regions, which will also determine the terms of implementation of recovery procedures.
View
... Although NbS frameworks encourage the participation of all stakeholders, in reality, interventions are framed in a context with actors operating at multiple system levels with different interests, perceptions and priorities facing problems of poverty, crime, corruption, marginalization or/and displacement among others (Kanda et al., 2020;Foray et al., 2012;Martin et al., 2021). For NbS to address challenges, interventions must be co-designed and co-implemented by many stakeholders posing important normative and behavioral changes at different institutional levels (Ershad Sarabi et al., 2019;Foray et al., 2012;Nesshöver et al., 2017;Priyadarshini et al., 2021;Zingraff-Hamed et al., 2021). Toxopeux et al. (2020) recognized three fundamental types of justice that are necessary to achieve inclusiveness, transparency and accountability in an NbS: ...
Complementary ideas for the implementation of nature based solutions
Article
  • Jan 2023
  • ENVIRON SCI POLICY
This study explores the gap between theoretical frameworks of Nature-Based Solutions (NbS) and current NbS interventions. Despite the existence of well-established definitions and practical tools, there are still organizations that implement NbS according to their own interpretations, creating gaps in the way practitioners apply these solutions. Four main gaps were identified: Framing of priorities to address an outcome, measurability and effectiveness of interventions, alignment with transformational governance processes, and understanding of trade-offs. By collecting the perception of NbS practitioners mainly focused on Africa, Europe, Latin America through a structured online survey, the results showed that five main ideas can help close these gaps: (1) designing NbS to address local problems that subsequently address societal challenges may be a more effective framing than targeting interventions to societal challenges that may not capture local stakeholder priorities; (2) interventions should consider both qualitative and quantitative impact-oriented indicators to learn from practice, and establish robust interventions and confidence in NbS; (3) transformative NbS processes must incorporate pluralistic assessment in interventions, attending to distributive, recognition, and procedural justice; (4) systemic socioeconomic and institutional barriers are not exclusively within the power of practitioners to fix but they must be addressed to achieve transformative NbS processes; (5) certain types of governance, scale, and cost-benefit trade-offs may not be fully understood and remain elusive, but they are still important to identify, to integrate and negotiate trade-offs in NbS implementation. We urge NbS practitioners and formulators of the concept to consider these ideas when implementing NbS.
View
... The Dasgupta Review (Dasgupta, 2021) turned out to be an overarching publication that goes well beyond the subfield of biodiversity. The Review has been both welcomed (Groom and Turk, 2021;Priyadarshini et al., 2022) and critically reviewed (Spash and Hache, 2022). 4 There are several recurring punchlines, one of which is what the Review calls (global) impact inequality. ...
View
... While technology can offer solutions to most of the challenges (Triendl 2000;Dalton 2002; Editorial 2021), technological advancements alone are not enough to solve all of the ecological and environmental crises we are facing today. Positive attitudes and behavioural changes are more important than ever in order to effectively use the power of sustainable technologies to address ongoing planetary crises (Priyadarshini et al. 2022). Hence, repositioning the basic sciences as a better and more effective means of advancing sustainable development is critical for reducing our carbon footprint while resetting a more respectful and sensitive relationship with nature (Seitzinger 2010;Editorial 2021).The present editorial briefly outlines the significance of ecology for facilitating the transitions towards a greener, cleaner, and more resilient planet and its unexplored potential for reconnecting and reinforcing humans' relationship with nature in the Anthropocene. ...
View
... Although NbS frameworks encourage the participation of all stakeholders, in reality, interventions are framed in a context with actors operating at multiple system levels with different interests, perceptions and priorities facing problems of poverty, crime, corruption, marginalization or/and displacement among others (Kanda et al., 2020;Foray et al., 2012;Martin et al., 2021). For NbS to address challenges, interventions must be co-designed and co-implemented by many stakeholders posing important normative and behavioral changes at different institutional levels (Ershad Sarabi et al., 2019;Foray et al., 2012;Nesshöver et al., 2017;Priyadarshini et al., 2021;Zingraff-Hamed et al., 2021). Toxopeux et al. (2020) recognized three fundamental types of justice that are necessary to achieve inclusiveness, transparency and accountability in an NbS: ...
Complementary Ideas for the Implementation of Nature-Based Solutions
Article
  • Jan 2022
This study explores the gap between theoretical frameworks of Nature-Based Solutions (NbS) and current NbS interventions. Despite the existence of well-established definitions and practical tools, there are still organizations that implement NbS according to their own interpretations, creating gaps in the way practitioners apply these solutions. Four main gaps were identified: Framing of priorities to address an outcome, measurability and effectiveness of interventions, alignment with transformational governance processes, and understanding of trade-offs. By collecting the perception of NbS practitioners mainly focused on Africa, Europe, Latin America through a structured online survey, the results showed that five main ideas can help close these gaps: (1) designing NbS to address local problems that subsequently address societal challenges may be a more effective framing than targeting interventions to societal challenges that may not capture local stakeholder priorities; (2) interventions should consider both qualitative and quantitative impact-oriented indicators to learn from practice, and establish robust interventions and confidence in NbS; (3) transformative NbS processes must incorporate pluralistic assessment in interventions, attending to distributive, recognition, and procedural justice; (4) systemic socioeconomic and institutional barriers are not exclusively within the power of practitioners to fix but they must be addressed to achieve transformative NbS processes; (5) certain types of governance, scale, and cost-benefit trade-offs may not be fully understood and remain elusive, but they are still important to identify, to integrate and negotiate trade-offs in NbS implementation. We urge NbS practitioners and formulators of the concept to consider these ideas when implementing NbS.
View
... Considering the traction and acceptability of such concepts in various diverse practitioner and policy-making communities globally (let alone academic fields), their integration within the framework could both forge broader support for the overall framework and enhance indicator-setting exercises. For example, better accounting of natural assets within economic value chains using inclusive wealth as a measure of quantification in place of GDP (Gross Development Product) Priyadarshini et al. 2021) can lead to better accounting of natural capital at the national stratum and in turn benefit biodiversity conservation. Similarly, since unregulated resource extraction is closely linked to habitat destruction and biodiversity loss, development of resource efficiency or circular economy indicators (D'Amato and Korhonen 2021) could positively influence Target 15 of the Post-2020 framework (CBD 2020d; UNEP-WCMC 2020). ...
Advancing Global Biodiversity Governance: Recommendations for Strengthening the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework
Article
Full-text available
  • Mar 2022
Reversing ecosystem degradation and halting global biodiversity loss due to climate change and other anthropogenic drivers are essential for socioeconomic development and human wellbeing, as well as for advancing global sustainability. The latest initiative in this direction is the 'Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework', which establishes a blueprint for global coordinated action towards development of national and regional strategies targeting conservation and sustainable utilization of biodiversity. By supporting the notion of 'ecological civilization', it emphasises the need for transformative strategies to conserve, monitor and sustainably manage ecosystems by 2030. Arguably the articulation of fit-for-purpose goals and targets is a key precondition for achieving this vision by enhancing cooperation and influencing the development of implementation strategies and regulatory instruments at national and local levels. The present Policy Analysis critically reviews the key features of the draft Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework and suggests recommendations to further strengthen it. Graphical Abstract Extended author information available on the last page of the article Anthropocene Science 1 3 Article Highlights • Biodiversity conservation is imperative for planetary resilience and human health and wellbeing. • The Post-2020 Global Biodiversity framework aims to guide biodiversity governance towards 'ecological civilization'. • Transformative approaches targeting climate adaptation and mitigation, circularity, biodiversity renewal and nature-based solutions require better inclusion. • Attainable and widely acceptable indicators for the different targets are necessary to ensure the framework's effectiveness. • The interface of climate change mitigation, adaptation and biodiversity conservation should be further strengthened in the framework.
View
Tracing the evolution of natural capital in global sustainability metrics: the advance of inclusive wealth
Article
Full-text available
Natural capital defines planetary boundaries and provides a basis for sustainable development. This study reviews previous theoretical developments and confirms that natural capital accounting within the Inclusive Wealth (IW) framework provides a robust link between current capital assets and intergenerational well-being. This study contributes to the literature by combining theoretical advances with practical applications to address criticisms of empirical practice and improve the reliability and scope of cross-country natural capital accounting. An analysis of natural capital levels and changes in 163 economies over the past 30 years reveals significant regional disparities in the decline of global natural capital. In low-income countries, consumption driven by population growth and primary production patterns is severely depleting renewable natural capital. In middle-income countries, urbanization exacerbates natural capital depletion by substituting other forms of capital for natural capital. The wealth status of major G20 economies points to intensive environmental costs and loss of ecosystem services under technological progress, which ignores public ecosystem externalities. This study demonstrates the urgency of natural capital depletion awareness in the management of all economies and highlights the ability of natural capital accounting within the IW framework to inform policy decisions on sustainable growth.
View
View
The Economics of Biodiversity The Dasgupta Review Full Report
Book
Full-text available
  • Feb 2021
The Dasgupta Review is an independent, global review on the Economics of Biodiversity led by Professor Sir Partha Dasgupta (Frank Ramsey Professor Emeritus, University of Cambridge). The Review was commissioned in 2019 by HM Treasury and has been supported by an Advisory Panel drawn from public policy, science, economics, finance and business. The Review calls for changes in how we think, act and measure economic success to protect and enhance our prosperity and the natural world. Grounded in a deep understanding of ecosystem processes and how they are affected by economic activity, the new framework presented by the Review sets out how we should account for Nature in economics and decision-making. The final Review comprises the Full Report, an Abridged Version and the Headline Messages.
View
Biodiversity and the challenge of pluralism
Article
Full-text available
  • Mar 2021
The lack of progress in reversing the declining global trend in biodiversity is partly due to a mismatch between how living nature is conceived and valued by the conservation movement on the one hand, and by many different people, including marginalized communities, on the other. Addressing this problem calls for a pluralistic perspective on biodiversity. This requires consideration of the use of the concept of biodiversity, willingness to expand its ambit, and engagement with the multiple and multi-level drivers of change. We propose ways for conservation science, policy and practice to deliver more effective and socially just conservation outcomes.
View
Restoring the Unrestored: Strategies for Restoring Global Land during the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration (UN-DER)
Article
Full-text available
  • Feb 2021
Restoring the health of degraded land is critical for overall human development as land is a vital life-supporting system, directly or indirectly influencing the attainment of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (UN-SDGs). However, more than 33% of the global land is degraded and thereby affecting the livelihood of billions of people worldwide. Realizing this fact, the 73rd session of the UN Assembly has formally adopted a resolution to celebrate 2021-2030 as the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration (UN-DER), for preventing, halting, and reversing degradation of ecosystems worldwide. While this move is historic and beneficial for both people and the planet, restoration of degraded land at different scales and levels requires a paradigm shift in existing restoration approaches, fueled by the application of applied science to citizen/community-based science, and tapping of indigenous and local knowledge to advanced technological breakthroughs. In addition, there is a need of strong political will and positive behavioral changes to strengthen restoration initiatives at the grassroot level and involvement of people from all walks of life (i.e., from politicians to peasants and social workers to scientists) are essential for achieving the targets of the UN-DER. Similarly, financing restoration on the ground by the collective contribution of individuals (crowd funding) and institutions (institutional funding) are critical for maintaining the momentum. Private companies can earmark lion-share of their corporate social responsibility fund (CSR fund) exclusively for restoration. The adoption of suitable bioeconomy models is crucial for maintaining the perpetuity of the restoration by exploring co-benefits, and also for ensuring stakeholder involvements during and after the restoration. This review underpins various challenges and plausible solutions to avoid, reduce, and reverse global land degradation as envisioned during the UN-DER, while fulfilling the objectives of other ongoing initiatives like the Bonn Challenge and the UN-SDGs.
View
Jurisdictional approaches to sustainable resource use
Article
Full-text available
Tropical forests are under increasing pressure, but conservation interventions have had only limited success in mitigating deforestation and ecosystem degradation. Over the past decade, however, jurisdictional approaches to sustainable resource use have attracted increasing attention as a potential alternative to traditional conservation strategies. These approaches operate within formal administrative boundaries and seek to establish policies and practices that apply to all stakeholders. We compiled a global database of conservation initiatives and developed a definition and typology for jurisdictional approaches; of the 80 initiatives included in our database, 25 met this definition. We categorized these jurisdictional approaches according to two criteria: the focus of the intervention and the degree of government involvement. These jurisdictions encompassed approximately 40% of global tropical forests, with most experiencing higher‐than‐average deforestation rates. Although jurisdictional approaches harbor the potential to overcome the limitations of previous approaches, numerous challenges for implementation and operation remain. In addition, because most jurisdictional initiatives currently in operation are still early in their lifecycles, the long‐term effectiveness of this strategy has yet to be proven.
View
Post-2020 biodiversity targets need to embrace climate change
Article
Full-text available
  • Dec 2020
Recent assessment reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services IPBES) have highlighted the risks to humanity arising from the unsustainable use of natural resources. Thus far, land, freshwater, and ocean exploitation have been the chief causes of biodiversity loss. Climate change is projected to be a rapidly increasing additional driver for biodiversity loss. Since climate change and biodiversity loss impact human societies everywhere, bold solutions are required that integrate environmental and societal objectives. As yet, most existing international biodiversity targets have overlooked climate change impacts. At the same time, climate change mitigation measures themselves may harm biodiversity directly. The Convention on Biological Diversity’s post-2020 framework offers the important opportunity to address the interactions between climate change and biodiversity and revise biodiversity targets accordingly by better aligning these with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Paris Agreement and the Sustainable Development Goals. We identify the considerable number of existing and proposed post-2020 biodiversity targets that risk being severely compromised due to climate change, even if other barriers to their achievement were removed. Our analysis suggests that the next set of biodiversity targets explicitly addresses climate change-related risks since many aspirational goals will not be feasible under even lower-end projections of future warming. Adopting more flexible and dynamic approaches to conservation, rather than static goals, would allow us to respond flexibly to changes in habitats, genetic resources, species composition, and ecosystem functioning and leverage biodiversity’s capacity to contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation.
View
Applying cumulative effects to strategically advance large‐scale ecosystem restoration
Article
Full-text available
International efforts to restore degraded ecosystems will continue to expand over the coming decades, yet the factors contributing to the effectiveness of long‐term restoration across large areas remain largely unexplored. At large scales, outcomes are more complex and synergistic than the additive impacts of individual restoration projects. Here, we propose a cumulative‐effects conceptual framework to inform restoration design and implementation and to comprehensively measure ecological outcomes. To evaluate and illustrate this approach, we reviewed long‐term restoration in several large coastal and riverine areas across the US: the greater Florida Everglades; Gulf of Mexico coast; lower Columbia River and estuary; Puget Sound; San Francisco Bay and Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta; Missouri River; and northeastern coastal states. Evidence supported eight modes of cumulative effects of interacting restoration projects, which improved outcomes for species and ecosystems at landscape and regional scales. We conclude that cumulative effects, usually measured for ecosystem degradation, are also measurable for ecosystem restoration. The consideration of evidence‐based cumulative effects will help managers of large‐scale restoration capitalize on positive feedback and reduce countervailing effects.
View
Overview of recent land‐cover changes in biodiversity hotspots
Article
Full-text available
Between 1992 and 2015, nearly 148 million hectares (Mha) within biodiversity hotspots – biologically rich but threatened terrestrial regions – worldwide underwent land‐cover changes, equating to 6% of the total areal extent of hotspots. Forest losses in hotspots amounted to 54 Mha (–7% of the forest area present in 1992), driven primarily by agricultural expansion (38 Mha); shrubland or savanna also declined by 23 Mha (–8%). Over the same time, urban areas expanded by 10 Mha (+108%). Major losses in forest areas occurred in Sundaland (11 Mha, –13% relative to 1992), Indo‐Burma (6 Mha, –6%), and Mesoamerica (5 Mha, –7%). Approximately 7.5 Mha of forest loss occurred within protected areas (–5% of the respective forest area in 1992), of which 3.9 Mha was cleared between 2000 and 2015, with ~1 Mha alone converted in the 5 years after 2010. More stringent and effective land‐based policies are urgently needed to prevent additional landscape fragmentation and preserve existing species richness in the world's biodiversity hotspots.
View
View
Bending the curve of terrestrial biodiversity needs an integrated strategy
Article
Full-text available
  • Sep 2020
  • NATURE
Increased efforts are required to prevent further losses to terrestrial biodiversity and the ecosystem services that it provides1,2. Ambitious targets have been proposed, such as reversing the declining trends in biodiversity³; however, just feeding the growing human population will make this a challenge⁴. Here we use an ensemble of land-use and biodiversity models to assess whether—and how—humanity can reverse the declines in terrestrial biodiversity caused by habitat conversion, which is a major threat to biodiversity⁵. We show that immediate efforts, consistent with the broader sustainability agenda but of unprecedented ambition and coordination, could enable the provision of food for the growing human population while reversing the global terrestrial biodiversity trends caused by habitat conversion. If we decide to increase the extent of land under conservation management, restore degraded land and generalize landscape-level conservation planning, biodiversity trends from habitat conversion could become positive by the mid-twenty-first century on average across models (confidence interval, 2042–2061), but this was not the case for all models. Food prices could increase and, on average across models, almost half (confidence interval, 34–50%) of the future biodiversity losses could not be avoided. However, additionally tackling the drivers of land-use change could avoid conflict with affordable food provision and reduces the environmental effects of the food-provision system. Through further sustainable intensification and trade, reduced food waste and more plant-based human diets, more than two thirds of future biodiversity losses are avoided and the biodiversity trends from habitat conversion are reversed by 2050 for almost all of the models. Although limiting further loss will remain challenging in several biodiversity-rich regions, and other threats—such as climate change—must be addressed to truly reverse the declines in biodiversity, our results show that ambitious conservation efforts and food system transformation are central to an effective post-2020 biodiversity strategy.
View
Wild fauna conservation: IUCN-CITES match is required
Article
  • May 2020
  • ECOL INDIC
The purpose of this letter is to evaluate efficiency of wild fauna conservation at the global level. This vitally important ecological indicator is measured by the number of threatened fauna species and shows rapid raise during the last 20 years. This letter gives really New and Important result/ finding and constructive solution related to the Global problem of wild fauna conservation. A big part of threatened fauna species remains unprotected worldwide due to inefficient management between the principal conservation organizations IUCN and CITES. They have been established a long time (decades) ago, but CITES covers only part of all threatened fauna species in IUCN red list (e.g. 76,5% of mammals and only 7,7% of amphibians in 2017). Therefore a big part of threatened fauna species remains unprotected by CITES (i.e. 23,5% of mammals and 92,3% of amphibians in 2017). The threatened species uncovered by CITES may be hunted and traded and increase the total number of species exposed to extinction. Therefore, better coordination/teamwork between CITES and IUCN is required to cover all threatened species by CITES for more effective biodiversity conservation.
View