Publisher Correction: npj Biodiversity, volume 3, missing Data Availability statements
Related Articles
Biodiversity offsets, their effectiveness and their role in a nature positive future
Biodiversity offsetting is a mechanism for addressing the impacts of development projects on biodiversity, but the practice remains controversial and its effectiveness generally poor. In the context of the Global Biodiversity Framework and the emergence of new approaches for mitigating damage, we need to learn from the past. In this Review, we explore biodiversity offsetting, its effectiveness and its future prospects, especially in relation to ‘nature positive’ goals. Offsets often fall short of their stated goal: to achieve at least no net loss of affected biodiversity. However, such failures are prominent because offsets have more explicit quantitative objectives than most other conservation approaches, whose effectiveness is also variable. These clear objectives provide the potential for the transparency that alternative approaches to addressing negative human impacts on biodiversity lack. Unfortunately, promising alternatives are scarce, so offsetting and offset-like mechanisms remain a necessary component of strategies to halt and reverse nature loss. However, improving their performance is essential. No quick and easy solution exists; instead, upholding best practice principles and rigorous implementation — including in the face of challenges from opposing narratives and interest groups — remains key.
The current state, opportunities and challenges for upscaling private investment in biodiversity in Europe
European countries have committed to ambitious upscaling of privately funded nature conservation. We review the status and drivers of biodiversity finance in Europe. By implementing semistructured interviews with 25 biodiversity finance key informants and three focus groups across Europe, we explore opportunities and challenges for upscaling private investment in nature. Opportunities arise from macroeconomic and regulatory changes, along with various technological and financial innovations and growing professional experience. However, persistent barriers to upscaling include the ongoing lack of highly profitable investment opportunities and the multitude of risks facing investors, including political, ecological and reputational risks influencing supply and demand of investment opportunities. Public policy plays the foundational role in creating and hindering these mechanisms. Public policy can create nature markets and investment opportunities, meanwhile agricultural subsidies and poor coordination between public funding sources undermine the supply of return-seeking investment opportunities. Investors demand derisking investments from uncertainties; in part caused by political uncertainty. These markets require profound state intervention to enable upscaling whilst achieving positive ecological outcomes; private investment will probably not upscale without major public policy change and public investment.
Perceptions of biodiversity loss among future decision-makers in 37 countries
The decline of global biodiversity is a major environmental issue with far-reaching consequences for humans and the Earth System. When it comes to biodiversity conservation, university students play an important role because, as future decision makers, they will have an important influence on how society deals with biodiversity loss. Until now, there has been no international research examining how these future decision-makers in society perceive the causes of biodiversity loss. Using a recent method customized for this data, we show here that there are eight distinct response types across the 37 countries studied that differ in their perceptions of the drivers of biodiversity loss. In one of these response types, climate change was underestimated, while in others pollution or invasive species were rated substantially lower compared to the other main drivers. The distribution of the eight response types varied between the countries. Our results demonstrate how future decision-makers around the world evaluate the drivers of biodiversity loss. Country-specific conditions and differences between the surveyed countries were revealed. The findings serve as a starting point for decision-makers around the world to tailor education programs and policy measurements to the circumstances in their countries.
Caught in the crossfire: biodiversity conservation paradox of sociopolitical conflict
The current state of global biodiversity is confronted with escalating threats arising from human-induced environmental changes and a growing array of unpredictable challenges. However, effective conservation efforts are often hindered by limited knowledge, especially in developing economies such as the Philippines. The limitations imposed by these shortfalls in biodiversity knowledge hamper the capacity to protect biodiversity in light of the continuing extinction crisis. Our study revealed that areas with higher conflict levels exhibited lower species richness, fewer occurrence records, and reduced forest cover. This finding provides initial evidence for the relationship between sociopolitical conflict and biodiversity in the Philippines. We posit that the security risks caused by sociopolitical conflicts could have a negative impact on conservation efforts, particularly in terms of monitoring and implementing measures to protect natural resources. The links that bind armed conflict and biodiversity conservation are multifaceted and complex issues that warrant greater scientific and political attention. Finally, we identified 10 meaningful approaches to address shortfalls in biodiversity knowledge in conflicted areas, particularly incorporating conflict-sensitive approaches, considering the geopolitical context and conflict dynamics to adapt and align their strategies with local realities for more effective conservation efforts.
Pathogens and planetary change
Emerging infectious diseases, biodiversity loss, and anthropogenic environmental change are interconnected crises with massive social and ecological costs. In this Review, we discuss how pathogens and parasites are responding to global change, and the implications for pandemic prevention and biodiversity conservation. Ecological and evolutionary principles help to explain why both pandemics and wildlife die-offs are becoming more common; why land-use change and biodiversity loss are often followed by an increase in zoonotic and vector-borne diseases; and why some species, such as bats, host so many emerging pathogens. To prevent the next pandemic, scientists should focus on monitoring and limiting the spread of a handful of high-risk viruses, especially at key interfaces such as farms and live-animal markets. But to address the much broader set of infectious disease risks associated with the Anthropocene, decision-makers will need to develop comprehensive strategies that include pathogen surveillance across species and ecosystems; conservation-based interventions to reduce human–animal contact and protect wildlife health; health system strengthening; and global improvements in epidemic preparedness and response. Scientists can contribute to these efforts by filling global gaps in disease data, and by expanding the evidence base for disease–driver relationships and ecological interventions.
Responses