Thomas Viegas’ Post

Do conservation efforts result in positive outcomes for biodiversity? As governments around the world have adopted global targets to halt and reverse the loss of biodiversity, it’s important to understand the outcomes of conservation actions. A recent meta-analysis finds that two-thirds of the time,  conservation actions had a net positive effect—but did not necessarily stop biodiversity decline. What does this mean in layman’s terms? Conservation actions including protected areas and management provide better outcomes for biodiversity than no action. Read the full study in Science Magazine: https://bit.ly/4baEdya  

#sciencesunday Are we truly having an impact on biodiversity conservation? The ongoing biodiversity crisis demands urgent intervention to shield species from extinction and ecosystems from major damage. Every year, billions of dollars are directed toward worldwide conservation efforts. It's crucial to evaluate the effectiveness of these initiatives in promoting biodiversity to inform future approaches. A study by Langhammer et al. analyzed whether conservation actions, such as protected areas and management, lead to improved outcomes compared to doing nothing. The study concluded that in over half of the cases, conservation measures had a beneficial effect, though they did not completely halt the global decline in biodiversity. Putting the costs into perspective, they concluded: "Although high, these costs are dwarfed by the value that biodiversity provides to society through the delivery of ecosystem services. Thus, conservation actions are investments rather than payments—and, as our study demonstrates, they are typically investments that yield genuine, high-magnitude positive impacts." Get the full study from Science Magazine: https://lnkd.in/dHvrsSXi

🟢 Some great news today - Conservation slows biodiversity loss This article shared by Joe W Bull, published in Science Magazine represents a significant milestone in understanding the effectiveness of nature conservation interventions. Over nearly a decade of research, the authors aimed to assess whether conservation efforts, such as protected areas and habitat restoration, are indeed successful in reversing global biodiversity declines - https://lnkd.in/dBqbGyMW Using data from over 600 trials spanning more than a century, the researchers rigorously analyzed the outcomes of conservation interventions against a scenario where no conservation efforts were implemented. They found that in 66% of cases, conservation interventions were more effective than taking no action at all. Particularly successful were efforts focused on controlling invasive species, preventing habitat loss, restoring habitats, and sustainably managing ecosystems. In the UK, conservation efforts have been multifaceted and wide-ranging. As of 2021, the UK government pledged £40 million to support nature-based projects across England, with an additional £80 million allocated for tree planting initiatives. The UK government's "Nature Recovery Network" aims to create and restore 500,000 hectares of wildlife-rich habitat by 2043. The "Nature Friendly Farming Network" advocates for farming practices that prioritize biodiversity conservation and ecosystem health.

Conservation works - we just need more of it! That needs resources and political will from governments across the world. Insightful study by team at Re:wild and many others. Summed up nicely in the discussion section of the paper: "Although the state of biodiversity is declining across the globe in absolute terms, conservation actions work most of the time—the challenge now is to expand these to the scale necessary to reverse the global biodiversity crisis. That is, conservation interventions are working but there are simply not enough conservation actions implemented or in the right places. Realizing the highly ambitious vision of the Global Biodiversity Framework—not simply to slow declines of biodiversity by the end of the decade but to reverse them—will require ... substantially scaled-up funding and commitment for implementation of demonstrably effective conservation interventions ... which in turn depends on increased political will and investment."

First-of-its-kind study shows that conservation actions are effective at halting and reversing biodiversity loss: https://lnkd.in/gZTxWzpY Here, have a spark of hope. The reality is that no single person can fix the entirety of the current ecological imbalance that has been literally centuries in the making at this point. Yet there are so, so many of us who care, and who are doing what we can to make a difference in whatever every day to day ways we're able. I often think of conservation efforts like the Loren Eiseley story "The Star Thrower" (aka, "the starfish story"). Amid a beach full of stranded starfish, one person cannot possibly save them all, but they can spend what time they have saving those they're able. And this study shows that these efforts do, in fact, make a difference, not just for starfish but a myriad of species. This meta-analysis of almost 200 studies definitively proves that conservation preserves and restores biodiversity, keeping more species from going extinct. It's all too easy to get entangled in the losses, but we even more need to allow ourselves to celebrate the wins. That success is crucial to convincing governmental entities and other stakeholders that putting funds toward conservation efforts makes a significant difference and is not only worth the investment, but worth increasing. And, on a personal level, it's necessary for those of us who care so deeply for this world to know when our efforts are having an impact, to buoy us up when the anxiety and grief over ecological destruction wears us down. Keep it up, folks; it's helping.

The Research Article "The Positive Impact of Conservation Action" by Penny F. Langhammer et al. presents a comprehensive global meta-analysis to assess the effectiveness of various conservation actions on biodiversity. This analysis synthesizes outcomes from 186 studies, encompassing 665 trials, to quantitatively measure biodiversity changes over time and compare these changes against scenarios where no conservation action was taken. The study aims to determine empirically whether conservation efforts fulfill ecological roles. The findings reveal that in two-thirds of the cases, conservation actions either improved biodiversity conditions or mitigated further declines. This significant trend underscores the effectiveness of targeted interventions such as habitat restoration, invasive species control, sustainable management, and the establishment of protected areas. Each action was analyzed for its impact on the ecological, species, and genetic levels, demonstrating broad benefits across different biological organizations. Specifically, the eradication and management of invasive species were found to have the most significant positive impact, reflecting their crucial role in maintaining native biodiversity. Similarly, efforts towards habitat restoration and sustainable ecosystem management produced substantial positive outcomes, contributing to the recovery of ecosystems. Protected areas also showed positive effects, although their success varied by geographic and administrative contexts, indicating the need for tailored management strategies to maximize their conservation. Despite these positive outcomes, the analysis also identified instances where conservation actions had limited or adverse effects, suggesting areas for improvement in strategy and implementation. These mixed results highlight the complexity of ecological responses to human interventions and the need for ongoing adaptation and optimization. This meta-analysis confirms the beneficial impact of conservation actions on a global scale. It is a critical evaluation tool for guiding future conservation policies and practices. By providing a robust empirical foundation, this study helps align conservation efforts with global biodiversity targets, ensuring that actions are effective and adaptable to changing environmental conditions. Questions: 1) How have historical conservation strategies evolved, and what lessons have been learned regarding the most effective practices for biodiversity preservation? 👀 2) What are the current challenges in implementing global biodiversity conservation targets, and how can meta-analyses inform these efforts? 👀 3) In light of rapid global changes and increasing anthropogenic pressures, what innovative conservation strategies could be developed to enhance biodiversity outcomes effectively? 👀 💡 Langhammer, P. F., et al. (2024). The positive impact of conservation action. Science, 384(6536), 453-458. https://lnkd.in/dZKc6nk7

📢 First-of-its-kind study reveals conservation initiatives are critical for halting and reversing nature loss. 🏞️ In light of global commitments to halt and reverse biodiversity loss, understanding the effectiveness of conservation efforts is more crucial than ever. The research is the first comprehensive meta-analysis of its kind, as it analysed: 🟩 186 studies 🟩 665 trials 🌟 Authors examined over a century of conservation action, proving they yield positive outcomes, with a 66% success rate compared to no intervention. Beyond providing robust evidence of the impact of conservation actions, the study can inform vital international policies, including: 🔵 IUCN 20-year vision 🔵 IPBES biodiversity monitoring assessment 🔵 the Global Biodiversity Framework. 💰 According to previous studies, a comprehensive global conservation program would require an investment of between US$178 billion and US$524 billion. ⚠️ The current global investment stands at $121 billion. 🪙 This is surprising, as research also shows that the cost-benefit ratio of an effective conservation program is at least 1:100. 📜 With less than 6 years to achieve the ambitious biodiversity targets stated in the GBF, effective conservation efforts are urgently needed. 🌍 We have the data and proven methods to inform action—now we have to use them to create real, global impact. Click here to read the full report ➡️ https://lnkd.in/eviKgK6e  #NatureLoss #NatureConservation #NatureData #NatureRisk

The Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016: "is not meeting its primary purpose of maintaining a healthy, productive and resilient environment, and is never likely to do so." Probably not an unexpected outcome of the Independent Review of the BC Act. I still believe we need a far more strategic approach to consideration and conservation of biodiversity. The piecemeal and ad hoc approach at the development stage does not achieve the best outcomes (i.e. avoiding clearing isolated paddock trees to tick the box for avoiding). And it does not allow for proper consideration of the flow on effects for the community of retained areas of vegetation/revegetation. We need to ensure that avoided/offset areas are being retained in strategically considered locations to ensure the appropriate integrity of the biodiversity is achieved and can be maintained in perpetuity (i.e. dont just bang an 88b over it on private property hoping that the landowner won't clear it) and to ensure risks from changed vegetation formations are appropriately considered/addressed to ensure we are not inadvertently placing communities in areas of elevated bushfire risk and the local community has the resources/resilience to respond to this changed risk.

Fresh out of the press in Nature Sustainability: "Subnational biodiversity reporting metrics for mountain ecosystems". https://lnkd.in/dkPfgtpD Biodiversity indicators are used to assess progress towards conservation and sustainability goals. However, the spatial scales, methods and assumptions of the underlying reporting metrics can affect the provided information. Using mountain ecosystems as an example, we compare biodiversity protection at subnational scale using the site-based approach of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (SDG indicator 15.4.1) with an area-based approach compatible with the targets of the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. By detecting large differences in indicator values between mountain ranges within countries, our results show that national-level indicator values provide little information about the management actions taken or needed at relevant scales in mountains. Our results further highlight areas in need of transboundary collaboration on the protection of mountain biodiversity. By comparing biodiversity protection at subnational scale using the site-based approach of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (SDG indicator 15.4.1) and an area-based approach compatible with the targets of the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, we also highlight the need for transparency and caution with regard to the methods and assumptions underlying metrics for informing on sustainability and conservation. Our tools to support science-based decision-making for complex mountain environments: - one pagers by country and by mountain systems: https://lnkd.in/dEeyqGPn - online SDG 15.4.1 viewer: https://lnkd.in/d-HM2VCG

Excellent findings published in STOTEN 👉 Integrative analysis of biodiversity, ecosystem services, and ecological vulnerability can facilitate improved spatial representation of nature reserves Understanding how to identify priority conservation areas for biodiversity and ecosystem services (ESs) is crucial for nature reserve (NR) optimization and regional planning. This study reports a regional assessment in Qinghai Province of China, quantifying the biodiversity and the provision of four ESs (carbon sequestration-net primary productivity (NPP), water yield, soil retention, and sandstorm prevention). The representativeness-vulnerability framework was employed to identify priority conservation areas for biodiversity and ESs, and the conservation gaps of existing NRs. The results show that the biodiversity, ES supply, and vulnerability of biodiversity and ESs to human activities present spatial heterogeneity. Except for sandstorm prevention, the high-value areas of ESs are generally in eastern or southern Qinghai. NPP, water yield, soil retention, and biodiversity are positively correlated (p < 0.01). The ten NRs in Qinghai only protected 5.59 %, 5.01 %, 4.29 %, 0.65 %, and 4.49 % of the priority conservation area for biodiversity, NPP, water yield, sandstorm prevention, and soil retention, respectively. Overall, a total of 170,932 km2 of theoretically comprehensive priority conservation areas for both biodiversity and ESs have been identified, which were mostly distributed in eastern, southern, and southeastern Qinghai. The existing NRs has notable conservation gaps (161,956 km2 accounting for 94.75 % of the targeted conservation areas) for both biodiversity and ESs. This study illuminates a strategy for strengthening both biodiversity and ESs through NR optimization, which is also applicable to other regions. https://lnkd.in/eAYfCWTY