Biology subjects

Adams, V. M.

Publications and source records attributed to Adams, V. M..

5 recordsLinked to original sources

bioRxiv2022

The costs of global protected-area expansion (Target 3 of the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework) may fall more heavily on lower-income countries

One of the biggest stumbling blocks for global environmental agreements is how higher-income and lower-income countries share the costs of implementing them. This problem has become particularly acute as biodiversity and climate ambitions have increased across recent COPs (Conferences of Parties). Here, we estimate the likely distribution of costs for one of the most ambitious proposals: draft Target 3 of the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), which would increase coverage of protected and conserved areas (PCAs) to 30% of global land and sea area - more than triple the current value. Since the GBF does not specify where new PCAs would be placed, we use three scenarios of how Target 3 might be implemented, cost those scenarios, and then compare the mean distribution of costs across World Bank income groups. We find that in relative terms, lower-income countries could face considerably larger financial burdens than high-income countries, even though the benefits of conservation are disproportionately enjoyed by high-income countries. Lower-income countries would also face larger increases in the amount of land or sea under conservation, implying higher opportunity and establishment costs. Resolving this potential cost-sharing inequity may be a key requirement to achieve consensus on draft Target 3, and indeed on ambitious environmental proposals more generally.

ecology↗

bioRxiv2020

Areas of global importance for terrestrial biodiversity, carbon, and water

Summary paragraphTo 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 concurrently1. 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 natures 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.

ecology↗

bioRxiv2020

Global shortfalls in extinction risk assessments for endemic flora

The Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (GSPC) ambitiously calls for an assessment of extinction risk for all recognised plant taxa by 20201. It is now clear that this target will not be met in the short-term; only 21-26% of known plant species have been assessed2 - a monumental shortfall in anticipated knowledge. Yet the need for risk assessments has never been more urgent. Plants are rapidly going extinct3,4 and face threats such as climate change5 and permanent deforestation6. Extinction risk assessments continue to provide the critical foundation to inform protection, management and recovery of plant species7,8, the loss of which will have clear consequences for maintaining planetary systems and human well-being9. Here, we rank countries of the world based on progress towards assessing the extinction risk to their endemic flora. Overall, 67% of country-based endemic species do not have an extinction risk assessment completed (143,294 species). We show that some of the worlds wealthiest nations, which also have relatively strong species protections, are failing to protect their unique flora by not systematically assessing risks to their endemic species.

ecology↗

bioRxiv2020

Taking a landscape approach to conservation goals: designing multi-objective landscapes

Designing landscapes to accommodate both humans and nature poses huge challenges, but is increasingly recognised as an essential component of conservation and land management. The land-sparing land-sharing framework has been proposed as a tool to address this challenge. However, it has been largely criticised for its simplicity. We provide a new conceptual framework amenable to the application of structured decision-making that moves beyond the dichotomy of land-sparing or land-sharing. Using this new framework, we present a general system model that can be used to make land management decisions for the conservation of species, ecosystem services and production land at different spatial scales. The model can be parameterised for specific systems using information about: the current state of the landscape, the rates of change between landscape states, and the cost and effectiveness of taking actions. To demonstrate the utility of the model we apply it to three different landscape types. Across our three case studies, we show that investment into one of three management actions (varying degrees of management and restoration) can move the system towards more biodiversity or more managed land depending on the objectives of the land manager. We show that the dynamic and flexible nature of the landscape is important to take into account rather than a static snapshot in time. Rather than focusing on establishing the perfect landscape with a set proportion dedicated to production and to biodiversity conservation, we argue that a more useful approach is to establish incremental movements towards a landscape that meets the goals of multiple objectives. Our framework can be used to illustrate to decision makers the costs and trade-offs of different actions and help them determine land management policy.

ecology↗

bioRxiv2019

Conservation attention necessary across at least 44% of Earth’s terrestrial area to safeguard biodiversity

More ambitious conservation efforts are needed to stop the global biodiversity crisis. Here, we estimate the minimum land area to secure important sites for terrestrial fauna, ecologically intact areas, and the optimal locations for representation of species ranges and ecoregions. We discover that at least 64 million km2 (44% of terrestrial area) requires conservation attention. Over 1.8 billion people live on these lands so responses that promote agency, self-determination, equity, and sustainable management for safeguarding biodiversity are essential. Spatially explicit land-use scenarios suggest that 1.3 million km2 of land requiring conservation could be lost to intensive human land-uses by 2030, which requires immediate attention. However, there is a seven-fold difference between the amount of habitat converted under optimistic and pessimistic scenarios, highlighting an opportunity to avert this crisis. Appropriate targets in the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework to ensure conservation of the identified land would contribute substantially to safeguarding biodiversity.

ecology↗