Global no net loss of natural ecosystems

Abstract

A global goal of no net loss of natural ecosystems or better has recently been proposed, but such a goal would require equitable translation to country-level contributions. Given the wide variation in ecosystem depletion, these could vary from net gain (for countries where restoration is needed), to managed net loss (in rare circumstances where natural ecosystems remain extensive and human development imperative is greatest). National contributions and international support for implementation also must consider non-area targets (for example, for threatened species) and socioeconomic factors such as the capacity to conserve and the imperative for human development.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Variation in ecosystem depletion must be considered when setting country-level contributions to GNNL.
Fig. 2: Minimum country-level contributions to achievement of GNNL should consider the degree of human development.

Data availability

All datasets used in this analysis are available via the citations identified in Methods. The raw data used to create Figs. 1 and 2 are available in Supplementary Table 1.

References

  1. 1.

    Dinerstein, E. et al. A global deal for nature: guiding principles, milestones, and targets. Sci. Adv. 5, eaaw2869 (2019).

  2. 2.

    Mace, G. M. et al. Aiming higher to bend the curve of biodiversity loss. Nat. Sustain. 1, 448–451 (2018).

  3. 3.

    Maron, M., Simmonds, J. S. & Watson, J. E. M. Bold nature retention targets are essential for the global environment agenda. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 1194–1195 (2018).

  4. 4.

    Pimm, S. L., Jenkins, C. N. & Li, B. V. How to protect half of Earth to ensure it protects sufficient biodiversity. Sci. Adv. 4, eaat2616 (2018).

  5. 5.

    Dinerstein, E. et al. An ecoregion-based approach to protecting half the terrestrial realm. BioScience 67, 534–545 (2017).

  6. 6.

    Wilson, E. O. Half-Earth: Our Planet’s Fight for Life (Liveright, 2016).

  7. 7.

    Watson, J. E. M. et al. Persistent disparities between recent rates of habitat conversion and protection and implications for future global conservation targets. Conserv. Lett. 9, 413–421 (2016).

  8. 8.

    Nilsson, M., Griggs, D. & Visbeck, M. Policy: map the interactions between Sustainable Development Goals. Nature 534, 320–322 (2016).

  9. 9.

    Büscher, B. et al. Half-Earth or Whole Earth? Radical ideas for conservation, and their implications. Oryx 51, 407–410 (2017).

  10. 10.

    Arlidge, W. N. S. et al. A global mitigation hierarchy for nature conservation. BioScience 68, 336–347 (2018).

  11. 11.

    Bull, J. W. et al. Net positive outcomes for nature. Nat. Ecol. Evol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-019-1022-z (2019).

  12. 12.

    The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2018 (United Nations, 2018).

  13. 13.

    Maron, M. et al. The many meanings of no net loss in environmental policy. Nat. Sustain. 1, 19–27 (2018).

  14. 14.

    Geden, O. An actionable climate target. Nat. Geosci. 9, 340–342 (2016).

  15. 15.

    Holz, C., Kartha, S. & Athanasiou, T. Fairly sharing 1.5: national fair shares of a 1.5 °C-compliant global mitigation effort. Int. Environ. Agreem. 18, 117–134 (2018).

  16. 16.

    Venter, O. et al. Global terrestrial Human Footprint maps for 1993 and 2009. Sci. Data 3, 160067 (2016).

  17. 17.

    Government to Mandate ‘Biodiversity Net Gain’ (Defra, 2019).

  18. 18.

    Plan Biodiversité (Government of France, 2018).

  19. 19.

    Bull, J. W., Hardy, M. J., Moilanen, A. & Gordon, A. Categories of flexibility in biodiversity offsetting, and their implications for conservation. Biol. Conserv. 192, 522–532 (2015).

  20. 20.

    Maron, M. et al. Taming a wicked problem: resolving controversies in biodiversity offsetting. BioScience 66, 489–498 (2016).

  21. 21.

    Simmonds, J. S. et al. Moving from biodiversity offsets to a target-based approach for ecological compensation. Conserv. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12695 (2019).

  22. 22.

    Di Marco, M., Venter, O., Possingham, H. P. & Watson, J. E. M. Changes in human footprint drive changes in species extinction risk. Nat. Commun. 9, 4621 (2018).

  23. 23.

    Lenzen, M. et al. International trade drives biodiversity threats in developing nations. Nature 486, 109–112 (2012).

  24. 24.

    Newbold, T. et al. Has land use pushed terrestrial biodiversity beyond the planetary boundary? A global assessment. Science 353, 288–291 (2016).

  25. 25.

    Sanderson, E. W., Walston, J. & Robinson, J. G. From bottleneck to breakthrough: urbanization and the future of biodiversity conservation. BioScience 68, 412–426 (2018).

  26. 26.

    Miller, D. C., Agrawal, A. & Roberts, J. T. Biodiversity, governance, and the allocation of international aid for conservation. Conserv. Lett. 6, 12–20 (2013).

  27. 27.

    Baynham-Herd, Z., Amano, T., Sutherland, W. J. & Donald, P. F. Governance explains variation in national responses to the biodiversity crisis. Environ. Conserv. 45, 407–418 (2018).

  28. 28.

    Ellis, E. C. & Mehrabi, Z. Half Earth: promises, pitfalls, and prospects of dedicating Half of Earth’s land to conservation. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 38, 22–30 (2019).

  29. 29.

    Life on Land: Why it Matters (United Nations, 2018).

  30. 30.

    Summary for Policymakers of the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES, 2019).

  31. 31.

    Visconti, P. et al. Protected area targets post-2020. Science 364, 239–241 (2019).

  32. 32.

    Venter, O. et al. Sixteen years of change in the global terrestrial human footprint and implications for biodiversity conservation. Nat. Commun. 7, 12558 (2016).

  33. 33.

    Jones, K. R. et al. One-third of global protected land is under intense human pressure. Science 360, 788–791 (2018).

  34. 34.

    Olson, D. M. et al. Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: a new map of life on Earth. BioScience 51, 933–938 (2001).

  35. 35.

    Human Development Index (United Nations, 2018).

  36. 36.

    Corruption Perceptions Index 2017 (Transparency International, 2018).

  37. 37.

    How Corruption Weakens Democracy (Transparency International, 2019).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was funded via the Science for Nature and People Partnership and its support of the Compensatory Conservation Working Group. M.M. was supported by Australian Research Council Future Fellowship (grant no. FT140100516). The work was supported by the COMBO Project (funded by the Agence Française de Développement, Fonds Français pour l’Environnement Mondial and the MAVA Foundation).

Author information

M.M., J.P.G.J., J.E.M.W. and J.S.S. led the writing. J.S.S. led the data analysis. M.M., J.S.S., J.E.M.W., L.J.S., L.B., V.F.G., F.Q., A.v.H., S.E., H.R., J.W.B., C.E.S., R.V., J.K., P.P., T.S., N.C. and J.P.G.J. developed the central concepts collaboratively and wrote and edited parts of the manuscript.

Correspondence to Martine Maron.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

L.B., F.Q. and A.v.H. receive income from commercial contracts for consultancy services related to the development and implementation of biodiversity offset policies. All other authors have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Reporting Summary

Supplementary Table 1

Summary of ecosystem and socioeconomic data for 170 countries, used to create scatterplots in Figs. 1 and 2.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Maron, M., Simmonds, J.S., Watson, J.E.M. et al. Global no net loss of natural ecosystems. Nat Ecol Evol 4, 46–49 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-019-1067-z

Download citation