Copyright 2016 by the American Association for the Advancement of Science; all rights reserved.Land use and related pressures have reduced local terrestrial biodiversity, but it is unclear how the magnitude of change relates to the recently proposed planetary boundary ( safe limit ).We estimate that land use and related pressures have already reduced local biodiversity intactness-the average proportion of natural biodiversity remaining in local ecosystems-beyond its recently proposed planetary boundary across 58.1%of the worlds land surface, where 71.4% of the human population live. Biodiversity intactness within most biomes (especially grassland biomes), most biodiversity hotspots, and even some wilderness areas is inferred to be beyond the boundary. Such widespread transgression of safe limits suggests that biodiversity loss, if unchecked, will undermine efforts toward long-term sustainable development

To meet the ambitious objectives of biodiversity and climate conventions, countries and the international community require clarity on how these objectives can be operationalized spatially, and multiple targets be pursued concurrently 1 . To support governments and political conventions, spatial guidance is needed to identify which areas should be managed for conservation to generate the greatest synergies between biodiversity and nature's contribution to people (NCP). Here we present results from a joint optimization that maximizes improvements in species conservation status, carbon retention and water provisioning and rank terrestrial conservation priorities globally. We found that, selecting the top-ranked 30% (respectively 50%) of areas would conserve 62.4% (86.8%) of the estimated total carbon stock and 67.8% (90.7%) of all clean water provisioning, in addition to improving the conservation status for 69.7% (83.8%) of all species considered. If priority was given to biodiversity only, managing 30% of optimally located land area for conservation may be sufficient to improve the conservation status of 86.3% of plant and vertebrate species on Earth. Our results provide a global baseline on where land could be managed for conservation. We discuss how such a spatial prioritisation framework can support the implementation of the biodiversity and climate conventions.

Integrated high-resolution maps of carbon stocks and biodiversity that identify areas of potential co-benefits for climate change mitigation and biodiversity conservation can help facilitate the implementation of global climate and biodiversity commitments at local levels. However, the multi-dimensional nature of biodiversity presents a major challenge for understanding, mapping and communicating where and how biodiversity benefits coincide with climate benefits. A new integrated approach to biodiversity is therefore needed. Here, we (a) present a new high-resolution map of global above- and below-ground carbon stored in biomass and soil, (b) quantify biodiversity values using two complementary indices (BIp and BIr) representing proactive and reactive approaches to conservation, and (c) examine patterns of carbon–biodiversity overlap by identifying 'hotspots' (20% highest values for both aspects). Our indices integrate local diversity and ecosystem intactness, as well as regional ecosystem intactness across the broader area supporting a similar natural assemblage of species to the location of interest. The western Amazon Basin, Central Africa and Southeast Asia capture the last strongholds of highest local biodiversity and ecosystem intactness worldwide, while the last refuges for unique biological communities whose habitats have been greatly reduced are mostly found in the tropical Andes and central Sundaland. There is 38 and 5% overlap in carbon and biodiversity hotspots, for proactive and reactive conservation, respectively. Alarmingly, only around 12 and 21% of these proactive and reactive hotspot areas, respectively, are formally protected. This highlights that a coupled approach is urgently needed to help achieve both climate and biodiversity global targets. This would involve (1) restoring and conserving unprotected, degraded ecosystems, particularly in the Neotropics and Indomalaya, and (2) retaining the remaining strongholds of intactness. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Climate change and ecosystems: threats, opportunities and solutions’.

Currently, human society is predominantly powered by fossil fuels-coal, oil, and natural gas-yet also ultimately depends on goods and services provided by biodiversity. Fossil fuel extraction impacts biodiversity indirectly through climate change and by increasing accessibility, and directly through habitat loss and pollution. In contrast to the indirect effects, quantification of the direct impacts has been relatively neglected.To address this, we analyze the potential threat to >37,000 species and >190,000 protected areas globally from the locations of present and future fossil fuel extraction in marine and terrestrial environments. Sites that are currently exploited have higher species richness and endemism than unexploited sites, whereas known future hydrocarbon activities will predominantly move into less biodiverse locations. We identify 181 "high-risk" locations where oil or gas extraction suitability coincides with biodiversity importance, making conflicts between extraction and conservation probable. In total, protected areas are located on $3-15 trillion of unexploited hydrocarbon reserves, posing challenges and potentially opportunities for protected area management and sustainable financing.

No abstract

paragraph 64 65To meet the ambitious objectives of biodiversity and climate conventions, countries and the 66 international community require clarity on how these objectives can be operationalized spatially, 67and multiple targets be pursued concurrently 1 . To support governments and political conventions, 68 spatial guidance is needed to identify which areas should be managed for conservation to generate 69 the greatest synergies between biodiversity and nature's contribution to people (NCP). Here we 70 present results from a joint optimization that maximizes improvements in species conservation 71 status, carbon retention and water provisioning and rank terrestrial conservation priorities globally. 72We found that, selecting the top-ranked 30% (respectively 50%) of areas would conserve 62.4% 73 (86.8%) of the estimated total carbon stock and 67.8% (90.7%) of all clean water provisioning, in 74 addition to improving the conservation status for 69.7% (83.8%) of all species considered. If 75 priority was given to biodiversity only, managing 30% of optimally located land area for 76 conservation may be sufficient to improve the conservation status of 86.3% of plant and vertebrate 77 species on Earth. Our results provide a global baseline on where land could be managed for 78conservation. We discuss how such a spatial prioritisation framework can support the 79 implementation of the biodiversity and climate conventions. 80 81 82(SDGs), the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the CBD 97 emphasize that habitat conservation and restoration should contribute simultaneously to 98 biodiversity conservation and climate change mitigation 4 . Recent analyses of conservation 99priorities for biodiversity and carbon have spatially overlaid areas of importance for both assets, 100effectively treating the two goals as to be pursued separately (e.g. 6,9 ). However, multi-criteria 101 spatial optimization approaches applied to conservation and restoration prioritisation have shown 102 that carbon sequestration could be doubled, and the number of extinctions prevented tripled, if 103 priority areas were jointly identified rather than independently 10,11 . Yet, no comparable 104 optimization analyses exist at a global scale. 105A number of recent studies have attempted to map spatial conservation priorities on land 12 , 106relying on spatial conservation prioritisation (SCP) methods . However, these approaches are 107 limited, in that: they (i) are limited by geographic extent 22 or focus on only a subset of global 108 biodiversity, notably ignoring either reptiles or plant species, which show considerable variation 109 in areas of importance compared to other taxa 18,19 ; (ii) focus on species representation only, rather 110 than reducing extinction risk, as per international biodiversity targets, and often ignore other 111 dimensions of biodiversity, e.g. evolutionary distinctiveness 20,21 ; (iii) do not investigate the extent 112 to which synergies between biodiversity and NCPs, such as carbon seq...

Over the past decades, a number of national policies and international conventions have been implemented to promote the expansion of the world’s protected area network, leading to a diversification of protected area strategies, types and designations. As a result, many areas are protected by more than one convention, legal instrument, or other effective means which may result in a lack of clarity around the governance and management regimes of particular locations. We assess the degree to which different designations overlap at global, regional and national levels to understand the extent of this phenomenon at different scales. We then compare the distribution and coverage of these multi-designated areas in the terrestrial and marine realms at the global level and among different regions, and we present the percentage of each county’s protected area extent that is under more than one designation. Our findings show that almost a quarter of the world’s protected area network is protected through more than one designation. In fact, we have documented up to eight overlapping designations. These overlaps in protected area designations occur in every region of the world, both in the terrestrial and marine realms, but are more common in the terrestrial realm and in some regions, notably Europe. In the terrestrial realm, the most common overlap is between one national and one international designation. In the marine realm, the most common overlap is between any two national designations. Multi-designations are therefore a widespread phenomenon but its implications are not well understood. This analysis identifies, for the first time, multi-designated areas across all designation types. This is a key step to understand how these areas are managed and governed to then move towards integrated and collaborative approaches that consider the different management and conservation objectives of each designation.

The world's forests are crucially important for both biodiversity conservation and climate mitigation. New forest status and forest change spatial layers using remotely sensed data have revolutionised forest monitoring globally, and provide fine-scale deforestation alerts that can be actioned in near-real time. However, existing products are restricted to representing tree cover and do not reflect the considerable spatial variation in the biological importance of forests. Here we link modelled biodiversity values to remotely sensed data on tree cover to develop global maps of forest biodiversity significance (based on the rarity-weighted richness of forest mammal, bird, amphibian and conifer species) and forest biodiversity intactness (based on the modelled relationship between anthropogenic pressures and community intactness). The strengths and weaknesses of these products for policy and local decision-making are reviewed and we map out future improvements and developments that are needed to enhance their usefulness.