Roles of the Red List of Ecosystems in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.

The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity set the agenda for global aspirations and action to reverse biodiversity loss. The GBF includes an explicit goal for maintaining and restoring biodiversity, encompassing ecosystems, species and genetic diversity (goal A), targets for ecosystem protection and restoration and headline indicators to track progress and guide action1. One of the headline indicators is the Red List of Ecosystems2, the global standard for ecosystem risk assessment. The Red List of Ecosystems provides a systematic framework for collating, analysing and synthesizing data on ecosystems, including their distribution, integrity and risk of collapse3. Here, we examine how it can contribute to implementing the GBF, as well as monitoring progress. We find that the Red List of Ecosystems provides common theory and practical data, while fostering collaboration, cross-sector cooperation and knowledge sharing, with important roles in 16 of the 23 targets. In particular, ecosystem maps, descriptions and risk categories are key to spatial planning for halting loss, restoration and protection (targets 1, 2 and 3). The Red List of Ecosystems is therefore well-placed to aid Parties to the GBF as they assess, plan and act to achieve the targets and goals. We outline future work to further strengthen this potential and improve biodiversity outcomes, including expanding spatial coverage of Red List of Ecosystems assessments and partnerships between practitioners, policy-makers and scientists.

Risk factors in body image dissatisfaction: gender, maladaptive perfectionism, and psychological wellbeing.

Discontent with one's appearance (body image dissatisfaction) has become a global phenomenon, associated with the development of extreme behaviours in order to correct perceived body image problems. Much of the literature has focused on associated destructive behaviours that result from body image dissatisfaction; however, there has been a dearth of research examining risk factors for body image problems in adults. Thus, the current study aimed to investigate risk factors associated with adult body image problems, focusing on two variables highlighted in the literature (gender and maladaptive perfectionism). The current study (1) compared gender differences in body image dissatisfaction and (2) investigated psychological wellbeing as a mediator between maladaptive perfectionism and body image dissatisfaction. The sample included 139 Australian adults from universities (55.7%) and the community (44.3%). Participants completed demographic questions, the Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale, the Psychological Wellbeing questionnaire, the Multidimensional Body-Self Relations Questionnaire, and Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. In contrast to predictions, females had higher body area satisfaction and appearance evaluation scores. Furthermore, in line with the hypotheses, psychological wellbeing fully mediated the relationship between maladaptive perfectionism and poor body image. The findings suggest gender, maladaptive perfectionism, and psychological wellbeing may act as risk factors for body image dissatisfaction.

Scientific foundations for an ecosystem goal, milestones and indicators for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework.

Despite substantial conservation efforts, the loss of ecosystems continues globally, along with related declines in species and nature's contributions to people. An effective ecosystem goal, supported by clear milestones, targets and indicators, is urgently needed for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework and beyond to support biodiversity conservation, the UN Sustainable Development Goals and efforts to abate climate change. Here, we describe the scientific foundations for an ecosystem goal and milestones, founded on a theory of change, and review available indicators to measure progress. An ecosystem goal should include three core components: area, integrity and risk of collapse. Targets-the actions that are necessary for the goals to be met-should address the pathways to ecosystem loss and recovery, including safeguarding remnants of threatened ecosystems, restoring their area and integrity to reduce risk of collapse and retaining intact areas. Multiple indicators are needed to capture the different dimensions of ecosystem area, integrity and risk of collapse across all ecosystem types, and should be selected for their fitness for purpose and relevance to goal components. Science-based goals, supported by well-formulated action targets and fit-for-purpose indicators, will provide the best foundation for reversing biodiversity loss and sustaining human well-being.

Matching biodiversity indicators to policy needs.

At the global scale, biodiversity indicators are typically used to monitor general trends, but are rarely implemented with specific purpose or linked directly to decision making. Some indicators are better suited to predicting future change, others are more appropriate for evaluating past actions, but this is seldom made explicit. We developed a conceptual model for assigning biodiversity indicators to appropriate functions based on a common approach used in economics. Using the model, indicators can be classified as leading (indicators that change before the subject of interest, informing preventative actions), coincident (indicators that measure the subject of interest), or lagging (indicators that change after the subject of interest has changed and thus can be used to evaluate past actions). We classified indicators based on ecological theory on biodiversity response times and management objectives in 2 case studies: global species extinction and marine ecosystem collapse. For global species extinctions, indicators of abundance (e.g., the Living Planet Index or biodiversity intactness index) were most likely to respond first, as leading indicators that inform preventative action, while extinction indicators were expected to respond slowly, acting as lagging indicators flagging the need for evaluation. For marine ecosystem collapse, indicators of direct responses to fishing were expected to be leading, while those measuring ecosystem collapse could be lagging. Classification defines an active role for indicators within the policy cycle, creates an explicit link to preventative decision-making, and supports preventative action.

Alineamiento entre los Indicadores de Biodiversidad y los Requerimientos Políticos Resumen En la escala global, los indicadores de biodiversidad se usan comúnmente para monitorear las tendencias generales pero rara vez se implementan con un propósito específico o vinculados directamente con la toma de decisiones. Algunos indicadores son mejores para predecir los cambios futuros, mientras que otros son más apropiados para la evaluación de acciones pasadas, aunque lo anterior casi nunca se comunica explícitamente. Desarrollamos un modelo conceptual para la atribución de indicadores de biodiversidad a funciones apropiadas con base en una estrategia común que se usa en la economía. Con este modelo, los indicadores pueden clasificarse como principales (indicadores que cambian antes que el sujeto de interés, orientando así las acciones preventivas), coincidentes (indicadores que miden al sujeto de interés) o rezagados (indicadores que cambian después de que el sujeto de interés ha cambiado y por lo tanto puede usarse para evaluar las acciones pasadas). Clasificamos los indicadores con base en la teoría ecológica sobre los tiempos de respuesta de la biodiversidad y los objetivos de manejo en dos estudios de caso: la extinción mundial de especies y el colapso de los ecosistemas marinos. Para la extinción mundial de especies, los indicadores de abundancia (p. ej.: el Índice del Planeta Viviente o el índice de biodiversidad intacta) fueron los más probables en tener una respuesta pronta como indicadores principales que orientan las acciones preventivas, mientras que se esperó que los indicadores de extinción tuvieran respuestas lentas, por lo que actuarían como indicadores rezagados que disminuyeron la necesidad de evaluación. Para el colapso de los ecosistemas marinos, se anticipó que los indicadores de las respuestas directas a la pesca fueran los indicadores principales, mientras que aquellos que miden el colapso del ecosistema podrían ser indicadores rezagados. La clasificación define un papel activo para los indicadores dentro del ciclo de políticas, crea un vínculo explícito con la toma de decisiones preventivas y respalda la acción preventiva.

Using decision science to evaluate global biodiversity indices.

Global biodiversity indices are used to measure environmental change and progress toward conservation goals, yet few indices have been evaluated comprehensively for their capacity to detect trends of interest, such as declines in threatened species or ecosystem function. Using a structured approach based on decision science, we qualitatively evaluated 9 indices commonly used to track biodiversity at global and regional scales against 5 criteria relating to objectives, design, behavior, incorporation of uncertainty, and constraints (e.g., costs and data availability). Evaluation was based on reference literature for indices available at the time of assessment. We identified 4 key gaps in indices assessed: pathways to achieving goals (means objectives) were not always clear or relevant to desired outcomes (fundamental objectives); index testing and understanding of expected behavior was often lacking; uncertainty was seldom acknowledged or accounted for; and costs of implementation were seldom considered. These gaps may render indices inadequate in certain decision-making contexts and are problematic for indices linked with biodiversity targets and sustainability goals. Ensuring that index objectives are clear and their design is underpinned by a model of relevant processes are crucial in addressing the gaps identified by our assessment. Uptake and productive use of indices will be improved if index performance is tested rigorously and assumptions and uncertainties are clearly communicated to end users. This will increase index accuracy and value in tracking biodiversity change and supporting national and global policy decisions, such as the post-2020 global biodiversity framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Uso de las Ciencias de la Decisión para Evaluar los Índices Globales de Biodiversidad Resumen Los índices globales de biodiversidad se usan para medir el cambio ambiental y el avance hacia los objetivos de conservación, aunque pocos han sido evaluados completamente en cuanto a su capacidad para detectar las tendencias de interés como las declinaciones de especies amenazadas o la función del ecosistema. Evaluamos cualitativamente nueve índices de uso común para dar seguimiento a la biodiversidad a escala global y regional contra cinco criterios relacionados con los objetivos, diseño, comportamiento, incorporación de la incertidumbre y restricciones (p. ej.: costos y disponibilidad de datos) mediante una estrategia estructurada basada en las ciencias de la decisión. La evaluación se basó en la literatura de referencia para los índices disponibles al momento del análisis. Identificamos cuatro vacíos importantes en los índices estudiados: las vías para lograr los objetivos (objetivos medios) no fueron siempre claras o relevantes para los resultados deseados (objetivos fundamentales); el análisis del índice y el entendimiento del comportamiento esperado casi siempre fueron escasos; pocas veces se consideró o explicó la incertidumbre; y casi nunca se consideraron los costos de la implementación. Estos vacíos pueden hacer que los índices sean inadecuados en ciertos contextos de toma de decisiones y son problemáticos para los índices vinculados a los objetivos de biodiversidad y las metas de sustentabilidad. Es de suma importancia asegurarse que los objetivos del índice sean claros y que su diseño esté respaldado por un modelo de procesos relevantes para tratar con los vacíos identificados en nuestro estudio. La aceptación y el uso productivo de los índices mejorarán si el desempeño del índice es evaluado rigurosamente y las suposiciones e incertidumbres se les comunican claramente a los usuarios finales. Lo anterior aumentará la precisión y valor del índice en el seguimiento de los cambios de la biodiversidad y en el apoyo a las decisiones políticas nacionales y mundiales, como el marco de trabajo para la biodiversidad post-2020 establecido por la Convención sobre la Diversidad Biológica.

Testing the presence of marine protected areas against their ability to reduce pressures on biodiversity.

Marine protected areas (MPAs) are the preferred tool for preventing marine biodiversity loss, as reflected in international protected area targets. Although the area covered by MPAs is expanding, there is a concern that opposition from resource users is driving them into already low-use locations, whereas high-pressure areas remain unprotected, which has serious implications for biodiversity conservation. We tested the spatial relationships between different human-induced pressures on marine biodiversity and global MPAs. We used global, modeled pressure data and the World Database on Protected Areas to calculate the levels of 15 different human-induced pressures inside and outside the world's MPAs. We fitted binomial generalized linear models to the data to determine whether each pressure had a positive or negative effect on the likelihood of an area being protected and whether this effect changed with different categories of protection. Pelagic and artisanal fishing, shipping, and introductions of invasive species by ships had a negative relationship with protection, and this relationship persisted under even the least restrictive categories of protection (e.g., protected areas classified as category VI under the International Union for Conservation of Nature, a category that permits sustainable use). In contrast, pressures from dispersed, diffusive sources (e.g., pollution and ocean acidification) had positive relationships with protection. Our results showed that MPAs are systematically established in areas where there is low political opposition, limiting the capacity of existing MPAs to manage key drivers of biodiversity loss. We suggest that conservation efforts focus on biodiversity outcomes and effective reduction of pressures rather than prescribing area-based targets, and that alternative approaches to conservation are needed in areas where protection is not feasible.

Evaluación de la Presencia de Áreas Marinas Protegidas contra sus Capacidades de Reducir las Presiones sobre la Biodiversidad Resumen Las áreas marinas protegidas (AMPs) son la herramienta preferida para prevenir la pérdida de biodiversidad marina, como se ve reflejado en los objetivos internacionales para las áreas protegidas. Mientras que el área que ocupan las MPAs está expandiéndose, existe una preocupación de que la oposición de los usuarios de recursos los esté llevando hacia localidades que ya son de bajo uso mientras que las áreas de alta presión permanecen sin protección, lo que tiene implicaciones serias para la conservación de la biodiversidad. Analizamos las relaciones espaciales entre diferentes presiones inducidas por humanos sobre la biodiversidad marina y las áreas marinas protegidas del mundo. Utilizamos datos mundiales de presiones modeladas y la Base de Datos de Áreas Protegidas para calcular los niveles de 15 diferentes presiones inducidas por humanos dentro y fuera de las MPAs del mundo. Ajustamos los modelos lineales binomiales y generalizados a los datos para determinar si cada una de las presiones tenía un efecto positivo o negativo sobre la probabilidad de que un área estuviera protegida y si este efecto cambió con diferentes categorías de protección. La pesca pelágica y artesanal, las embarcaciones, y la introducción de especies invasoras por parte de los barcos tuvieron una relación negativa con la protección y esta relación persistió incluso bajo las categorías más restrictivas de protección (es decir, áreas protegidas clasificadas bajo la categoría VI de la Unión Internacional para la Conservación de la Naturaleza, una categoría que permite el uso sostenible). Como contraste, las presiones surgidas de fuentes dispersadas y difusivas (por ejemplo, la contaminación y la acidificación del océano) tuvieron relaciones positivas con la protección. Nuestros resultados muestran que las MPAs están establecidas sistemáticamente en áreas en donde hay una baja oposición política, lo que limita la capacidad de las MPAs existentes para manejar los causantes más importantes de la pérdida de la biodiversidad. Sugerimos que los esfuerzos de conservación se enfoquen en los resultados de biodiversidad y en la reducción efectiva de las presiones en lugar de ordenar objetivos basados en el área y que se necesitan estrategias alternativas a la conservación en áreas en donde la protección no es viable.

Scenarios and Models to Support Global Conservation Targets.

Global biodiversity targets have far-reaching implications for nature conservation worldwide. Scenarios and models hold unfulfilled promise for ensuring such targets are well founded and implemented; here, we review how they can and should inform the Aichi Targets of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity and their reformulation. They offer two clear benefits: providing a scientific basis for the wording and quantitative elements of targets; and identifying synergies and trade-offs by accounting for interactions between targets and the actions needed to achieve them. The capacity of scenarios and models to address complexity makes them invaluable for developing meaningful targets and policy, and improving conservation outcomes.