Conservation Letters

Stopping human-induced extinctions will require strong policy commitments that comprehensively address threats to species. In 2021, a new Global Biodiversity Framework will be agreed by the Convention on Biological Diversity. Here we investigate how the suggested targets could contribute to reducing threats to threatened vertebrates, invertebrates, and plants, and assess the importance of a proposed target to implement recovery actions for threatened species. We find that whilst many of the targets benefit species, extinction risk for over one third of threatened species would not be reduced sufficiently without a target on recovery actions, including ex situ conservation, reintroductions and other species-specific interventions. A median of 41 threatened species per country require such actions, and they are found in most countries of the world. To prevent future extinctions, policy commitments must include recovery actions for the most threatened species in addition to broader transformative change.

Biodiversity is not evenly distributed across the globe and some areas have greater potential to contribute to biodiversity conservation than others. Whilst there are multiple ways to determine priority areas for conservation, for a global institution like the Global Environment Facility (GEF), the funding mechanism for the Convention on Biological Diversity and the largest multilateral source of funding for developing countries focused on enhancing biodiversity outcomes and promoting sustainable use, it is important to fund the top-ranked countries whilst also ensuring that all eligible countries are able to undertake some biodiversity conservation actions in accordance with the Convention. To this end, the GEF uses the System for Transparent Allocation of Resources (STAR) to allocate funding in separate funding rounds to eligible countries. This country focus means that all prioritization analyses need to be undertaken within that political framework, while also considering the intrinsic patterns in biodiversity that dont respect national borders. We present the 2018 update of the biodiversity component of GEF-STAR, investigate how the weighting system affects the ranking of countries. We show that top ranked and bottom ranked countries are robust to changes in the weighting of analytical elements, but the weighting can significantly alter the importance of middle ranking countries, affecting their funding allocation. This analysis has been used by the GEF, along with other data, to allocate over $1 billion in biodiversity funding (GEF-7 = $1.2 billion) to improve country and global prospects for conservation. However, this large funding allocation for conservation needs to be set against the vastly larger funding flows that decrease natural values around the world, and the need for systems level change remains evident across the entire planet.

Target 4 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF) calls for urgent management actions to halt humaninduced extinctions and enable species recovery. However, most Parties face substantial challenges in determining which species require urgent management actions. Here, we present a transparent, standardised protocol that identifies and ranks species most likely to need urgent management actions at the national level, using globally available data from the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. The protocol integrates four criteria aligned with Target 4: global extinction risk, rate of decline, population or range restriction, and endemism, to generate a national ranked list of species. Species scoring highly on these four criteria, and therefore most in need of urgent management action, are ranked most highly. We applied this method to all 250 countries and territories listed in the IUCN Red List and pilottested national rankings with participants from eight diverse countries. Across pilots, participants reported that the ranked lists were scientifically robust, timesaving, and valuable starting points for national prioritysetting, while stating the importance of national context, and the need for additional technical and financial support for implementation. Our results demonstrate that a sciencebased approach can meaningfully support Parties in identifying species requiring urgent action under Target 4, in a standardised way. With 2030 approaching rapidly, this protocol provides an immediate, practical tool to accelerate progress toward halting extinctions and advancing species recovery.

Global conservation agreements emphasize protected area coverage targets, such as the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Frameworks 30x30 target, yet their effectiveness in safeguarding biodiversity remains uncertain. We measure the intersection between marine protected area (MPAs) coverage and the distribution of sharks and rays. Using global range maps and MPA boundaries within national Exclusive Economic Zones, we calculate the percent of species ranges within MPAs, focusing on no-take areas. We reveal significant shortfalls in species-level protection. Within national waters, no Critically Endangered species has more than 5% of its range in no-take MPAs, and 79% of threatened species have less than 1%. We also find the WDPA contains major gaps in take-status reporting, only one third of countries (34%) report take-status of any MPAs to the WDPA, further limiting estimates of meaningful protection. These results highlight the implementation gap between global coverage targets and biodiversity outcomes, reinforcing the need for species-focused protection.

The international wildlife trade presents severe conservation and environmental security risks. However, no international regulatory framework exists to monitor the trade of species not listed in the appendices of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). We explored the composition and dynamics of internationally regulated versus non-regulated trade, focussing on importations of wild-caught terrestrial vertebrates entering the United States of America (US) from 2009-2018. The prominence of the US in global wildlife imports and its detailed data collection conventions allows a unique opportunity to formally assess this substantial but often overlooked and understudied component of the legal wildlife trade. We found 3.6 times the number of unlisted species in US imports compared with CITES-listed species (1,366 versus 378). CITES-listed species were more likely to face reported conservation threats relative to the unlisted species (71.7% vs 27.5%). Yet, we found 376 unlisted species facing conversation threats, 297 species with unknown population trends and 139 species without an evaluation by the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Unlisted species appeared novelly in imports at 5.5 times higher rates relative to CITES-listed species, where unlisted reptiles saw the largest rate of entry, averaging 53 unique species appearing in imports for the first time per year. Overall trade volumes were substantially larger for unlisted imports with approximately 11 times the number of animals relative to CITES-listed imports, however, import volumes were similar when compared at a species-by-species level. We found that the countries that were top exporters for CITES-listed shipments were mostly different from exporters of unlisted species. In highlighting the vulnerabilities of the wild-caught unlisted vertebrate trade entering the US and in the face of increasing global demand, we recommend governments adapt policies to monitor the trade of all wildlife.

The recovery of large carnivores in Europes human dominated landscapes is an unexpected conservation success. In France, where the wolf disappeared in 1937, the species population is now approaching one thousand individuals after the species naturally returned in the country in 1992 from Italy. Large carnivores in Europe are protected by several legal instruments, ranging from international law, to European, national or regional laws (in federal countries). There has been a limited attention allocated to how this legal protection is in practice activated in Member States of the European Union. In particular, there is little research on the role of public interest environmental litigation for large carnivore conservation. We take the example of the wolf (Canis lupus) in France and describe wolf-related litigation in the country during two decades. We compiled a database of case law decisions (i.e. court rulings) relating to administrative litigation about the protection of the wolf and collected a total of 275 court rulings. We found that wolf litigation occurred unsurprisingly more often in administrative courts located in regions where wolves first returned (i.e. South-East of France). Animal welfare or protection associations were the most active and successful plaintiffs. The State administration represented by its Prefets was also a plaintiff in lawsuits against illegal culling decisions made by mayors. The Prefet des Alpes Maritimes and the Minister of the Environment were regular defendants for decisions to cull wolves that were litigated by nature protection associations. Nature protection associations overall had a case winning rate higher than 50%. There were no immediately obvious inter-annual trends in wolf litigation. Our database did not allow us to quantify the total number of wolves that were effectively protected from culling decisions because court rulings made after the execution of administrative decisions did not specify whether the animals were killed or not. Bet it as it may, nature protection associations appear to conduct legally relevant litigation in view of the high success rate they achieve and conservation lawsuits belong to the portfolio of available conservation instruments.

On January 27, 2021, President Biden signed an executive order, Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad, committing the United States to various goals within his campaigns major climate policy, the Biden Plan for a Clean Energy Revolution and Environmental Justice. Included in this executive order is a commitment to "conserving at least 30 percent of [the United States] lands and oceans by 2030." This ambitious conservation target signals a promising direction for biodiversity in the United States. However, while the executive order outlines several goals for climate mitigation, the 30x30 target remains vague in its objectives, actions, and implementation strategies for protecting biodiversity. Biodiversity urgently needs effective conservation action, but it remains unclear where and what this 30% target will be applied to. Achieving different climate and biodiversity objectives will require different strategies and, in combination with the associated costs of implementation, will lead to different priority areas for conservation actions. Here, we illustrate what the 30% target could look like across four objectives reflective of the ambitious goals outlined in the executive order. We compile several variations of terrestrial protected area networks guided by these different objectives and examine the trade-offs in costs, ecosystem representation, and climate mitigation potential between each. We find little congruence in priority areas across objectives, emphasizing just how crucial it will be for the Biden administration to develop clear objectives and establish appropriate performance metrics from the outset to maximize both conservation and climate outcomes in support of the 30x30 target. We discuss important considerations that must guide the administrations conservation strategies in order to ensure meaningful conservation outcomes can be achieved over the next decade.

Marine and brackish-water ecosystems are increasingly degraded by cumulative human pressures, with biological invasions representing a major driver of biodiversity loss, ecosystem disruption, and socio-economic impacts. Effective management requires regionally harmonized and scientifically robust baselines capable of supporting coordinated transboundary decision-making. Here we present the first consolidated marine biosecurity baseline for the Regional Organization for the Protection of the Marine Environment (ROPME) Sea Area, a transboundary region characterized by extreme environmental conditions and increasing biosecurity pressure. A total of 192 species (123 extant and 69 horizon), including birds, fishes, tunicates, invertebrates, plants, and chromists, were systematically reviewed, taxonomically validated, and cross-checked against major databases and Member State inputs. Re-evaluation of a previous regional screening revealed substantial inconsistencies, with 24 species ({approx}18%) requiring status correction or exclusion. The resulting consolidated inventory comprised 130 validated retained species supplemented by 62 additional taxa. Extant species were classified according to biogeographic origin and impact status, whereas horizon species were evaluated based on introduction pathways, environmental suitability, and projected climate trends. Risk screening under current and projected climate conditions identified 39 extant species as very high risk, providing an operational basis for progression to full risk assessment and coordinated regional biosecurity management.

Appendix III is an underutilized component of The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), comprising less than 2% (n = 519) of all listed species (January 2024). Appendix III uniquely offers unilateral protection for nationally protected species without requiring international consensus. Since CITES came into effect in 1975, 2,203 species have been added to Appendix III, including 875 endemic and 1,328 multi-country species. A total of 994 species have been delisted, mostly during CITES first decade. One-third of Appendix III species have been proposed for uplisting, with a 96% success rate and a median time of 3.3 years. Strengthening Appendix IIIs impact involves broader cooperation for species ranging from multiple countries, regular reviews, and utilizing Appendix III listings as a precursor for Appendix I and II proposals to enhance global biodiversity management.

Governments, civil society organizations and businesses often lack the biodiversity data they need for decision-making and adaptive management, impacting their planning, reporting and performance. We explored the biodiversity data needs of such actors in Colombia, Ghana and Switzerland to identify factors affecting data availability and use. Responses to questionnaire surveys showed that the data types with the biggest gaps between user needs and access were progress on conservation or sustainability actions, species populations, habitat state and ecological risk. The most frequent data blockages related to inadequate resources and organizational capacity. Obstacles significantly associated with a lack of primary data included an absence of organizational biodiversity goals and monitoring systems. Problems accessing habitat quality and species abundance data were associated with data collection methods being unknown or unavailable. Businesses were more likely than other groups to need data on threats, perhaps reflecting the increasing importance of environmental risk to the corporate sector. Businesses are less likely to collect primary data or use secondary data and are significantly more likely to be unclear on what biodiversity indicators to use. Non-business organizations are significantly more likely to be unable to access data because of a lack of funding for data collection, analysis, and use. Our results highlight the need for stakeholders across sectors to work together to find common solutions to build and invest in monitoring capacity that unblocks the flow of biodiversity data.

Italy, one of Europe's most biodiverse countries, is expected to undergo landscape-wide nature recovery thanks to the EU Nature Restoration Regulation. National red lists represent critical instruments for informing conservation strategies at finer geographic resolutions and prioritizing taxa of national importance; yet the taxonomic completeness of Italian red lists remains unquantified in relation to national biodiversity. Equally, no systematic evaluation has been conducted on the representation of threatened and endemic Italian taxa within European and international conservation directives and treaties. We present the first comprehensive review of threat status and policy inclusion of Italian biodiversity, encompassing animals, plants, fungi, lichens, and algae. We cross-referenced national species checklists with Italian, European, Mediterranean, and global IUCN red lists, alongside policy annexes from the Birds and Habitats Directives, the Bern and Barcelona Conventions, and CITES. Our dataset comprised 76,845 taxa, of which 8,389 are endemic; yet red list assessments exist for only 10% of this total (7,349 taxa, including 1,700 endemics). Conservation policy coverage is even more restrictive: only 1,346 taxa are listed under at least one legislative instrument, with only half of these classified as threatened. This constitutes a compounding double bottleneck with most of the Italian biodiversity remaining both unassessed and unprotected and systematically biasing conservation policy toward an unrepresentative fraction of national biodiversity. We recommend accelerated national assessments and urgent establishment of a national biodiversity priority list founded on transparent prioritization protocols. This would complement ecosystem-based interventions mandated by the Nature Restoration Regulation while correcting for vertebrate-centred biases.

To prevent species extinctions, targeted action must focus on areas of threatened biodiversity facing intense human pressures. This objective is even more important in the run-up to 2030, the target date to conserve 30% of lands and waters globally. Conservation Imperatives (unprotected terrestrial sites that harbour rare, range-restricted, and threatened species) are critical to preventing imminent species losses. To prioritize among the 16,825 Conservation Imperatives Sites spanning 1.64 million km2, we ranked each site using a prioritization framework based on four criteria: number of threatened species per site; irreplaceability of the site; the proportion of an ecoregions remaining habitat contained in the site; and conversion pressure. Our approach prioritizes 1,667 sites representing 501,426 km2, or 0.37% of Earths terrestrial surface, most in need of urgent protection, with 87.34% of these sites occurring in 20 countries and in 250 ecoregions. This prioritization directly addresses the concern that protected areas must be targeted to protect endangered species, habitats and populations: 33.46% of the prioritized Conservation Imperatives Sites scored higher in irreplaceability than 90% of existing protected areas. Additionally, 51.53% are within 2.5 km2 of an existing protected area, making extending protection or restoring connectivity more feasible. Targeting conservation actions, especially in this small set of countries and ecoregions identified here, would contribute "high quality" areas for biodiversity as part of reaching the 30% coverage target by 2030.

The COVID-19 pandemic may create new demand for wildlife-generated products for human health, including a shark-derived ingredient used in some vaccines. Adjuvants are a vaccine component that increases efficacy, and some adjuvants contain squalene, a natural compound derived from shark liver oil which is found most abundantly in deep-sea sharks. In recent decades, there has been growing conservation concern associated with the sustainability of many shark fisheries. The need for a potentially massive number of adjuvant-containing SARS-CoV-2 vaccines may increase global demand for shark-derived squalene, with possible consequences for shark conservation, especially of vulnerable and understudied deep-sea species. A shift to non-animal-derived sources of squalene, which are similar in cost and identical in effectiveness, or an emphasis on increasing traceability and sustainability of shark-derived squalene from existing well-managed fisheries, could better support conservation and public health goals.

The Natura 2000 network for protected areas is one of Europes main tool to address the loss of Biodiversity. Voluntary commitments of all 27 Member States aim for an extension to 30% of the European land and sea area by 2030. Despite the substantial efforts towards improving declining species and habitats across the continent and the limited success in measured improvements of biodiversity trends in the protected areas, the potential issue of fragmentation and configuration of the documented Natura 2000 sites has not been analysed in depth. This study presents an analysis of the full Natura 2000 data set of terrestrial and marine protected areas in Europe, to which extent documented sites are split up into smaller fragments, how their spatial configuration and shape might mitigate or invite edge effects, and which edge effects might be expected based on the surrounding land cover and land use matrix. Our results show a substantial fragmentation of the network, with four times more individual patches than recorded sites, and 75% of these patches being smaller than 1 km2. Across four size categories between smaller than 1 km2 and larger than 100 km2, about a quarter of patches show a spatial configuration that is likely to cause substantial edge effects due to a suboptimal ratio between area and perimeter. At the same time, many of the smallest patches are surrounded by a large share of sealed surfaces and agricultural areas within a 500m radius. Considering fragmentation and edge effects in future reporting, monitoring and planning of additional designations and restoration activities could close an important gap in understanding causes for continuing declines of Europes biodiversity and highlight pathways to mitigate them.

Other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) have expanded area-based conservation to recognize sites that deliver effective biodiversity outcomes even if not managed for conservation. Yet our ability to identify sites likely to qualify as OECMs remains limited. To address this gap, we established and tested a set of indicators to judge whether sites meet the essential criteria to be considered OECMs, evaluating a large, global sample of 173 important conservation areas: 81 potential OECMs and 92 nearby protected areas. We found that most potential OECMs were largely in good condition with the potential to achieve conservation outcomes, but none currently met all the OECM criteria. Formally designated protected areas in our dataset performed better but the majority also failed the criteria. With so many important conservation areas unable to deliver effective conservation outcomes, our findings raise important questions about how to ensure area-based conservation promotes positive and sustained outcomes for biodiversity.

The 1972 World Heritage Convention (WHC), along with the 1994 Global Strategy, aim to preserve the outstanding universal value of internationally important cultural and natural sites within a "representative, balanced and credible" network of highly-protected areas. Increasing human pressures and shortfalls in representation have been documented across the World Heritage network, particularly in terrestrial and cultural sites, threatening the integrity and primary goals of the WHC. However, the conservation status of current and tentative (i.e., proposed) marine natural World Heritage areas remains relatively unknown. We assessed the extent of recent (2013) and historical (2008-2013) cumulative human impacts and several metrics of representation (country, continent, ecoregion, wilderness, and threatened species) within existing and tentative marine natural World Heritage areas. We found moderate yet increasing cumulative human impacts across most existing sites, and high or very high impacts across the majority of tentative sites. Climate change impacts comprised nearly 75% of impact scores, on average, and differences in land and marine impacts across sites could help prioritise management decisions. Over 75% of marine ecoregions and 85% of threatened species considered in this study have no representation within the existing marine natural World Heritage network. We outline examples of how prioritizing representation across tentative sites for future World Heritage listing could greatly increase these measures. We urge the WHC to adopt quantitative, systematic and transparent evaluations of how current and tentative sites contribute to the overarching goals of maintaining a representative World Heritage network and preserving their outstanding universal values for future generations.

Accelerating environmental change in the Antarctic and Southern Ocean (ASO) necessitates robust extinction risk assessments to inform conservation priorities and track progress towards global biodiversity targets. Nevertheless, no systematic, region-wide baseline of extinction risk currently exists for tracking ASO biodiversity responses to ongoing change, a significant barrier to global biodiversity monitoring. Here, we present the first comprehensive synthesis of extinction risk knowledge spanning plants, animals, and fungi across the ASO, examining biases in current assessments, the distribution of Threatened species and their associated threats. In the absence of a complete regional species checklist, species were compiled from >6,800,000 occurrences and existing checklists, yielding 5,403 assessments representing 2,806 species using a data-inclusive workflow that increased available assessments by over three-fold. Assessments are heavily biased towards vertebrates (56% assessed), while invertebrates, despite their ecological prevalence, are markedly underrepresented (4% assessed). Among vertebrates, mammals have the highest proportion of Threatened species (35%), while ASO birds are disproportionately Threatened (27%) compared to the global average (12%) with the greatest threat for ASO species being Biological Resource Use. Despite more Threatened species in the sub-Antarctic islands and the Antarctic Peninsula, relative to assessment effort, these regions had fewer Threatened species than expected, indicating these areas may function as refugia. These pronounced assessment biases highlight the need for more balanced, representative, and data-inclusive extinction risk assessments to be able to effectively detect conservation status change. This work represents an important step in ensuring ASO representation in global biodiversity monitoring frameworks strengthening the capacity of these frameworks to detect, attribute, and respond to future biodiversity changes.

Impact assessment is a widely used and cost-effective tool for prioritising invasive alien species. With the number of alien and invasive alien species expected to increase, reliance on impact assessment tools for the identification of species that pose the greatest threats will continue to grow. Given the importance of such assessments for management and resource allocation, it is critical to understand the uncertainty involved and what effect this may have on the outcome. Using an uncertainty typology and insects as a model taxon, we identified and classified the sources and types of uncertainty when performing impact assessments on alien species. We assessed 100 alien insect species across two rounds of assessments with each species independently assessed by two assessors. Agreement between assessors was relatively low for all three EICAT components (mechanism, severity, confidence) after the first round. For the second round, we revised guidelines and gave assessors access to each others assessments which improved agreement by between 20-30%. Of the 12 potential reasons for assessment discrepancies identified a priori, 11 occurred. The most frequent sources (and types) of uncertainty (i.e. differences between assessment outcomes for the same species) were: incomplete information searches (systematic error), unclear mechanism and/or extent of impact (subjective judgment due to a lack of knowledge), and limitations of the assessment framework (context dependence). In response to these findings, we identify actions to reduce uncertainty in the impact assessment process, particularly for assessing speciose taxa with diverse life histories such as Insecta. Evidence of environmental impact was available for most insect species, and (of the non-random original subset of species assessed) 14 or 29% of those with evidence were identified as high impact species (with either Major or Massive impact). Although uncertainty in risk assessment, including impact assessments, can never be eliminated, identifying and communicating its source and variety is a first step toward its reduction and a more reliable assessment outcome, regardless of the taxa being assessed.

Sharks and rays are possibly the most threatened Class of marine fishes and their declines can be halted if protected areas are optimised to benefit these species. We identify spatial priorities for all 63 endemic sharks and rays in the marine biodiversity hotspot, the Western Indian Ocean (WIO). Collectively, while the WIO nations currently surpass the 10% Aichi ocean protection target, this amounts to a dismal protection of only 1.57% of each species distribution range. We show that the entire ranges of all endemics can be achieved by protecting 11% of EEZs of WIO nations, well within reach of the new 30% of oceans by 2030 target. Regional management bodies exist, which if taken advantage of to implement shark and ray management, provide opportunities to implement more efficient management across the region. We recommend key management actions to implement and explicit incentivisation of international cooperation in the post-2020 biodiversity framework. Science for SocietyThe past decade has seen massive growth in the establishment of marine protected areas (MPAs), driven by the Aichi biodiversity target of protecting 10% of all ocean areas. This expansion of MPAs, however, has largely occurred in areas residual to extractive uses, often coinciding with less threatened areas of lower conservation value. This coming decade will see a further push to ensure 30% of the oceans are protected by 2030. It is important to understand how existing and future MPAs should be placed to benefit threatened biodiversity. Currently this is unclear for sharks and rays, comprising a species group that is the most evolutionarily distinct vertebrate radiation in the world and also one of the most threatened. We identify both regional and national conservation priorities for expanding marine protected areas to benefit all 63 endemic sharks and rays occurring in the Western Indian Ocean region. We find that the region has already exceeded the 10% ocean protection target, but this amounts to an average of only 1.57% protection of the distribution ranges of these species. We show that protecting the top 10% priority sites will conserve almost half of the geographic range of each species yet require only 1.16% of the total EEZ - a tiny fraction of the 30% by 2030 target. We also show that regional collaboration among all nations can result in more spatially efficient conservation priorities. We recommend that the post-2020 biodiversity framework needs to explicitly incentivise regional cooperation between nations to efficiently achieve urgent targets and maximise benefits to biodiversity.

Protected areas (PAs) are the last refuges for wild biodiversity, yet human pressures (or threats) are increasingly prevalent within their boundaries. Human pressures have the potential to negatively impact species and undermine their conservation, but their overlap with sensitive threatened species in PAs remains rarely quantified. Here, we analyse the co-occurrence of nineteen threatening human activities within the distributions of 146 threatened terrestrial vertebrates in the European Union (EU), accounting for species-specific sensitivities to each pressure and thereby mapping potential human impacts on species within EU PAs. We find that human pressures extend across > 1.022 million km2 (94.5%) of EU protected land, with potential negative impacts on threatened species across 1.015 million km2 (93.8%). A total of 122 out of 146 species (84%) have > 50% of their EU protected ranges potentially impacted, and 83 out of 146 species (57%) more than 90% of their protected range. More species have a smaller proportion of their protected range potentially impacted in Natura2000 sites than in non-Natura2000 sites, and the same is true for species in nature reserves and wilderness areas compared to less strictly managed PAs. Our results show that threatened species in Europes PAs are exposed to immense human pressures, and suggest that areas designated for species conservation are ineffective for halting biodiversity decline. We recommend that the EU Biodiversity Strategy develops and enforces a comprehensive PA threat management program to reduce the negative impacts of human activities on wildlife in European protected lands.