Gaps and opportunities for the World Heritage Convention to contribute to global wilderness conservation

Wilderness areas are ecologically intact landscapes predominantly free of human uses, especially industrial‐scale activities that result in substantial biophysical disturbance. This definition does not exclude land and resource use by local communities who depend on such areas for subsistence and bio‐cultural connections. Wilderness areas are important for biodiversity conservation and sustain key ecological processes and ecosystem services that underpin planetary life‐support systems. Despite these widely recognized benefits and values of wilderness, they are insufficiently protected and are consequently being rapidly eroded. There are increasing calls for multilateral environmental agreements to make a greater and more systematic contribution to wilderness conservation before it is too late. We created a global map of remaining terrestrial wilderness following the established last‐of‐the‐wild method, which identifies the 10% of areas with the lowest human pressure within each of Earth's 62 biogeographic realms and identifies the 10 largest contiguous areas and all contiguous areas >10,000 km². We used our map to assess wilderness coverage by the World Heritage Convention and to identify gaps in coverage. We then identified large nationally designated protected areas with good wilderness coverage within these gaps. One‐quarter of natural and mixed (i.e., sites of both natural and cultural value) World Heritage Sites (WHS) contained wilderness (total of 545,307 km²), which is approximately 1.8% of the world's wilderness extent. Many WHS had excellent wilderness coverage, for example, the Okavango Delta in Botswana (11,914 km²) and the Central Suriname Nature Reserve (16,029 km²). However, 22 (35%) of the world's terrestrial biorealms had no wilderness representation within WHS. We identified 840 protected areas of >500 km² that were predominantly wilderness (>50% of their area) and represented 18 of the 22 missing biorealms. These areas offer a starting point for assessing the potential for the designation of new WHSs that could help increase wilderness representation on the World Heritage list. We urge the World Heritage Convention to ensure that the ecological integrity and outstanding universal value of existing WHS with wilderness values are preserved.     

Bias in protected‐area location and its effects on long‐term aspirations of biodiversity conventions

To contribute to the aspirations of recent international biodiversity conventions, protected areas (PAs) must be strategically located and not simply established on economically marginal lands as they have in the past. With refined international commitments under the Convention on Biological Diversity to target protected areas in places of “importance to biodiversity,” perhaps they may now be. We analyzed location biases in PAs globally over historic (pre‐2004) and recent periods. Specifically, we examined whether the location of protected areas are more closely associated with high concentrations of threatened vertebrate species or with areas of low agricultural opportunity costs. We found that both old and new protected areas did not target places with high concentrations of threatened vertebrate species. Instead, they appeared to be established in locations that minimize conflict with agriculturally suitable lands. This entrenchment of past trends has substantial implications for the contributions these protected areas are making to international commitments to conserve biodiversity. If protected‐area growth from 2004 to 2014 had strategically targeted unrepresented threatened vertebrates, >30 times more species (3086 or 2553 potential vs. 85 actual new species represented) would have been protected for the same area or the same cost as the actual expansion. With the land available for conservation declining, nations must urgently focus new protection on places that provide for the conservation outcomes outlined in international treaties.     

Current Status of Marine Protected Areas in Latin America and the Caribbean

Abstract: Marine protected areas (MPAs), including no‐take marine reserves (MRs), play an important role in the conservation of marine biodiversity. We document the status of MPAs and MRs in Latin America and the Caribbean, where little has been reported on the scope of such protection. Our survey of protected area databases, published and unpublished literature, and Internet searches yielded information from 30 countries and 12 overseas territories. At present more than 700 MPAs have been established, covering more than 300,000 km² or 1.5% of the coastal and shelf waters. We report on the status of 3 categories of protection: MPAs (limited take throughout the area), MRs (no‐take throughout the area), and mixed‐use (a limited‐take MPA that contains an MR). The majority of protected areas in Latin America and the Caribbean are MPAs, which allow some or extensive extractive activities throughout the designated area. These 571 sites cover 51,505 km² or 0.3% of coastal and shelf waters. There are 98 MRs covering 16,862 km² or 0.1% of the coastal and shelf waters. Mixed‐use MPAs are the fewest in number (87), but cover the largest area (236,853 km², 1.2%). Across Latin America and the Caribbean, many biogeographic provinces are underrepresented in these protected areas. Large coastal regions remain unprotected, in particular, the southern Pacific and southern Atlantic coasts of South America. Our analysis reveals multiple opportunities to strengthen marine conservation in Latin America and the Caribbean by improving implementation, management, and enforcement of existing MPAs; adding new MPAs and MRs strategically to enhance connectivity and sustainability of existing protection; and establishing new networks of MPAs and MRs or combinations thereof to enhance protection where little currently exists.     

Local Land‐Use Planning to Conserve Biodiversity: Planners’ Perspectives on What Works

Abstract: Because habitat loss due to urbanization is a primary threat to biodiversity, and land‐use decisions in urbanizing areas are mainly made at the local level, land‐use planning by municipal planning departments has a potentially important—but largely unrealized—role in conserving biodiversity. To understand planners’ perspectives on the factors that facilitate and impede biodiversity conservation in local planning, we interviewed directors of 17 municipal planning departments in the greater Seattle (Washington, U.S.A.) area and compared responses of planners from similar‐sized jurisdictions that were “high” and “low performing” with respect to incorporation of biodiversity conservation in local planning. Planners from low‐performing jurisdictions regarded mandates from higher governmental levels as the primary drivers of biodiversity conservation, whereas those from high‐performing jurisdictions regarded community values as the main drivers, although they also indicated that mandates were important. Biodiversity conservation was associated with presence of local conservation flagship elements (e.g., salmonids) and human‐centered benefits of biodiversity conservation (e.g., quality of life). Planners from high‐ and low‐performing jurisdictions favored different planning mechanisms for biodiversity conservation, perhaps reflecting differences in funding and staffing. High performers reported more collaborations with other entities on biodiversity issues. Planners’ comments indicated that the term biodiversity may be problematic in the context of local planning. The action most planners recommended to increase biodiversity conservation in local planning was public education. These results suggest that to advance biodiversity conservation in local land‐use planning, conservation biologists should investigate and educate the public about local conservation flagships and human benefits of local biodiversity, work to raise ecological literacy and explain biodiversity more effectively to the public, and promote collaboration on biodiversity conservation among jurisdictions and inclusion of biodiversity specialists in planning departments.     

Toward equality of biodiversity knowledge through technology transfer

To help stem the continuing decline of biodiversity, effective transfer of technology from resource‐rich to biodiversity‐rich countries is required. Biodiversity technology as defined by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is a complex term, encompassing a wide variety of activities and interest groups. As yet, there is no robust framework by which to monitor the extent to which technology transfer might benefit biodiversity. We devised a definition of biodiversity technology and a framework for the monitoring of technology transfer between CBD signatories. Biodiversity technology within the scope of the CBD encompasses hard and soft technologies that are relevant to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, or make use of genetic resources, and that relate to all aspects of the CBD, with a particular focus on technology transfer from resource‐rich to biodiversity‐rich countries. Our proposed framework introduces technology transfer as a response indicator: technology transfer is increased to stem pressures on biodiversity. We suggest an initial approach of tracking technology flow between countries; charting this flow is likely to be a one‐to‐many relationship (i.e., the flow of a specific technology from one country to multiple countries). Future developments should then focus on integrating biodiversity technology transfer into the current pressure‐state‐response indicator framework favored by the CBD (i.e., measuring the influence of technology transfer on changes in state and pressure variables). Structured national reporting is important to obtaining metrics relevant to technology and knowledge transfer. Interim measures, that can be used to assess biodiversity technology or knowledge status while more in‐depth indicators are being developed, include the number of species inventories, threatened species lists, or national red lists; databases on publications and project funding may provide measures of international cooperation. Such a pragmatic approach, followed by rigorous testing of specific technology transfer metrics submitted by CBD signatories in a standardized manner may in turn improve the focus of future targets on technology transfer for biodiversity conservation.     

Effectiveness of Marine Protected Areas in the Philippines for Biodiversity Conservation

Abstract: Quantifying the extent to which existing reserves meet conservation objectives and identifying gaps in coverage are vital to developing systematic protected‐area networks. Despite widespread recognition of the Philippines as a global priority for marine conservation, limited work has been undertaken to evaluate the conservation effectiveness of existing marine protected areas (MPAs). Targets for MPA coverage in the Philippines have been specified in the 1998 Fisheries Code legislation, which calls for 15% of coastal municipal waters (within 15 km of the coastline) to be protected within no‐take MPAs, and the Philippine Marine Sanctuary Strategy (2004), which aims to protect 10% of coral reef area in no‐take MPAs by 2020. We used a newly compiled database of nearly 1000 MPAs to measure progress toward these targets. We evaluated conservation effectiveness of MPAs in two ways. First, we determined the degree to which marine bioregions and conservation priority areas are represented within existing MPAs. Second, we assessed the size and spacing patterns of reserves in terms of best‐practice recommendations. We found that the current extent and distribution of MPAs does not adequately represent biodiversity. At present just 0.5% of municipal waters and 2.7–3.4% of coral reef area in the Philippines are protected in no‐take MPAs. Moreover, 85% of no‐take area is in just two sites; 90% of MPAs are <1 km². Nevertheless, distances between existing MPAs should ensure larval connectivity between them, providing opportunities to develop regional‐scale MPA networks. Despite the considerable success of community‐based approaches to MPA implementation in the Philippines, this strategy will not be sufficient to meet conservation targets, even under a best‐case scenario for future MPA establishment. We recommend that implementation of community‐based MPAs be supplemented by designation of additional large no‐take areas specifically located to address conservation targets.     

Effectiveness of China's National Forest Protection Program and nature reserves

There is profound interest in knowing the degree to which China's institutions are capable of protecting its natural forests and biodiversity in the face of economic and political change. China's 2 most important forest‐protection policies are its National Forest Protection Program (NFPP) and its national‐level nature reserves (NNRs). The NFPP was implemented in 2000 in response to deforestation‐caused flooding. We undertook the first national, quantitative assessment of the NFPP and NNRs to examine whether the NFPP achieved its deforestation‐reduction target and whether the NNRs deter deforestation altogether. We used MODIS data to estimate forest cover and loss across mainland China (2000–2010). We also assembled the first‐ever polygon dataset for China's forested NNRs (n = 237, 74,030 km² in 2000) and used both conventional and covariate‐matching approaches to compare deforestation rates inside and outside NNRs (2000–2010). In 2000, 1.765 million km² or 18.7% of mainland China was forested (12.3% with canopy cover of ≥70%)) or woodland (6.4% with canopy cover <70% and tree plus shrub cover ≥40%). By 2010, 480,203 km² of forest and woodland had been lost, an annual deforestation rate of 2.7%. Forest‐only loss was 127,473 km² (1.05% annually). In the NFPP provinces, the forest‐only loss rate was 0.62%, which was 3.3 times lower than in the non‐NFPP provinces. Moreover, the Landsat data suggest that these loss rates are overestimates due to large MODIS pixel size. Thus, China appears to have achieved, and even exceeded, its target of reducing deforestation to 1.1% annually in the NFPP provinces. About two‐thirds of China's NNRs were effective in protecting forest cover (prevented loss 4073 km² unmatched approach; 3148 km² matched approach), and within‐NNR deforestation rates were higher in provinces with higher overall deforestation. Our results indicate that China's existing institutions can protect domestic forest cover.     

Enhancing synergies between action on ocean acidification and the post-2020 global biodiversity framework

Ocean acidification is a substantial emergent threat to marine biodiversity and the goods and services it provides. Although efforts to address ocean acidification have been taken under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), a far greater potential to do so exists by finding synergies between biodiversity conservation efforts and ocean acidification action. The ongoing process to develop a post-2020 global biodiversity framework offers an opportunity to ensure that opportunities for addressing ocean acidification are capitalized on and not overlooked. I argue that to achieve this, the following are needed: a technical integration of ocean acidification across the targets to be included in the post-2020 framework and a reframing of the issue as a biodiversity problem so as to highlight the synergies between existing biodiversity work and action needed to address ocean acidification. Given that the post-2020 framework is intended to establish the global biodiversity agenda for the coming decades, integration of ocean acidification will set a precedent for the other biodiversity-related conventions and encourage greater uptake of the issue across the wider international community. My approach is of direct relevance to those participating in the negotiations, both from a CBD Party perspective and the perspective of those advocating for a strong outcome to protect marine biodiversity and marine socioecological systems. My discussion of framing is relevant to those working beyond the CBD within other biodiversity-related conventions in which goals to address ocean acidification are sorely lacking.     

Quantifying the relative irreplaceability of important bird and biodiversity areas

World governments have committed to increase the global protected areas coverage by 2020, but the effectiveness of this commitment for protecting biodiversity depends on where new protected areas are located. Threshold‐ and complementarity‐based approaches have been independently used to identify important sites for biodiversity. We brought together these approaches by performing a complementarity‐based analysis of irreplaceability in important bird and biodiversity areas (IBAs), which are sites identified using a threshold‐based approach. We determined whether irreplaceability values are higher inside than outside IBAs and whether any observed difference depends on known characteristics of the IBAs. We focused on 3 regions with comprehensive IBA inventories and bird distribution atlases: Australia, southern Africa, and Europe. Irreplaceability values were significantly higher inside than outside IBAs, although differences were much smaller in Europe than elsewhere. Higher irreplaceability values in IBAs were associated with the presence and number of restricted‐range species; number of criteria under which the site was identified; and mean geographic range size of the species for which the site was identified (trigger species). In addition, IBAs were characterized by higher irreplaceability values when using proportional species representation targets, rather than fixed targets. There were broadly comparable results when measuring irreplaceability for trigger species and when considering all bird species, which indicates a good surrogacy effect of the former. Recently, the International Union for Conservation of Nature has convened a consultation to consolidate global standards for the identification of key biodiversity areas (KBAs), building from existing approaches such as IBAs. Our results informed this consultation, and in particular a proposed irreplaceability criterion that will allow the new KBA standard to draw on the strengths of both threshold‐ and complementarity‐based approaches.     

The Biogeography of Globally Threatened Seabirds and Island Conservation Opportunities

Seabirds are the most threatened group of marine animals; 29% of species are at some risk of extinction. Significant threats to seabirds occur on islands where they breed, but in many cases, effective island conservation can mitigate these threats. To guide island‐based seabird conservation actions, we identified all islands with extant or extirpated populations of the 98 globally threatened seabird species, as recognized on the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List, and quantified the presence of threatening invasive species, protected areas, and human populations. We matched these results with island attributes to highlight feasible island conservation opportunities. We identified 1362 threatened breeding seabird populations on 968 islands. On 803 (83%) of these islands, we identified threatening invasive species (20%), incomplete protected area coverage (23%), or both (40%). Most islands with threatened seabirds are amenable to island‐wide conservation action because they are small (57% were <1 km²), uninhabited (74%), and occur in high‐ or middle‐income countries (96%). Collectively these attributes make islands with threatened seabirds a rare opportunity for effective conservation at scale. La Biogeografía de Aves Marinas Amenazadas Globalmente y las Oportunidades de Conservación en Islas     

Spatial patterns of carbon,biodiversity, deforestation threat,and REDD+ projects in Indonesia

There are concerns that Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD+) may fail to deliver potential biodiversity cobenefits if it is focused on high carbon areas. We explored the spatial overlaps between carbon stocks, biodiversity, projected deforestation threats, and the location of REDD+ projects in Indonesia, a tropical country at the forefront of REDD+ development. For biodiversity, we assembled data on the distribution of terrestrial vertebrates (ranges of amphibians, mammals, birds, reptiles) and plants (species distribution models for 8 families). We then investigated congruence between different measures of biodiversity richness and carbon stocks at the national and subnational scales. Finally, we mapped active REDD+ projects and investigated the carbon density and potential biodiversity richness and modeled deforestation pressures within these forests relative to protected areas and unprotected forests. There was little internal overlap among the different hotspots (richest 10% of cells) of species richness. There was also no consistent spatial congruence between carbon stocks and the biodiversity measures: a weak negative correlation at the national scale masked highly variable and nonlinear relationships island by island. Current REDD+ projects were preferentially located in areas with higher total species richness and threatened species richness but lower carbon densities than protected areas and unprotected forests. Although a quarter of the total area of these REDD+ projects is under relatively high deforestation pressure, the majority of the REDD+ area is not. In Indonesia at least, first‐generation REDD+ projects are located where they are likely to deliver biodiversity benefits. However, if REDD+ is to deliver additional gains for climate and biodiversity, projects will need to focus on forests with the highest threat to deforestation, which will have cost implications for future REDD+ implementation.     

Representation of critical natural capital in China

Traditional means of assessing representativeness of conservation value in protected areas depend on measures of structural biodiversity. The effectiveness of priority conservation areas at representing critical natural capital (CNC) (i.e., an essential and renewable subset of natural capital) remains largely unknown. We analyzed the representativeness of CNC‐conservation priority areas in national nature reserves (i.e., nature reserves under jurisdiction of the central government with large spatial distribution across the provinces) in China with a new biophysical‐based composite indicator approach. With this approach, we integrated the net primary production of vegetation, topography, soil, and climate variables to map and rank terrestrial ecosystems capacities to generate CNC. National nature reserves accounted for 6.7% of CNC‐conservation priority areas across China. Considerable gaps (35.2%) existed between overall (or potential) CNC representativeness nationally and CNC representation in national reserves, and there was significant spatial heterogeneity of representativeness in CNC‐conservation priority areas at the regional and provincial levels. For example, the best and worst representations were, respectively, 13.0% and 1.6% regionally and 28.9% and 0.0% provincially. Policy in China is transitioning toward the goal of an ecologically sustainable civilization. We identified CNC‐conservation priority areas and conservation gaps and thus contribute to the policy goals of optimization of the national nature reserve network and the demarcation of areas critical to improving the representativeness and conservation of highly functioning areas of natural capital. Moreover, our method for assessing representation of CNC can be easily adapted to other large‐scale networks of conservation areas because few data are needed, and our model is relatively simple.     

Assessing the effectiveness of specially protected areas for conservation of Antarctica's botanical diversity

Vegetation is sparsely distributed over Antarctica's ice‐free ground, and distinct plant communities are present in each of the continent's 15 recently identified Antarctic Conservation Biogeographic Regions (ACBRs). With rapidly increasing human activity in Antarctica, terrestrial plant communities are at risk of damage or destruction by trampling, overland transport, and infrastructure construction and from the impacts of anthropogenically introduced species, as well as uncontrollable pressures such as fur seal (Arctocephalus gazella) activity and climate change. Under the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, the conservation of plant communities can be enacted and facilitated through the designation of Antarctic Specially Protected Areas (ASPAs). We examined the distribution within the 15 ACBRs of the 33 ASPAs whose explicit purpose includes protecting macroscopic terrestrial flora. We completed the first survey using normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) satellite remote sensing to provide baseline data on the extent of vegetation cover in all ASPAs designated for plant protection in Antarctica. Large omissions in the protection of Antarctic botanical diversity were found. There was no protection of plant communities in 6 ACBRs, and in another 6, <0.4% of the ACBR area was included in an ASPA that protected vegetation. Protected vegetation cover within the 33 ASPAs totaled 16.1 km² for the entire Antarctic continent; over half was within a single protected area. Over 96% of the protected vegetation was contained in 2 ACBRs, which together contributed only 7.8% of the continent's ice‐free ground. We conclude that Antarctic botanical diversity is clearly inadequately protected and call for systematic designation of ASPAs protecting plant communities by the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties, the members of the governing body of the continent.     

Benefits to poorly studied taxa of conservation of bird and mammal diversity on islands

Protected area delineation and conservation action are urgently needed on marine islands, but the potential biodiversity benefits of these activities can be difficult to assess due to lack of species diversity information for lesser known taxa. We used linear mixed effects modeling and simple spatial analyses to investigate whether conservation activities based on the diversity of well‐known insular taxa (birds and mammals) are likely to also capture the diversity of lesser known taxa (reptiles, amphibians, vascular land plants, ants, land snails, butterflies, and tenebrionid beetles). We assembled total, threatened, and endemic diversity data for both well‐known and lesser known taxa and combined these with physical island biogeography characteristics for 1190 islands from 109 archipelagos. Among physical island biogeography factors, island area was the best indicator of diversity of both well‐known and little‐known taxa. Among taxonomic factors, total mammal species richness was the best indicator of total diversity of lesser known taxa, and the combination of threatened mammal and threatened bird diversity was the best indicator of lesser known endemic richness. The results of other intertaxon diversity comparisons were highly variable, however. Based on our results, we suggest that protecting islands above a certain minimum threshold area may be the most efficient use of conservation resources. For example, using our island database, if the threshold were set at 10 km² and the smallest 10% of islands greater than this threshold were protected, 119 islands would be protected. The islands would range in size from 10 to 29 km² and would include 268 lesser known species endemic to a single island, along with 11 bird and mammal species endemic to a single island. Our results suggest that for islands of equivalent size, prioritization based on total or threatened bird and mammal diversity may also capture opportunities to protect lesser known species endemic to islands. Beneficios de los Taxa Poco Estudiados para la Conservación de la Diversidad de Aves y Mamíferos en Islas     

Ecological‐Niche Modeling and Prioritization of Conservation‐Area Networks for Mexican Herpetofauna

Abstract: One of the most important tools in conservation biology is information on the geographic distribution of species and the variables determining those patterns. We used maximum‐entropy niche modeling to run distribution models for 222 amphibian and 371 reptile species (49% endemics and 27% threatened) for which we had 34,619 single geographic records. The planning region is in southeastern Mexico, is 20% of the country's area, includes 80% of the country's herpetofauna, and lacks an adequate protected‐area system. We used probabilistic data to build distribution models of herpetofauna for use in prioritizing conservation areas for three target groups (all species and threatened and endemic species). The accuracy of species‐distribution models was better for endemic and threatened species than it was for all species. Forty‐seven percent of the region has been deforested and additional conservation areas with 13.7% to 88.6% more native vegetation (76% to 96% of the areas are outside the current protected‐area system) are needed. There was overlap in 26 of the main selected areas in the conservation‐area network prioritized to preserve the target groups, and for all three target groups the proportion of vegetation types needed for their conservation was constant: 30% pine and oak forests, 22% tropical evergreen forest, 17% low deciduous forest, and 8% montane cloud forests. The fact that different groups of species require the same proportion of habitat types suggests that the pine and oak forests support the highest proportion of endemic and threatened species and should therefore be given priority over other types of vegetation for inclusion in the protected areas of southeastern Mexico.     

Social capital as a key determinant of perceived benefits of community‐based marine protected areas

Globally, marine protected areas (MPAs) have been relatively unsuccessful in meeting biodiversity objectives. To be effective, they require some alteration of people's use and access to marine resources, which they will resist if they do not perceive associated benefits. Stakeholders’ support is crucial to ecological success of MPAs, and their support is likely to depend on their capacity to adapt to and benefit from MPAs. We examined the influence of social adaptive capacity (SAC) on perceived benefits of MPAs in Siquijor, Philippines, in the Coral Triangle. This region has substantial biodiversity and a population of over 120 million people, many of them dependent on marine resources for food and income. The region has many MPAs, most of which are managed under decentralized governance systems. We collected survey data from 540 households in 19 villages with associated MPAs. We evaluated the influence of multiple SAC variables (e.g., occupational multiplicity and social capital) on perceived benefits with decision trees (CHAID) and qualitatively analyzed this relationship with respect to types and recipients of benefits. Our models revealed the key role of social capital, particularly trust in leadership, in influencing perceptions of benefits (χ² = 14.762, p = 0.000). A path analysis revealed that perceptions of distributional equity were a key mechanism through which social capital affected perceived MPA benefits (root mean‐square error of approximation = 0.050). Building social capital and equity within communities could lead to more effective management of MPAs and thus to expenditure of fewer resources relative to, for example, regulation enforcement.     

Restoration planning to guide Aichi targets in a megadiverse country

Ecological restoration has become an important strategy to conserve biodiversity and ecosystems services. To restore 15% of degraded ecosystems as stipulated by the Convention on Biological Diversity Aichi target 15, we developed a prioritization framework to identify potential priority sites for restoration in Mexico, a megadiverse country. We used the most current biological and environmental data on Mexico to assess areas of biological importance and restoration feasibility at national scale and engaged stakeholders and experts throughout the process. We integrated 8 criteria into 2 components (i.e., biological importance and restoration feasibility) in a spatial multicriteria analysis and generated 11 scenarios to test the effect of assigning different component weights. The priority restoration sites were distributed across all terrestrial ecosystems of Mexico; 64.1% were in degraded natural vegetation and 6% were in protected areas. Our results provide a spatial guide to where restoration could enhance the persistence of species of conservation concern and vulnerable ecosystems while maximizing the likelihood of restoration success. Such spatial prioritization is a first step in informing policy makers and restoration planners where to focus local and large‐scale restoration efforts, which should additionally incorporate social and monetary cost–benefit considerations.     

Perspectives on area-based conservation and its meaning for future biodiversity policy

During 2021, Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) are expected to meet in Kunming, China, to agree on a new global biodiversity framework aimed at halting and reversing biodiversity loss, encouraging the sustainable use of biodiversity, and ensuring the equitable sharing of its benefits. As the post-2020 global biodiversity framework evolves, parties to the convention are being exposed to a range of perspectives on the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, relating to the future framework as a whole or to aspects of it. Area-based conservation measures are one such aspect, and there are diverse perspectives on how new targets might be framed in relation to these measures. These perspectives represent different outlooks on the relationship between human and nonhuman life on Earth. However, in most cases there is a lack of clarity on how they would be implemented in practice, the implications this would have for biodiversity and human well-being, and how they would contribute to achieving the 2050 Vision for Biodiversity of “living in harmony with nature.” We sought to clarify these issues by summarizing some of these perspectives in relation to the future of area-based biodiversity conservation. We identified these perspectives through a review of the literature and expert consultation workshops and compiled them into 4 main groups: Aichi+, ambitious area-based conservation perspectives, new conservation, and whole-earth conservation. We found that although the perspectives Aichi+ and whole earth are in some cases at odds with one another, they also have commonalities, and all perspectives have elements that can contribute to developing and implementing the post-2020 global biodiversity framework and achieving the longer term CBD 2050 Vision.