Nature Positive: halting and reversing biodiversity loss toward restoring Earth system stability

Abstract

Human activities are driving a global decline in biodiversity and are interfering with the natural processes essential for human well-being. Achieving climate and development goals is impossible without keeping nature intact. In this article, we establish the urgent need for a paradigm shift toward a “Nature Positive” (NP) future, where the health and resilience of the Earth system are recognized as the fundamental basis for human prosperity. This requires that humanity acts to halt and reverse the loss of nature by 2030. The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) provides a critical roadmap for this NP goal, and global policy increasingly recognizes that environmental targets can only be effective when integrated with global climate, ocean, and human development agreements. This requires a biodiversity conservation approach that accounts for both biotic and abiotic components of the Earth system. We assess the adequacy of GBF targets for stabilizing the Earth system and highlight key gaps. We employ the Three Global Conditions Framework (3Cs), which categorizes landscapes by human impact levels as a practical method for guiding appropriate NP actions, and we extend its application to the marine realm. We outline specific actions and metrics for patterns and processes across all scales needed to achieve biodiversity conservation in synergy with climate stabilization and securing freshwater systems. Our findings emphasize that preventing the loss of intact biomes, ecosystems, and species assemblages is the most critical strategy while acknowledging the urgency of extinction prevention and the need for restoration. Additionally, we highlight the importance of incorporating Indigenous and local knowledge systems alongside scientific methods to achieve effective and equitable conservation outcomes. Finally, we discuss the need for economic transformation and the private sector’s role in fostering an NP future.

Key points

Introduction

Human exploitation of nature driven by prevailing economic systems of production and consumption is causing a rapid and catastrophic decline in biodiversity (1) while simultaneously disrupting the climate system (2). These actions are actively destabilizing the Earth system upon which human health and development depend (3), and the trajectory of environmental degradation is accelerating, placing life as we know it at grave risk.

Biodiversity loss occurs at three interconnected scales—species, ecosystems, and natural processes—all of which affect Earth system stability. At the species scale, 48% of vertebrate and insect species are in decline, with only 49% remaining stable and 3% increasing (4). Within individual species, genetic diversity is also in decline (5): globally, 6% of species are losing genetic diversity, rising to 24% among island species (6). At the ecosystem scale, 54% of the world’s ecoregions are severely degraded, with an additional 25% undergoing further degradation, leaving only a quarter largely intact (7, 8).

Natural processes, which encompass both biotic and abiotic interactions across ecosystem, biome, continental, and planetary scales, are also under threat. Migration, a key biotic process essential for maintaining ecosystem health and structure (9), is increasingly imperiled across terrestrial, freshwater, and marine environments. Alarmingly, 44% of species tracked by the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) are in serious decline, with 97% of listed migratory fish species facing extinction (10). Similarly, biotic and abiotic interactions, also known as biophysical processes (11), are threatened. For example, running freshwater systems, such as springs, streams, and rivers, are critical biophysical processes that sustain the health of both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, yet only 30% of river systems worldwide remain free flowing (Box 1) (12). Excessive nutrient run-off from terrestrial sources has created anoxic “dead zones” in estuaries downstream from the world’s most densely inhabited areas (13).

At the biome and continental scales, rainfall processes that involve moisture recycling in rainforests are also at risk, with potentially disastrous consequences for species, the climate, and food security (Box 2). At the planetary scale, ocean warming (14–18), acidification (19, 20), and deoxygenation (17, 21) are altering marine ecosystems. These changes are driving mass coral die-offs due to marine heat waves (22–24), weakening the shells of marine organisms due to acidification (25, 26), and threatening marine foundation species (23).

Human-caused species extinction, damaged and collapsed ecosystems, and disrupted natural processes are not only factors of an ecological crisis but also an ethical failure with profound consequences for human health. Biodiversity loss is linked to the emergence and spread of infectious diseases in humans, animals, and plants (27). Declines in species diversity can increase the number of zoonotic disease-carrying species (28), while ecosystem disruption, such as forest loss, degradation, and fragmentation (29), elevates the likelihood of pathogen spillover from stressed wildlife to humans directly (30) or to livestock and then on to humans, as happened with Hendra virus (31). Ecological disruptions have already contributed to outbreaks of deadly diseases, including Ebola, Marburg, and mpox (32, 33). Climate change further exacerbates these risks, intensifying 58% of the 375 known infectious diseases (34, 35).

Zoonotic disease spillover to humans is an ecological process and therefore an ecological problem (33). Despite mounting evidence that preserving and restoring nature is the most cost-effective and equitable means of preventing zoonotic spillover (72–74), current public health strategies prioritize biomedical interventions over ecological prevention measures (73). Additionally, the degradation of natural systems has serious mental health consequences, contributing to eco-anxiety among the general population (75, 76) and negatively impacting Indigenous communities whose cultural and spiritual well-being is deeply tied to their environments (77). Conversely, access to nature improves physiological, mental, and cognitive health (78). Recognizing these interconnections, over 200 medical journals jointly called on world leaders and health professionals to address climate change and biodiversity loss as a single, indivisible crisis that must be tackled together to preserve human health and avoid catastrophe (79).

The economic implications of environmental degradation are equally severe. The global economy is embedded in the biosphere (80) and fundamentally dependent on a stable Earth system, which, in turn, is sustained by a healthy biosphere (81). Half of global economic activity, including food production, relies directly on nature (82), and the continuing decline of biodiversity threatens financial stability worldwide (83). The most vulnerable communities suffer disproportionately when nature’s ability to provide essential services deteriorates (84).

The very conditions that have made modern human civilizations possible are now unraveling. The Holocene Epoch—the stable, warm, interglacial period spanning the past 12,000 years—enabled the rise of sedentary societies and global development. However, since the mid-20th century, human exploitation of the environment has accelerated, ushering in the Anthropocene, an era in which humanity has become the dominant force driving planetary change (85). We are destabilizing critical components of the Earth system, particularly biodiversity and the climate (3, 86, 87). Our ongoing actions have the potential to push the planet into a new self-reinforcing “Hothouse Earth” state (88), rendering the Earth increasingly hostile to human life (88). Our impacts have placed humanity at such risk that the United Nations (UN) Secretary General has called our collective actions “suicidal” (89).

To provide a coherent and hopeful response to the crisis, international environmental, non-governmental, and business organizations issued a call to the 2020 UN General Assembly to establish a “Nature Positive” (NP) global goal for nature (90). This goal was proposed for use by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) to complement the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Paris Agreement’s carbon-neutral “net-zero” target for climate change and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In April 2021, NP was formally defined as a goal to halt and reverse nature loss by 2030, relative to a 2020 baseline, to ensure full recovery of nature by 2050 (91). The G7 leaders subsequently endorsed NP as a core objective in their 2030 Nature Compact (92).

The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) was adopted in December 2022, and it included the NP global goal of halting and reversing biodiversity loss by 2030 on the way to achieving the GBF’s vision of restoring a healthy planet and achieving harmony with nature by 2050 (93). However, this, in isolation, is not enough. It is now widely acknowledged that nature conservation and restoration contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation and that biodiversity and climate objectives must be addressed together (94–96). Notwithstanding the clear connection, international climate and biodiversity treaties have historically operated in isolation (97).

However, parties have now taken steps toward an integrative approach. The 2023 Global Stocktake agreed at the 28th Conference of the Parties (COP28) to the UNFCCC in Dubai (98) recognized the importance of conserving biodiversity in line with the GBF to achieve the Paris Agreement temperature target. Similarly, the GBF’s lack of a clear commitment to support climate goals was substantially remedied by the CBD COP16 Cali decision on biodiversity and climate change in 2024 (99). It calls on CBD parties to maximize potential synergies between biodiversity and climate actions, including prioritization of the protection, restoration, and management of ecosystems and species important for the full carbon cycle. Although efforts to agree on a roadmap to halt global deforestation failed at COP30 in Belem (100), there was greater integration of nature at this climate COP than previously. These important developments are a recognition that both treaties operate in the context of the Earth system.

This article is the first to take an interdisciplinary, intercultural, and integrated approach to examining what is needed to achieve the NP goal on land and in freshwater, as well as in the ocean. Specifically, our analysis focuses on:

• Assessing how NP aligns with the SDGs, Paris Agreement, and GBF and discussing how these existing frameworks could contribute to Earth system stabilization.

• Proposing a holistic NP framework and global-scale metrics spanning all aspects of biodiversity (natural processes, ecosystems, and species) using the Three Global Conditions for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use framework and extending it into the marine realm.

• Recommending alignment of GBF, Paris Agreement, and SDG reporting mechanisms.

• Describing an economic transformation that integrates NP principles while ensuring equitable human development.

• Highlighting the importance of the ways of knowing (sometimes called traditional knowledge systems) of Indigenous peoples and local communities to achieving the NP goal.

Nature Positive and Earth system stability: Sustainable Development Goals, Global Biodiversity Framework, and planetary boundaries

Human development and climate goals cannot be met without a healthy, diverse, and resilient natural world. This section explores these interdependencies and clarifies how the NP global goal aligns with key international development and climate instruments, identifies gaps, and provides a foundation for a more integrated approach to achieve an equitable, nature-positive, and carbon-neutral world.

Nature Positive and the Sustainable Development Goals

The SDGs are a set of biophysical, social, and economic normative goals that seek to end poverty, protect the planet, and ensure peace and prosperity for all by 2030 (101). They have been described as universal, interconnected, and inseparable and are of equal importance, balancing the economic, social, and environmental dimensions of sustainable development (102). Thus, economic goals such as promoting inclusive and sustainable economic growth, employment, and decent work for all (SDG 8) and building resilient infrastructure, promoting sustainable industrialization, and fostering innovation (SDG 9) are placed on equal footing with fundamental human survival needs like food security (SDG 2) and access to clean water and sanitation (SDG 6) as well as environmental imperatives such as climate stability and maintaining life on land and in water (SDG 13, 14, and 15).

When social, economic, and environmental goals are expressed as equal and competing, the SDGs are viewed as seeking the “sweet spot” where they overlap and converge (Figure 1, left side). Fundamentally, this is a conceptual failure: the SDGs may be of equal importance politically, but they are not so in reality.

Figure 1

The Earth system existed for billions of years before humans emerged. Human life, and thus all human development goals, are wholly dependent on the Earth system operating in a way that is favorable to humanity. The various SDGs are simply not of equal importance: those that support the Earth system underpin all human activity (SDG 13, 14 and 15), and humans cannot exist without a conducive Earth system that creates food and water (SDG 2 and 6); the economy was invented by and cannot exist without humans—it cannot thrive unless human society has food, water, health, institutions, and skills sufficient enough to support it (103–105).

Therefore, a more accurate framework acknowledges a hierarchical relationship in which the environment forms the foundation for human society, and the economy exists as a subset of society that must serve human interests (106–108), as illustrated in Figure 1, right side. This perspective aligns with early sustainable development principles that recognized biodiversity, ecosystems, and natural processes as an indispensable prerequisite to sustainable development (103). Addressing the SDGs in that light is now more urgent than ever. The NP paradigm embodies this conceptual shift.

Nature Positive and Earth system science

The Earth system comprises the atmosphere, hydrosphere (including the cryosphere), geosphere, and biosphere. The biosphere emerges from interactions among the other three spheres and, in turn, influences them. These feedback mechanisms regulate planetary resilience by buffering stress and shocks (i.e., solar radiative forcing and volcanic eruptions), thereby maintaining equilibrium. The most recent equilibrium state, the Holocene epoch, allowed sedentary civilizations to develop and large human populations to flourish (Figure 2A).

Figure 2

This stable state, however, is now threatened by global human pressures on the Earth system, ushering in the Anthropocene (109). We see more frequent and intensified extreme events (e.g., droughts, floods, heat waves, fires, and disease outbreaks), while we are gradually eroding the biosphere of its life-support capacity, pushing Earth system boundaries toward multiple tipping points (59). Sixteen biophysical and climate tipping points have been identified where self-reinforcing feedback loops threaten to drive irreversible state shifts, ultimately altering the state of the entire planet (Figure 2B) (59). Examples include the transformation of rainforests into savannah-like landscapes due to moisture loss (Box 2), the rapid melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet, and the collapse of tropical coral reef systems.

The Planetary Boundaries Framework emerged from understanding Anthropocene pressures, the risks of crossing tipping points, and the evidence that nature is a precondition for a stable Earth system (110, 111). Nine planetary boundaries that regulate the function and stability of the Earth system have been identified. Humanity’s actions have now transgressed seven of them, namely the two core boundaries of biodiversity and climate, together with those for land system change, altered biogeochemical cycles for nitrogen and phosphorus, freshwater change, changes to both blue water (runoff water) and green water (soil moisture), novel entities [human-created chemical compounds, e.g. per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), persistent organic pollutants (POPs), and microplastics] (3), and, most recently, ocean acidification (112). These crossed boundaries indicate that the Earth is losing resilience and is in a state of internal stress unprecedented in human history (113). In addition, control variables exist but have not yet been quantified for high-seas deoxygenation and ocean heat absorption, which are further exacerbating instability. The Planetary Boundaries Framework is a diagnostic tool providing a dashboard for a safe operating space for humanity on Earth; it does not, however, prescribe solutions or define normative goals (114). NP is the necessary normative goal and pathway derived from Earth systems science that provides a safe landing for humanity within the living biosphere. Combined with carbon emissions reductions, it seeks to return the Earth system to Holocene-like stability by halting the loss of intact nature and transforming nature-negative impacts into nature-positive feedbacks (Figure 2C).

Nature Positive and the Global Biodiversity Framework

The GBF is the primary global agreement that relates to nature and is broadly analogous to the Paris Agreement on climate, although it is not binding in its own right. Both agreements were reached under Rio Framework Conventions (CBD and UNFCCC). The GBF consists of an overarching 2050 vision, an actionable 2030 mission, and specific targets to be achieved by 2030. Its mission is to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030 as a pathway to the 2050 vision of humanity living in harmony with nature, ensuring a healthy planet that provides benefits for all. The GBF promotes cohesiveness and complementarity among international agreements (93)¹ and integrates the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (93),² which calls for a global partnership to protect and restore the health of the Earth’s ecosystem (115). The GBF also calls for alignment with the SDGs (93) and the One Health approach, which recognizes the link between human, animal, and environmental health (116). To achieve the GBF’s 2050 vision, Rio Principle 7, and One Health, we must stabilize the Earth system.

GBF implementation is based on a comprehensive framework that includes monitoring, financial resource mobilization, and an agreement on digital sequence information to support shared benefits from the use of genetic resources. While implementation occurs at the national level through the 196 country parties, the GBF also calls on subnational governments, civil society, business, as well as Indigenous and local communities to participate in a whole-of-society approach.

The GBF’s mission of halting and reversing biodiversity loss by 2030 is the NP goal in all but name. Its 2050 goals reinforce this alignment: Goal A calls for the integrity, connectivity, and resilience of all ecosystems to be maintained, enhanced, or restored, thereby substantially increasing the area of natural habitat (93). Goal B calls for biodiversity to be sustainably used and ecosystem functions and services to be maintained and restored. Goals C and D address equitable distribution of benefits, increasing financing, and aligning financial flows with the GBF. While the GBF’s goals effectively address many aspects of the 2030 mission, its targets are silent on key elements necessary to meet the GBF’s mission, vision, and overarching objective of complementarity with other international agreements. The major shortcoming is a lack of attention to natural processes at all scales. Ameliorating this gap does not require amendment of the GBF, but complementary attention by all actors as discussed below.

Another area requiring focused attention is ocean governance, as there is disagreement over whether the GBF covers areas outside of national jurisdiction, which is almost two-thirds of the global ocean. The Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is a much-needed complement to the GBF. Its general objective is conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity, and it creates a framework for marine protected areas (117). Its specific objectives include building resilience to the adverse effects of climate change and ocean acidification and maintaining and restoring ecosystem integrity, including carbon cycling, in order to underpin the role of the ocean in the climate system. If implemented effectively—through measures such as protecting at least 30% of the ocean and ensuring sustainable fishery management—it could contribute significantly toward the development of an NP world (118). Recognizing this, at the Conference of the Parties (COP16) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the Parties decided to “explore opportunities for addressing the ocean-climate-biodiversity nexus in an integrated manner”. This integration is urgently required.

Implementing and measuring Nature Positive conservation

In this section, we outline a framework for implementing conservation actions for natural processes, ecosystems, and species, and we present metrics for measuring progress toward the NP global goal.

The scope of the NP global goal was originally described in 2021 as follows:

Nature-positive includes a focus on species distribution, abundance, functional traits, genetic diversity, and demographic trends as well as the intactness and integrity of ecosystems and biomes. It also includes the functioning of ecological and global processes such as hydrology, rainfall patterns and migration…. Together these provide a resilient planet able to cope with shocks and stresses without crossing destabilizing tipping points…. Connecting the nature-positive goal to equity and carbon neutrality recognizes the fundamental connection between human development and the health of nature and the deep connection between nature, climate and Earth system stability (91).

Here, we explore actions and metrics that address the full scope of the 2021 NP global goal. We note a variety of papers published since 2021 that deal with aspects of NP, including an additional proposed metric focused on staying within nature’s carrying capacity (119). Useful approaches to measuring biodiversity in terms of patterns and quantification of genes, species, and ecosystems have also been identified (120). However, both biotic and abiotic natural processes must also be addressed to fully conserve biodiversity and contribute to a stable Earth system. We begin with some general principles.

General principles for Nature Positive actions and metrics

To move toward stabilizing the Earth system, the protection of intact nature is our most urgent goal. By “intact” we mean areas free of significant human-induced degradation, which often occur within the territories of local traditional communities and Indigenous peoples (121), and all remnants of primary ecosystems, whether large or small (122–124). Nature restoration is important but secondary to retaining intact nature because any further losses cannot be restored in the critical time we have left. Although tree planting is widely discussed as a climate solution because trees absorb atmospheric carbon dioxide (125), at the global scale, preserving existing intact ecosystems is far more effective for achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 than large-scale afforestation efforts (126–128). This is because most natural systems, when disturbed, lose a substantial portion of their above- and below-ground carbon stores, requiring decades to centuries to recover, which takes us far beyond the 2050 net-zero target (129). Retaining intact nature also maximizes Earth’s resilience, which is crucial because climate pressures are already weakening ecosystems’ capacity to absorb carbon (130). Remaining intact natural biomes are also vital for retaining rainfall patterns (Box 2), and healthy ecosystems support more species in greater numbers than degraded ones, resist invasive species, reduce pandemic risk (33, 131), and provide greater ecosystem services, such as clean freshwater.

That said, restoration is a primary and urgent strategy in areas of significant ecological degradation, such as New Zealand/Aotearoa, Western Europe, many Mediterranean-type ecosystems, and in tropical grasslands and dry forests worldwide (132). Reforestation in tropical areas where forest cover has been reduced can rapidly restore some aspects of ecological function (132, 133). Restoration of species composition can improve ecosystem function and help meet carbon-management goals (134); however, this often takes longer than biomass recovery (135). Importantly, reforestation and afforestation are not necessarily synonymous with ecological restoration (136). A singular focus on tree planting for climate mitigation instead of a thoughtful focus on restoring ecosystem composition and protecting native species risks failing both biodiversity and climate goals (137). In two cases, reducing just one human pressure can result in important improvements in species diversity and populations, ecosystem health, and natural processes: (1) discontinuing fishing in ocean areas with minimal human modification (118, 138, 139) and (2) reducing continuous grazing pressure from domestic animals on grasslands that have not yet undergone phase shifts (140).

Establishing baselines is essential for measuring progress (141). The NP global goal is a net improvement in ecological conditions from a 2020 baseline by 2030. The 2020 baseline was set because that is when the last set of conservation targets under the preceding CBD's Aichi Biodviersity Targets expired, and the new GBF was to be negotiated, before the process was delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Achieving the NP goal by 2030 does not require every natural process, ecosystem, or species to have improved by 2030. However, it does require that, in aggregate, human actions across the Three Global Conditions Framework (3Cs) have secured the existing intact nature and that substantial ecological restoration actions are underway, so that nature is in better condition in 2030 than it was a decade earlier.

Here, we apply the 3Cs as a practical approach to achieving both the GBF goals and targets and the necessary complementary NP actions that address natural processes.

The Three Global Conditions Framework for implementing the Global Biodiversity Framework and complementary Nature Positive actions

The GBF’s targets for actions to protect, restore and sustainably use biodiversity are as follows: reduce loss of intact areas to near zero (T1); restore 30% of degraded areas (T2) and protect and conserve at least 30% of land, freshwater, and ocean in an interconnected way (T3); reduce species extinction risk and curtail unsustainable use (T4, 5, 6, and 9); reduce pollution (T7); address climate impacts on biodiversity (T8); improve sustainable practices for agriculture, aquaculture, wild fisheries, and forestry (T10); and maintain nature’s functions and contributions to people or ecosystem services (T11). While the GBF sets global targets that each party will implement in accordance with its own national circumstances (93), it provides no guidance on which of the many required actions apply most effectively in the highly variable conditions that exist among and within countries. For example, while half the world has been transformed by human activity, this transformation is unevenly distributed (142).

Nonetheless, the GBF targets and supplemental NP actions addressing natural processes can be implemented systematically by categorizing the world into three “conditions” of human impact: (1) “Large Wild Areas” with very low human impact (termed Condition 3 or C3, approximately 26% of the terrestrial world), (2) “Shared Lands” ranging from slightly to less than half transformed by human activity (termed C2, approximately 55%), and (3) “Cities and Farms” where land is more than half to entirely transformed (C1, approximately 18%) (Figure 3) (143).

Figure 3

The 3Cs framework has been recommended by multiple expert bodies and institutions, including by: the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as an effective approach to integrating climate and nature actions (95, 144); experts engaged by the CBD as an effective approach to implementing GBF targets in an integrated way (145); African scientists as an effective way to integrate biodiversity targets from local to global levels (146); economists as the most cost-effective means of implementing the 30 × 30 protected and conserved areas under GBF T3 (147); the Dutch Central Bank as an efficient way of reconciling conservation, climate, and food security goals (148); and zoonotic disease experts as an effective way of sorting ecological countermeasures to prevent pandemics (30, 33). It has also been recognized as an approach to support governance that achieves co-benefits alongside social, biodiversity, and climate objectives (149).

For too long, the ocean, freshwater, and land have been treated as separate domains, which has resulted in a fragmented approach to an integrated challenge. For example, no discussion of mangrove conservation is complete without addressing freshwater hydrology and sediment transport (49). Similarly, no effort to remedy oxygen-depleted “dead zones” in marine estuaries is of any value unless it examines harmful terrestrial inputs into freshwater systems (13). Similarly, coral reefs can either be adversely affected by sediments and nutrients from anthropogenic causes or enhanced by background levels of natural nutrients from land (150). Further, the rapid changes in ocean temperature, chemistry, currents, ice cover, foundation species, and fish biomass are cause for alarm. We must therefore pay urgent attention to both reducing stressors and increasing conservation measures across the marine realm. In this article, we seek to remedy the artificial separation of ocean, freshwater, and land by extending the 3Cs approach across all three, allowing for a more holistic and integrated approach.

Human impact on the ocean differs from that on land; the 3Cs approach is not directly transferable except in the case of estuaries immediately adjacent to cities and farms, with C1-level physical impacts (151). However, fisheries-related impacts are analogous to habitat loss on land due to bottom trawling and severely reduced large-bodied fish populations (152–154), which have resulted in ecosystem-level impacts (153, 155, 156). Thus, in the marine context, C1 applies not only to estuaries but also to the 12 nautical mile (22.6 km) territorial waters of most countries, which have been extensively modified by human actions but still retain fragments of semi-intact nature. C2 can be applied to the remainder of the exclusive economic zones (200 nautical miles) and most of the high seas, where fishing that includes bottom trawling has depleted fish stocks and removed large-bodied fish (152, 155, 158) but where some high-biomass areas with low fishing pressure remain (159). Only the Arctic and Antarctic, which have been protected by large ice sheets, and only the most remote parts of the open ocean (approximately 13%) are “marine wilderness”, a condition analogous to C3 large wild areas on land (157).

The 3Cs framework provides a structured approach for implementing NP actions tailored to the human impacts and resulting ecological and biophysical characteristics of each condition (Figure 3). It is not a prioritization scheme but rather provides coherent points of departure for simultaneous conservation and sustainable-use actions appropriate for each condition, because nature matters everywhere.

Maps of the terrestrial 3Cs for every region and country are found at naturebeyond2020.com. We hope this initial integrative work might stimulate more thorough mapping of the 3Cs in the ocean.

Actions and metrics for natural processes, species, and ecosystems

There are well-known and effective strategies for biodiversity conservation, many of which are found in the GBF. Here, we discuss those actions and metrics necessary to measure progress toward the NP global goal and the GBF’s vision, goals, and targets across the 3Cs. We also identify gaps in the GBF (Table 1).

Large-scale natural processes

Large-scale natural processes relate to the dependence of ecosystems and species upon, and their interactions with, the abiotic component of the Earth system at scales that affect planetary health and functioning. NP actions targeted at species or specific ecosystem types alone are not sufficient to retain overall structure and function. For example, in large intact areas, GBF species and individual ecosystem targets could be met in isolation, but the entire biome could still collapse. This could result in not only the loss of the species and ecosystems that were intended to be conserved but also of hydrological and biome functions critical to humanity (Box 3).

These large-scale Earth system processes are essential to meeting the GBF’s vision of a healthy planet and are implied in Goal B. They are also recognized in the “ecosystem approach” (164), which the GBF states should guide its implementation. However, large-scale natural processes are largely absent from the GBF’s targets and indicators. They can be broken down into three categories:

• Abiotic hydrological processes: These are major drivers of ecosystem structure and carbon storage, influenced by biotic feedbacks.

• Intact biome functions: These drive global processes, such as rainfall, through the integrity of biotic and abiotic processes.

• Biotic migrations: These occur at the biome and global scales, are essential for maintaining ecological integrity, and have some abiotic effects.

Hydrological processes

The GBF does not address hydrology. This is a major omission because freshwater regimes, unimpeded riverine connectivity, and unpolluted water are of such significance that maintaining or restoring hydrological processes, water quality, and associated floodplain and delta habitats is the most important NP action for a disproportionately wide variety of terrestrial, freshwater, and marine organisms (137, 172, 173).

Healthy running water ecosystems depend on the condition of their terrestrial watersheds (113) and vice versa. Big river systems, such as the Mississippi in the United States or the Brahmaputra, Tsangpo, Yarlung Zangbo, Jamuna, and Ganges system in South Asia, traverse substantially different biomes, making ecosystem-scale metrics inadequate for monitoring continental-scale structure or function. Rivers and streams embody the key elements of ecological connectivity, providing both unimpeded movement of species and flow of natural processes (174–176). Hydrologic connectivity at the ecosystem scale is particularly important to freshwater vertebrates, whose populations have declined by an average of 83% (177). Large-scale connectivity is also critical for a wide range of terrestrial and avian species that interact with river floodplains (178), and it directly influences water quality (179), sediment flows (180), and fish migrations (181).

Intact hydrological regimes are also essential to maintaining the vast carbon storage capacity of peatlands (42) and mangroves (46, 49) and retaining methane (37). However, river systems throughout the world have been significantly modified by dam construction (49, 182). Ostensibly built to supply low-carbon “green energy”, high-head hydroelectric dams are highly nature negative (Box 1).

Freshwater hydrological processes are not limited to water in rivers, lakes, and groundwater (blue water) but also include soil moisture (green water) (183). An essential part of the water cycle, soil moisture transforms into evapotranspiration (vapor flows) in all photosynthesizing terrestrial ecosystems. Green water stocks consist of the soil moisture that feeds all biomass growth. Green water flows are the total flux of vapor, including evaporation and transpiration, as well as interception. Accounting for 60–65% of annual global hydrological flows, they are key to ecosystem functioning and services, supporting food production, biomass on land, and carbon sequestration.

The function of intact forests in green water flows and the climate system is particularly important (121). Stomata (pores in leaves) regulate both water vapor and carbon dioxide (CO₂) exchange between a tree’s intercellular space and the atmosphere (184, 185), affecting both precipitation and carbon sequestration. Forests everywhere have a local cooling effect that is lost whenever they are removed (186). Tropical forests and mid-latitude forests to about 40° North also cool the global climate through evapotranspiration. Climate change also causes variations in green water outside normal seasonal cycles, which in turn leads to major reductions in the land carbon sink. (187).

Water vapor from forests is important to rain generation (188, 189). Extensive forest loss can disrupt precipitation patterns across continents (65, 113), heightening the risk of large-scale food insecurity and financial losses (64), especially in the tropics. Tropical forest losses are caused by forest clearing for commercial and subsistence agriculture, logging, charcoal production, and livestock grazing and by uncontrolled fire (190), dams, mining, overhunting (191), roads, and other linear clearings (67). Elimination of seed dispersers due to habitat loss and overhunting impairs forest regeneration (192) and causes declines in carbon storage (193). Deforestation (responsible for 75% of rainfall reduction) and global warming (25% of the reduction) have combined to reduce precipitation in the Amazon Basin by 16 mm per dry season while in areas with heavy deforestation (>28.5% cleared) the rainfall reduction is three times greater due to the added localized increase in temperature and drying (194).

At the global level, assessments of green water reveal dramatic, detrimental changes to the Earth’s water cycle (113), resulting in critically important structural and functional losses of species, ecosystems, and natural processes.

Hydrological actions and metrics

There are four dimensions of hydrologic connectivity to be addressed and measured for NP (12, 195):

• i) Longitudinal connectivity: connectivity between upstream and downstream (river continuum concept) (196)

• ii) Lateral connectivity: connectivity between channel, floodplain, and riparian areas (flood pulse concept) (197)

• iii) Vertical connectivity: connectivity between groundwater and surface water (function of hyporheic zone) (198)

• iv) Temporal connectivity: hydrogeomorphic change through short and long time periods (shifting habitat mosaic concept) (199).

Actions to halt and reverse the loss of connectivity in the world’s rivers align well with the 3Cs:

• C1 (heavily modified landscapes): All four dimensions are likely to be impacted, and restoration is NP.

• C2 (shared landscapes): Retaining existing and repairing impaired longitudinal, lateral, and seasonal connectivity is essential.

• C3 (intact landscapes): Keeping rivers wild and free-flowing is key (200).

An Earth system boundary metric suitable for NP has been developed for natural flows (201), with specific objectives for each of the 3Cs:

• C1: Retain and restore natural flows across landscapes and adjacent marine areas, reduce storm flash flows, and maximize green water retention to mitigate flood risk.

• C2: Aim for a minimum of 80% natural flow retention and restoration.

• C3: Preserve all natural flows in an unimpaired state.

Guidance on maintaining and measuring sediment flows is already available (202). Importantly, while continuing and restoring sediment transport is vital for healthy freshwater and estuarine systems (203, 204), human-induced sediment flux into freshwater systems can be harmful, especially outside normal cyclical seasonal flushes (205, 206).

A global green water planetary boundary metric indicates that no more than 10% of Earth’s land area should deviate (in dry or wet direction) from its natural green water variability during the late Holocene (3, 113, 185). Today, 18% of Earth’s terrestrial land area exceeds this boundary (3). We discuss this further under the sections Biome function and Biome intactness actions and metrics.

Biome function

A biome is a large-scale aggregation of related ecosystems (207) characterized by areas of vegetation of the same life form (208), and it is the largest biotic unit after the biosphere. Biome function, tied to intactness, affects continental- to global-scale processes. Despite the absence of biome-specific targets in the GBF, they are needed to achieve both the NP global goal and the GBF’s vision.

Biome condition affects rainfall, with widespread effects on carbon storage, ecosystem health, and agricultural productivity, as discussed above and illustrated by Amazon and Congo Basin rainforests (Box 2). Maintaining and restoring forest cover at the biome scale is therefore a priority NP action. Forests are not the only areas where land-use changes affect precipitation. In Western Australia, the clearance of 13 million hectares of dry bush for agriculture using non-native species has directly reduced cloud cover and rainfall relative to areas with native vegetation (209).

The GBF lacks explicit targets or indicators for biome intactness, which should be an explicit conservation objective (210). Indirectly, T1 calls for land-use planning to stop the loss of areas of high biodiversity importance (including ecosystems of high ecological integrity) by 2030. However, action by 2030 is not sufficient. Some tropical forests are on the path toward a tipping point beyond which they may transition into savannah-like vegetation (Box 2). Given recent rates of tropical forest logging, 2030 is too late. Halting tropical forest cover loss and degradation everywhere must be an immediate top priority if these efforts are to protect these biomes, sustain their species and ecosystems, and ensure rainfall throughout the tropics and downwind agricultural regions.

Biome intactness actions and metrics

The best available metric for sustaining rainfall production in tropical forests is to maintain biome-scale forest cover, limiting losses to ≤20% of original primary forest extent (57) and ideally restoring losses to achieve 90% cover to increase resilience to climate change (211). However, some researchers are unwilling to identify any threshold of acceptable forest cover loss (194). For restoration, fast-growing species (including non-natives) aid initial rainforest recovery; the long-term NP goal is to use native slow-growing hardwood species (136, 212). More research is needed to establish a metric for dryland vegetation change.

Migrations

Migration is a specific kind of animal movement where species move between different habitat regions at different times of the year, usually driven by season (213). It has become an urgent conservation problem because not only are migratory populations in decline, but 58% of sites monitored by the CMS are under unsustainable pressure, and 399 endangered migratory species are not even listed for CMS protection (10). In North America, 419 native migratory bird species have experienced a net loss of 2.5 billion individuals since 1970 (214). These losses occur extensively in C1 areas caused by free-ranging domestic cats (mostly unowned) preying on migratory birds (215) and by migratory birds striking illuminated buildings at night (216).

Migration affects species health and diversity (217), ecosystem function and structure (9), and carbon storage in ecosystems (134). Migratory movements range from short seasonal shifts between small habitat patches to transcontinental intergenerational migrations, as seen in monarch butterflies (217). Therefore, conservation strategies focused solely on resident species are insufficient to protect migratory populations (9). Migration is also different from animal movements within a home range to establish a new home range or to find mates in a metapopulation. These all require connectivity but are not migrations (213). Similarly, the need for species to move their range in response to climate change requires connectivity (218), but is not migration per se (219), although climate change could lead to migratory range shifts (220).

Migration is not mentioned in the GBF except by implication through ecological and landscape connectivity, which are to be addressed at the country level (GBF T2 and T3) (175). While protecting ecological connectivity across a species’ migratory range is essential for migration (10), species movements often transcend national boundaries. The lack of attention to migration is a material deficiency in the GBF because it applies to the CMS as well as to many countries that are not signatories to the CMS.

Migration actions and metrics

For many migrating species, there are well-established approaches to protecting habitats essential for critical life-history events, including wintering and stopover resting habitats, as well as breeding areas (10, 221). These conservation actions require species-specific assessments for NP actions to ensure that habitat patches and their connectivity enable safe breeding, rearing, and travel across a species’ full migratory range (222). For sea turtles, for example, a structured conservation framework has been developed to secure their movements across terrestrial, nearshore, and high-seas environments, which could be adapted for other migratory marine animals (223).

Major losses of migratory birds through cat depredation could be substantially reduced by controlling cats in C1 areas (224), and mortality due to building strikes could be greatly reduced by turning off unnecessary lights at night (225). Regarding terrestrial connectivity, metrics to guide conservation efforts are available as outlined by Keeley et al. (226), while conserving hydrologic connectivity is of utmost importance due to its critical role in supporting both freshwater and terrestrial migratory species.

Ecosystem level

The CBD defines ecosystems as a dynamic complex of biotic (plant, animal, and microorganism) communities interacting with their abiotic environment (geophysical, climatic, and chemical processes) (227). Four elements define an ecosystem type: (1) characteristic native species, (2) abiotic environment, (3) key ecological processes and interactions, and (4) spatial distribution (228). While many mechanisms influencing species’ vulnerability also apply at the ecosystem level, ecosystems embody natural processes that are not adequately captured through species-by-species conservation efforts (228). This underscores the importance of ecosystem-level actions in biodiversity conservation.

The ecosystem equivalent to species extinction is ecosystem collapse, which occurs when an ecosystem’s inherent resilience is overwhelmed, resulting in a phase shift to a different and often novel ecosystem state (229, 230). An ecosystem collapses when one or more key defining variables are functionally impaired, including geomorphological features, species composition, nutrient cycling, disturbance regimes, ecological connectivity, and other biotic and abiotic processes. Vulnerability thresholds have been identified: ecosystems are considered at risk when 30% of their structure is degraded, functionally impaired at 50% degradation, and approaching collapse at 80% degradation (228).

Recently, there has been a discussion of the potential conservation value of novel ecosystems (231). New species assemblages, some of which may be exotic, could create new self-organizing ecosystems that have value for biodiversity conservation or ecosystem function. These emerging systems may warrant conservation attention, but a great deal of research remains to be done on them (232). The primary focus of NP conservation is retaining and restoring the composition and function of native ecosystems.

Some vertebrate species perform processes disproportionately vital to ecosystem function. These species act as ecosystem engineers or keystone species, regulating trophic cascades (e.g., wolves and sea otters), shaping vegetation structure (e.g., elephants and bison), or influencing hydrology and wetland formation (e.g., beavers) (166). Foundational species in nearshore marine environments (e.g., kelp and corals) play critical roles in preserving ecosystem structure (23). Fortunately, small and abundant species that are also vital to ecosystem function benefit from conservation actions that are aimed at suites of larger species through an “umbrella” effect (233), but attention should be paid to their demographic robustness as well (234). Conversely, invasive species can degrade ecosystems by displacing native species and disrupting natural processes.

Ecosystem actions and metrics

NP ecosystem goals will vary according to the 3Cs. C1 areas contain ecosystems that have already collapsed and can be described as crisis ecoregions (235). These landscapes support most of the human population and produce most of the world’s food calories, so other important values are at play (143). While ecosystem restoration to full function is impractical under C1 conditions, all remaining fragments of primary ecosystems should be secured, and at least 20% native vegetation cover should be restored to support ecosystem services (236). This includes urban re-greening for multiple ecological and human benefits (237, 238), which is well covered in GBF T12. Agricultural chemicals are most common in C1 areas, which require practices that keep excess runoff out of waterbodies. Safeguarding areas of high agricultural productivity through prevention of urban sprawl serves as an indirect NP practice, preventing further degradation of C2 lands for marginal agriculture and contributing to the SDGs. Combined with improved agricultural practices, dietary adjustments, reduction of food waste, and better global fisheries management, the current cultivated land could feed a global population of up to 10 billion people (239, 240). Such a food systems shift can be done in a just, equitable, and NP manner that halts the loss of intact areas and includes restoration of marginally producing areas to forest cover (241).

NP actions in ecosystems that are less than 50% impaired (C2 areas) should prioritize retaining or restoring overall ecosystem integrity to well above 50%. This requires halting habitat degradation and fragmentation, preserving all remaining intact areas, and retaining and restoring natural abiotic processes, such as fire regimes and hydrology (242). GBF Target 3, which mandates interconnected conservation of at least 30% of land, sea, and freshwater, is particularly well-suited to C2 areas, and such networks will also support climate adaptation efforts (218). Large intact ecosystems (C3 areas) are often aggregated in biomes and should be maintained intact, which requires accelerated action under GBF Target 1.

Across the 3Cs, actions to protect and restore keystone, top-down regulating, and foundational species contribute to NP at the ecosystem level (166, 243). These species also provide positive feedback to the climate system by preventing carbon release and enhancing carbon sequestration (96, 134). Large carnivore and large grazer restoration efforts are best suited to C2 and C3 landscapes. Removals of invasive species can have positive effects across ecosystems (150) and improve green and blue water availability (244). Removing exotic species constitutes an NP action unless they have become part of a novel ecosystem that supports endangered species (245, 246); such exceptions will typically be restricted to C1 areas. Ecosystems also benefit from reducing populations of native generalist species that have become overabundant owing to their adaptability to human-dominated landscapes, the absence of predators, or confined ranges (247), which also aids in zoonotic disease prevention (28).

Species level

Native species are integral to the Earth system, and healthy populations with reliable access to food supplies are less likely to shed pathogens that cause disease in humans (33). The NP goal for species is to increase their distribution, abundance, functionality, and resilience, maintaining genetic diversity and preventing extinctions (91). In contrast, the GBF target for species only focuses on the latter two (T4) (248).

Worldwide, species are in decline due to habitat loss (the primary driver of species loss on land) and overharvesting (the primary driver of loss in the ocean). Other important drivers include industrial production processes, such as deforestation, mining, chemical pollution, cereal crops, and palm oil plantations, the expansion of marginal agriculture, deliberate and inadvertent introduction of invasive species (249), as well as global warming, which alters thermal conditions for species and habitat niches in ecosystems (250).

Species status varies significantly across the 3Cs. At-risk species exist in all three (251), but most are found in C1 areas (143). Moreover, species loss for C1 exceeds detectable presence as many large-bodied species have already been lost from these heavily transformed landscapes (86, 252, 253). In contrast, some largely intact C2 landscapes show remarkably complete faunal assemblages with robust genetic diversity still performing natural processes, such as migration (e.g., Serengeti-Mara). However, while C2 areas often have complete or near-to-complete faunal assemblages, they also suffer from species at risk, extirpations of some populations, declines within populations, and reduced genetic diversity (e.g., large mammals tend to decline first) (86). In addition, their aquatic integrity is often compromised by river damming. C3 areas, being the least disturbed, have few at-risk species, with the primary threat being overexploitation or climate change impacts. However, their sheer size, intactness, and inherent connectivity make them the most resilient of the 3Cs to climate change and least vulnerable to overexploitation (254).

Species actions and metrics

The NP goal to increase the distribution, abundance, function, diversity, and resilience of native species requires halting loss by maintaining intact species assemblages, increasing populations toward ecological functionality, and reducing extinction risk across the 3Cs (Figure 4).

Figure 4

This includes addressing overexploitation of species through enforced regulations or long-standing customary practices, preventing hyper-abundance of species that degrade ecosystems, implementing anti-poaching programs, and promoting active human–wildlife coexistence efforts everywhere.

Maintaining intact species assemblages

Healthy ecosystems that retain the full array of native species interacting with intact natural processes are of the greatest value to the Earth system. They also serve as a barrier against the spillover of potential pandemic-causing pathogens into human populations (131). Despite advances in ecological restoration and species recovery, there is no substitute for preserving original, intact systems. The NP goal of halting nature loss prioritizes the protection of all remaining intact ecosystems and species assemblages wherever they occur—whether in C3 areas, intact parts of C2 landscapes, or in remnant patches within C1 regions. While GBF T4 is silent on maintaining intact species assemblages and abundance, Targets 1 and 3 (spatial conservation) and Target 9 (preventing overexploitation) are aligned with this NP objective.

Restoring functional species populations

Achieving the NP goal of reversing nature loss by 2030 and fully recovering nature by 2050 requires thriving populations. Moreover, NP requires a focus on ecological processes, not just patterns of persistence. The common threshold of an effective population size of at least 500 (Indicator 4 for GBF T4) indicates reduced extinction risk but tells us nothing about whether the species is abundant enough to perform ecological processes at a scale that contributes to Earth system stability (9, 255). Similarly, counting species diversity as a metric of success is insufficient. High diversity of small-bodied species does not compensate for the loss of large vertebrates that perform keystone and regulatory functions such as predation, herbivory, and seed dispersal (243, 255).

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Green Status Framework (163) provides guidance for three NP metrics designed to ensure that species populations are large enough to sustain ecological function across landscapes and maintain resilience:

• Green Status 1 (GS1): The species exists in multiple interconnected populations, each with at least 500 individuals.

• Green Status 2 (GS2): The species is fulfilling its ecological role, with missing species reintroduced where feasible.

• Green Status 3 (GS3): The species exists in a representative set of ecosystems and communities throughout its historical range.

Progressively moving species along this Green Status continuum, from GS1 toward GS3, and maintaining them in a higher status is a contribution to NP (Figure 4). Some C2 systems are close to hosting intact large vertebrate assemblages, often missing only one to three species in the less impacted C2 regions. In such cases, reintroduction is relatively simple and could help move these ecosystems toward GS3 (256). Where species already exist in GS3 status (in many C3 areas), maintaining this state is essential to achieving the NP goal of halting biodiversity loss.

Reducing extinction risk (threatened species)

Preventing extinction is an urgent conservation priority, as the natural background species extinction rate has been greatly exceeded in the Anthropocene (257). Recovery of an extinct species is not yet possible and may never be. Conservation goals should therefore focus on reducing the extinction rate attributable to human activity, which exceeds the natural background rate (258). GBF T4 calls for halting human-induced extinctions of known threatened species and for their recovery and conservation, significantly reducing extinction risk. A key indicator for T4 is the widely used minimum viable population threshold of 500 individuals.

The IUCN Red List remains the most comprehensive assessment tool for identifying and categorizing threatened species along a continuum from least concern to global extinction (161). NP-aligned actions for threatened species aim to progressively improve their status along this continuum. Moving each species up one category or more, in a ratchet-like manner, contributes to NP (Figure 4). A “Reverse the Red” campaign actively promotes this approach, emphasizing targeted conservation actions to improve a species’ status (259).

A tool for measuring the progress of species toward nature positivity along the extinction risk continuum is the IUCN’s Species Threat Abatement and Restoration (STAR) metric (162). Unlike the IUCN Green Status, which focuses on the functional distribution across a species’ range, STAR emphasizes reducing extinction risk at specific sites and highlights opportunities for interventions to reduce extinction risk where they are greatest. The STAR system is particularly useful in C1 areas and in the more fragmented parts of C2. For an actor seeking to contribute to NP at the species level, STAR provides a multi-step assessment process that leads to an appropriate threat reduction strategy. The IUCN has published guidance on using the STAR metric to contribute to NP outcomes (260).

Protecting areas to avoid imminent extinction of rare, narrow-range, endemic, and threatened species is an important action under GBF T3, particularly in C1 areas. The Conservation Imperatives approach provides a guide for identifying such priority sites across all 3Cs (160).

Genetic diversity

Genetic diversity is essential for maintaining healthy populations of any size. It is inherently supported by many of the above actions. However, care must be taken to ensure that large populations of recovered species are genetically robust enough to retain resilience, which may require reintroducing genetic diversity (261).

Enabling social and economic conditions for a Nature Positive shift

We now move from conservation actions and metrics to enabling social and economic conditions necessary to achieve the NP global goal. We begin with diverse cultural perspectives, governance, and equity between the Global North and Global South.

Engaging diverse cultural perspectives in Nature Positive

Arising from contemporary empirical science, the NP approach incorporates a holistic understanding of life and a responsibility to act for the health of the planet. It positions human development as being embedded in nature rather than as a competing interest with it (Figure 1) and emphasizes the importance of considering the flow of natural processes over time at varying scales. But not all cultures are driven by empirical science.

Humans interacted with nature throughout the Holocene (262). Many ethnocultural traditions from South Asia, China, Africa, and Indigenous peoples worldwide converge in viewing humans as embedded ecological participants with relational responsibilities to live in balance and harmony with a dynamic natural world, rather than as having rights to exploit static natural resources (263–265). The NP approach is aligned with those cultural perspectives that provide a basis for a shared vision for humanity to live well while respecting nature’s biological patterns and natural processes, as discussed further in Nature Positive Society, a companion paper to this article (266). Engagement on an equal footing with other cultures’ relational and intrinsic values (267) will increase support for NP goals.

Other knowledge systems could also give rise to NP conservation approaches and metrics complementary to those we have outlined. For example, Indigenous and local communities often possess deep knowledge of the sustainability of their ecological contexts based on long-term observation and interactions. This can be embraced alongside empirical science through mutual respectful engagement in “ethical space”, where the goal is reconciliation of knowledge systems to achieve NP (268).

Nature Positive governance reform

Meeting biodiversity, climate, and social goals contemporaneously will require greater integration of governance to carefully identify co-benefits, trade-offs, and co-detriments (149, 269) and is urgently necessary to avoid tipping points (270). Yet we lack strong global governance for sustainability. The CBD and UNFCCC/Paris Agreement are structured to place primary responsibility for implementation on state parties, although an International Court of Justice (271) advisory opinion has created the possibility for Global South countries that suffer adverse effects of climate change to sue for damages where a Global North country’s failure to meet its commitments has led to direct harm.

In many countries, nature is usually the purview of an environment department rather than fully integrated into high-level decision-making processes, which is necessary if we are to meet global goals (92). Through systemic national-level integration, Costa Rica successfully halted and reversed biodiversity loss from 1990 levels (272). It is common in federal systems for provinces to control land use and, in some countries, for municipalities to govern large areas. Integration of national and sub-national governance, policies, and actions is essential and will be the focus of a global Nature Positive Summit in Japan (273).

Indigenous peoples’ territories often have significant biodiversity, but frequently they have been marginalized from governance of those areas, contrary to the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (274). Power imbalances and lack of capacity can be addressed effectively and equitably (269) in a bio-cultural approach (275) that moves beyond consultation or financial compensation into design, governance, and financial participation (276). NP governance innovations that embed nature in all aspects of decision-making have emerged from Indigenous peoples themselves—e.g., the Buffalo Treaty among First Nations and Tribes of North America (277) and Māori people initiating personhood for rivers in New Zealand/Aotearoa (278).

Nature Positive shift and finance

Funding is required to implement conservation measures. Informed by the Paulson Report (279), GBF T19’s funding target to implement national biodiversity strategies and action plans is at least US$200 billion from all sources. This includes overseas development assistance (ODA) from rich nations of at least US$20 billion annually by 2025 and US$30 billion annually by 2030, which we discuss next in the context of equitable sharing of responsibilities between the Global North and Global South.

Equitable sharing of responsibilities between the Global North and South

In the developed North, advanced economies must conserve remaining intact nature, restore degraded natural systems, and decarbonize at their own expense. This transition requires strong political will, which could be driven by self-interest: continued environmental degradation will destabilize economies (80), threaten capital stocks (83), and intensify political instability through increased climate-related displacement and refugee crises (280).

In the Global South, similar actions are required. While degradation of nature occurs in both wealthy and poorer nations, the consumptive footprints of the Global North and newly industrialized nations are major drivers of biodiversity loss in developing regions. Similarly, climate change—primarily caused by emissions from wealthy industrialized countries and, more recently, by rapidly developing economies (281) —disproportionately affects poorer nations (282). Financial transfers from developed to developing nations are therefore equitable (283–286).

Both the CBD and UNFCCC have agreed on financial commitments. GBF Target 19 calls for overseas development assistance from rich nations of at least US$20 billion annually by 2025 and US$30 billion annually by 2030. A multilateral mechanism for the fair and equitable sharing of benefits from the use of digital sequence information on genetic resources, including a global fund, has also been agreed (99). The UNFCCC has an agreed US$300 billion annual resource mobilization goal from North to South by 2035. It also operationalized a Loss and Damage Fund, with US$730 million in initial pledges (287). Fulfilling these commitments is critical for achieving shared environmental goals equitably.

Many Global South countries struggle with national debt burdens, which restrict the financial resources available to them for both human development and NP implementation. Debt for nature swaps (DNS) started as an international public finance incentive to protect nature, involving debt forgiveness in exchange for conservation commitments (288). More recently, DNS have involved a reduction in the cost of borrowing for a developing country in return for NP actions (289, 290). Concessional finance from multilateral development banks (MDBs) or guarantees from rich countries improve the investment grade of developing countries’ debt, which reduces interest rates. Such debt cost reduction projects have been implemented in several countries with NP conservation outcomes (291, 292).

Nature Positive transformation of the dominant economic system

The NP shift also requires a transformation of the dominant economic system, which is recognized in the GBF. We discuss how this can be enabled by valuing nature in public accounting standards, and through ODA, MDBs, innovations in financial markets, and changes in business operations. We begin with valuing nature.

Valuing nature

T14 calls for changes in national accounting and fully integrating the values of biodiversity. Many people attach non-economic value to nature (293, 294), but the world’s dominant economic system does not. There are critiques of attaching financial value to nature because it undervalues or ignores values reflective of human–nature relationships (267) and could result in privatization of public goods (295) or economic imperialism (296). However, achieving the NP shift will require alignment of the dominant financial system, which is currently driving the loss of biodiversity (80, 297). We focus first on public sector mechanisms to attach economic value to nature in national accounts.

Public sector finance and Nature Positive

The global financial system treats “natural assets” as free for the taking with the only cost being the expense of extraction or harvesting (80). The result is private enterprise capturing the value at the expense of the common biosphere (298). Private enrichment with externalized costs is counted as a positive number in standard national accounts and Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (299). Thus, nature-negative actions are counted as positive economic outputs in government finances. For the world to become NP, governments must address this systemic problem through standards, regulations, and the creation of market mechanisms (80).

The externalized cost of economic activity can be viewed as depreciating the “natural capital” that underpins the economy and human well-being, but without accounting for that loss of value to society (80) (Figure 1). Valuing natural capital and ecosystem services is an effective way to correct this by measuring and counting the value to society alongside the extracted value realized by an individual or corporation (80, 300). Natural capital (also known as tangible natural assets or stocks of nature) produces flows of ecosystem services that can be measured through a “shadow” price. In 2012, the UN System of Environmental-Economic Accounting (SEEA) created a statistical Central Framework (CF) that enables countries to measure their natural capital and understand the contributions of nature to national prosperity and the importance of protecting it. Building on the CF, the UN also developed SEEA Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EA), which provides a more in-depth view of the health of natural capital in each jurisdiction (301, 302). So far, over 90 countries compile accounts using SEEA CF, while over 50 countries also use the more detailed SEEA EA. However, these statistical frameworks are satellite standards to the System of National Accounts (SNA) and therefore have limited influence on how GDP is calculated by countries. To make an NP change, governments must meaningfully integrate SEEA EA into their system of national accounts and use this information to inform public sector decision-making.

Another avenue for integrating the value of natural capital into mainstream financial markets is to address barriers that limit the value of nature from being accounted for in public sector accounting standards. Currently, intact nature is left out of international accounting frameworks, and its economic value is not counted until it is exploited, purchased, or sold. Even formal area-based conservation actions by the state are viewed as an expense rather than an investment, and the resulting conservation areas are not viewed as assets in public accounting. However, in January 2026, the International Public Sector Accounting Standards Board (IPSASB) released IPSAS 51, Tangible Natural Resources Held for Conservation, which will allow governments to count conservation areas as tangible natural assets (303, 304). Getting countries to adopt this new accounting standard will be an important NP action (305).

Private sector investment in conservation

T19 seeks to increase private investment as part of the US$200 billion for conservation measures, but it provides no pathways for it. In market terms, nature is worth more dead than alive. New markets for the “social value” of nature are needed (80), whether through regulatory support or capital market evolution.

Nature markets began with “no net loss” biodiversity harm mitigation laws, such as the United States Clean Water Act (306) and the United Kingdom’s biodiversity net gain requirement under the Environment Act 2021 (307). Since these markets are inherently about mitigating loss, they can lead to further degradation of an intact area “offset” through restoration of a degraded area. This can help the world move toward less loss on the road to nature positivity (91, 308), but more than an offsets market is required to engage private investment to halt and reverse nature loss.

The European Union is evaluating a voluntary nature credits system (309). It builds on earlier private and government efforts to create biodiversity credits to sell to the private sector (310). Biodiversity credits require additionality, which means some improvement in the conditions of the underlying nature asset. Additionality is good for reversing loss through restoration (310). The International Advisory Panel on Biodiversity Credits (IAPBC) also includes improved governance and protection as an additionality. This may include Indigenous stewardship agreements or legal designations that did not previously exist (310). Biodiversity credits are of interest to buyers motivated by charitable or social license considerations but not to investors who seek a financial return on investment.

Unlocking large amounts of private capital for intact nature will require financial innovations (311) that provide a return on investment or reduce risk to capital. Governments can stimulate the creation of market mechanisms through concessional finance. This approach underpins the innovative Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF), intended to attract private investment to halt the loss of tropical forests. Led by Brazil, TFFF was launched at UNFCCC COP30 in Belem. Its goal is to raise an initial US$25 billion from MDBs, ODA, and philanthropies to invest and also improve the investment grade of US$100 billion of debt to be sold to private investors. The resulting US$125 billion fund would then be invested to generate returns above the cost of borrowing, which is expected to net US$4 billion a year. This would be paid to governments of tropical forest countries to halt deforestation, with a specific percentage of the funds earmarked for Indigenous and local communities (312). In the month it was launched, there were over US$6 billion in pledges toward the initial US$25 billion (313).

Heightened awareness of nature risk and interest in investing to reduce it (314) could create a market for halting the loss of nature. Large investors are “universal owners” of climate and nature risks because they are widely invested in the global economy (315). Thus, ensuring the stability of the Earth system represented by natural capital is in their business interest, and they could invest in it. There is an existing natural capital protocol for business (316, 317) that is consistent with SEEA (318, 319). Initiatives to “put nature on the balance sheet” have identified the limitations in accounting standards and frameworks that prevent the inclusion of non-purchased natural assets in financial statements and provided a road map for addressing the problem (319).

The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) released the world’s first international biodiversity standard in October 2025. ISO 17298 “Biodiversity — Considering biodiversity in the strategy and operations of organizations — Requirements and guidelines” provides companies, investors, and public institutions with a globally agreed rulebook for how to measure, manage, and report their relationship with natural capital (320). For the private sector, this defines how biodiversity risk enters credit rating, audit trails, and shareholder expectations.

Meanwhile, natural asset companies create an asset class for nature, enabling direct investment in protected natural capital (321). Similarly, insurance arrangements focused on avoiding loss of natural capital, in which part of the premiums received are invested in nature to reduce the likelihood of loss of ecosystem services vital to a particular economic sector, could be created. To stimulate the market and create a level investment environment, governments could regulate financial institutions and businesses to hold some percentage of their assets as natural capital (this could also create a market for biodiversity credits).

Local and Indigenous communities should be involved in the design, returns, and governance of nature and climate investments that affect their areas to ensure both equitable outcomes and security of title. Including traditional knowledge systems will also likely enhance the performance of the underlying nature asset (269).

Private sector operations and subsidies

The NP shift requires economic transformation beyond government finances and private markets. Economic factors and consumption patterns are major drivers of both biodiversity loss and climate change and must be fundamentally transformed if we are to achieve the NP global goal (322). Here, we focus on realigning business operations.

Business interests have been involved in NP efforts since its inception, including in co-authoring the foundational NP paper (91) and successfully supporting the inclusion of targets in the GBF that encourage businesses to make an NP shift (317). The aims are as follows:

• All sectors should align their activities with the GBF (T14).

• Corporations should reduce their impact on nature and report their dependencies on nature (T15).

• Governments should eliminate US$500 billion in nature-negative subsidies to business by 2030 (T18).

• Corporate and financial sectors should participate in GBF financing (T19, discussed above).

T14 and 15 have attracted significant interest from both operating companies and the financial sector (323), and there was substantial private sector participation at the Global Nature Positive Summit hosted by Australia and the state of New South Wales (324). In 2025, the World Economic Forum reported growing consensus around business alignment with the NP goal (325).

To transform operations, businesses will need to embed NP approaches across all business decisions (317). Alignment methods include both internal decision-making tools (such as the Natural Capital Protocol) and disclosure-related tools. The Task Force on Nature-related Financial Disclosures has developed voluntary guidance (adopted by hundreds of companies and financial institutions) to help businesses integrate nature into decision-making and shift financial flows away from nature-negative outcomes and toward nature-positive outcomes. (326). The Nature Positive Initiative is developing voluntary corporate NP metrics for businesses to make meaningful and reportable contributions to the global NP goal (327). Science Based Targets for Nature is developing a drivers-oriented framework to help companies align their activities with NP (328).

Measures like these will be mandatory in the European Union, which has passed rules scheduled to come into force in 2027 that will require companies to report on “sustainability matters” (environmental, social and human rights, and governance factors), including their supply chains and actions to prevent or mitigate adverse impacts (329).

Many of the world’s largest mining companies have collectively endorsed NP, asserting that “nature positive must be both an objective to be achieved, as well as an embedded approach to doing business” (330). Industry-specific NP approaches have now been proposed for the mining sector (331), the agricultural sector (239), and wind farming (332). The Nature Positive Universities Initiative involves 500 private and public higher education institutions across the world committed to promoting nature on their campuses, in their supply chains, and within their cities and communities (333). There is also a well-developed mitigation hierarchy available for businesses to reduce inevitable impacts as part of the transition to NP (334). Rigorous attention to achieving assured NP outcomes will be required to avoid “greenwashing” (335, 336).

T18 materially understates the flow of public subsidies to private activities that must be changed: there is an annual net US$7 trillion in nature-negative financial flows, US$5 trillion of which are private (337). This requires public policy shifts in incentives (279), which will be more likely to happen with business support.

An NP world will only be achieved if there is a transformed, enabling economic environment. This requires alignment of financial incentives, business operations, innovation to make intact nature investable, public and private investments in conservation, and integration of government actions across the treaties.

Integration through co-reporting progress toward Nature Positive, climate goals, and the Sustainable Development Goals

We have demonstrated that achieving the SDGs and global climate goals is intrinsically linked to the NP goal. An explicit overarching objective for all three should be the integrated pursuit of an equitable, nature-positive, and carbon-neutral world (91).

Now that there is recognition of the nature–climate nexus from the parties to the CBD and UNFCCC and also the International High Court, national governments should align their reporting of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement and National Biodiversity Strategic Action Plans (NBSAPs) under the GBF. At CBD COP16, an initial step toward this integration was made by “urging … parties to consider integrating into their NBSAPS … approaches … to climate change adaptation and mitigation” (99).

NBSAPS could immediately include carbon sequestration and storage indicators under GBF Targets 1–3 and 11. Similarly, the SDGs should explicitly acknowledge the GBF in SDG 14 and 15, as they currently recognize the Paris Agreement in SDG 13. Integrating NBSAPs and NDCs could be facilitated through the existing architecture under provision 4.19 of the Paris Agreement, which calls for long-term low-emission development strategies (338). Joint reporting across the Paris Agreement and CBD/GBF could also serve to track progress on SDGs 13, 14, and 15, while incorporating shifts in production and consumption patterns and the transformation of subsidies, aligning with SDG 12.

Both the GBF and Paris Agreement emphasize equitable outcomes, which are also a focus of SDGs 1–7, 16, and 17. Joint reporting on equity across these global agreements would mark a major advance as it would foster integrated thinking, improve efficient deployment of financial resources, address underlying drivers in a coordinated manner, and achieve positive outcomes for both people and the Earth system. All of this joint reporting across the GBF, UNFCCC/Paris Agreement, and the SDGs should start immediately. As a further step, the integration of planetary boundaries and equitable objectives has been proposed through the concept of safe and just Earth system boundaries (104), for which Rockström et al. (201) provided Earth system boundary metrics. They should be widened to include the species, ecosystems, and natural processes discussed above. These global metrics could then be used by governments to assess progress toward living within all nine planetary boundaries.

Conclusion

The Earth system is rapidly unraveling. Protecting intact nature and restoring damaged ecosystems must be prioritized in global policy to the same extent as climate action under the Paris Agreement and the SDGs for human development. Realizing the GBF’s NP mission, goals, and targets, with heightened attention to natural processes and feedbacks, would be an essential stabilizing action. However, actions under the GBF alone are insufficient. We are at or near the critical threshold of 1.5°C of climate warming (339–341), beyond which the Earth system could cross tipping points (59).

Concerted, aligned, and monitored efforts across the CBD, UNFCCC, SDGs, and all of society are needed to create an NP future that is equitable and carbon neutral. To achieve this requires conservation action and an enabling social and economic environment that includes money to pay for it, reorientation of financial flows, a shift in production and consumption practices away from nature-negative activities toward positive outcomes, new financial mechanisms, and stronger coordinated governance that is equitable and people positive.

It is a grim irony that just as the need for integrated action at all scales has become both apparent and urgent, the UN system and multilateralism in general are under enormous pressure (309). Time has shown, however, that what is urgent eventually becomes apparent to even the most reluctant. There remain many actors who are both deeply concerned about the state of the world and highly committed to improving it, including a broadly based Nature Positive Initiative (342).

Achieving the NP goal of halting and reversing nature loss, with a net improvement by 2030 from a 2020 baseline, is essential for the well-being of humanity and the rest of life. It is the only pathway to ensuring that the 21st century progresses toward peace, prosperity, stability, better health, and natural beauty, rather than descending into a future marked by large-scale human displacement, violent conflict, fires, floods, disease, food and freshwater shortages, inhospitable climates, and ecosystem collapse.

It is time for us to recognize that nature is the foundation of all human affairs. Unless we act swiftly to make the world NP by 2030, our lives are likely to become very difficult in a destabilized Anthropocene.

References

• 1

  BrondizioEDiazSSetteleJNgoHT, editors. Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Bonn: Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Secretariat (2019). doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3831673

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 2

  RockströmJBeringerTHoleDGriscomBMasciaMBFolkeCet al. We need biosphere stewardship that protects carbon sinks and builds resilience. Proc Natl Acad Sci (2021) 118:e2115218118 doi: 10.1073/pnas.2115218118

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 3

  RichardsonKSteffenWLuchtWBendtsenJCornellSEDongesJFet al. Earth beyond six of nine planetary boundaries. Sci Adv (2023) 9:eadh2458. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.adh2458

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 4

  FinnCGrattarolaFPincheira-DonosoD. More losers than winners: investigating Anthropocene defaunation through the diversity of population trends. Biol Rev (2023) 98:1732–48. doi: 10.1111/brv.12974

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 5

  Des RochesSPendletonLHShapiroBPalkovacsEP. Conserving intraspecific variation for nature’s contributions to people. Nat Ecol Evol (2021) 5:574–82. doi: 10.1038/s41559-021-01403-5

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 6

  LeighDMHendryAPVázquez-DomínguezEFriesenVL. Estimated six per cent loss of genetic variation in wild populations since the industrial revolution. Evol Appl (2019) 12:1505–12. doi: 10.1111/eva.12810

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 7

  DinersteinEOlsonDJoshiAVynneCBurgessNDWikramanayakeEet al. An ecoregion-based approach to protecting half the terrestrial realm. BioScience (2017) 67:534–45. doi: 10.1093/biosci/bix014

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 8

  BeyerHVenterOGranthamHWatsonJ. Substantial losses in ecoregion intactness highlight urgency of globally coordinated action. Conserv Lett (2019) 13. doi: 10.1111/conl.12692

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 9

  BauerSHoyeBJ. Migratory animals couple biodiversity and ecosystem functioning worldwide. Science (2014) 344:1242552. doi: 10.1126/science.1242552

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 10

  United Nations Environment Programme, World Conservation Monitoring Centre. State of the world’s migratory species. Cambridge: UNEP-WCMC (2024). Available at: https://www.cms.int/sites/default/files/publication/State%20of%20the%20Worlds%20Migratory%20Species%20report_E.pdf

  • Google Scholar

• 11

  AlsteensD. Grand challenges in biophysics. Front Biophys (2023) 1. doi: 10.3389/frbis.2023.1215594

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 12

  GrillGLehnerBThiemeMGeenenBTicknerDAntonelliFet al. Mapping the world’s free-flowing rivers. Nature (2019) 569:215–21. doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1111-9

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 13

  DiazRJRosenbergR. Spreading dead zones and consequences for marine ecosystems. Science (2008) 321:926–9 doi: 10.1126/science.1156401

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 14

  ChengLAbrahamJHausfatherZTrenberthKE. How fast are the oceans warming? Science (2019) 363:128–9. doi: 10.1126/science.aav7619

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 15

  FrölicherTLFischerEMGruberN. Marine heatwaves under global warming. Nature (2018) 560:360–4. doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0383-9

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 16

  GlecklerPJDurackPJStoufferRJJohnsonGCForestCE. Industrial-era global ocean heat uptake doubles in recent decades. Nat Climate Change (2016) 6:394–8. doi: 10.1038/nclimate2915

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 17

  LaffoleyDBaxterJM, editors. Explaining ocean warming: causes, scale, effects and consequences. Gland: International Union for Conservation of Nature (2016). Available at: https://www.marinespecies.org/imis.php?module=ref&refid=261266

  • Google Scholar

• 18

  ZannaLKhatiwalaSGregoryJMIsonJHeimbachP. Global reconstruction of historical ocean heat storage and transport. Proc Natl Acad Sci (2019) 116:1126–31. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1808838115

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 19

  CattanoCClaudetJDomeniciPMilazzoM. Living in a high CO2 world: A global meta-analysis shows multiple trait-mediated fish responses to ocean acidification. Ecol Monogr (2018) 88:320–35. doi: 10.1002/ecm.1297

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 20

  DoneySCFabryVJFeelyRAKleypasJA. Ocean acidification: the other CO2 problem. Annu Rev Mar Sci (2009) 1:169–92. doi: 10.1146/annurev.marine.010908.163834

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 21

  BreitburgDLevinLAOschliesAGrégoireMChavezFPConleyDJet al. Declining oxygen in the global ocean and coastal waters. Science (2018) 359:eaam7240. doi: 10.1126/science.aam7240

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 22

  HughesTPBarnesMLBellwoodDRCinnerJECummingGSJacksonJBet al. Coral reefs in the anthropocene. Nature (2017) 546:82–90. doi: 10.1038/nature22901

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 23

  WernbergTThomsenMSBaumJKBishopMJBrunoJFColemanMAet al. Impacts of climate change on marine foundation species. Annu Rev Mar Sci (2024) 16:247–82. doi: 10.1146/annurev-marine-042023-093037

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 24

  GoreauTJFHayesRL. Record marine heat waves: coral reef bleaching HotSpot maps reveal global sea surface temperature extremes, coral mortality, and ocean circulation changes. Oxford Open Clim Change. (2024) 4:kgae005. doi: 10.1093/oxfclm/kgae005

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 25

  BindoffNLCheungWWKairoJGArísteguiJGuinderVAHallbergRet al. Changing ocean, marine ecosystems, and dependent communities. In: PörtnerH-ORobertsDCMasson-DelmotteVZhaiPTignorMPoloczanskaEet al., editors. The ocean and the cryosphere in a changing climate. Special report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2019). 477–587. doi: 10.1017/9781009157964.007

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 26

  MeleIMcGillRAThompsonJFennellJFitzerS. Ocean acidification, warming and feeding impacts on biomineralization pathways and shell material properties of Magallana gigas and Mytilus spp. Mar Environ Res (2023) 186:105925. doi: 10.1016/j.marenvres.2023.105925

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 27

  MahonMBSackAAleuyOABarberaCBrownEBuelowHet al. A meta-analysis on global change drivers and the risk of infectious disease. Nature (2024) 629:830–6. doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07380-6

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 28

  LoGiudiceKOstfeldRSSchmidtKAKeesingF. The ecology of infectious disease: effects of host diversity and community composition on Lyme disease risk. Proc Natl Acad Sci (2003) 100:567–71. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0233733100

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 29

  FaustCLMcCallumHIBloomfieldLSPGottdenkerNLGillespieTRTorneyCJet al. Pathogen spillover during land conversion. Ecol Lett (2018) 21(4):471–83 doi: 10.1111/ele.12904

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 30

  PlowrightRKReaserJKLockeHWoodleySJPatzJABeckerDJet al. Land use-induced spillover: a call to action to safeguard environmental, animal, and human health. Lancet Planet Health (2021) 5:e237–45. doi: 10.1016/S2542-5196(21)00031-0

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 31

  EbyPPeelAJHoeghAMaddenWGilesJRHudsonPJet al. Pathogen spillover driven by rapid changes in bat ecology. Nature (2023) 613:340–4. doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05506-2

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 32

  HolmesECGoldsteinSARasmussenALRobertsonDLCrits-ChristophAWertheimJOet al. The origins of SARS-CoV-2: A critical review. Cell (2021) 184:4848–56. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2021.08.017

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 33

  PlowrightRKAhmedANCoulsonTCrowtherTWEjotreIFaustCLet al. Ecological countermeasures to prevent pathogen spillover and subsequent pandemics. Nat Commun (2024) 15:2577. doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-46151-9

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 34

  Roy-DufresneELoganTSimonJAChmuraGLMillienV. Poleward expansion of the white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus) under climate change: implications for the spread of Lyme disease. PloS One (2013) 8:e80724. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0080724

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 35

  MoraCMcKenzieTGawIMDeanJMvon HammersteinHKnudsonTAet al. Over half of known human pathogenic diseases can be aggravated by climate change. Nat Climate Change (2022) 12:869–75. doi: 10.1038/s41558-022-01426-1

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 36

  JohnsonMSMatthewsEBastvikenDDeemerBDuJGenoveseV. Spatiotemporal methane emission from global reservoirs. J Geophys Res Biogeosci (2021) 126:e2021JG006305. doi: 10.1029/2021JG006305

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 37

  Rocher-RosGStanleyEHLokenLCCassonNJRaymondPALiuSet al. Global methane emissions from rivers and streams. Nature (2023) 621:530–5. doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06344-6

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 38

  HastieACoronadoENHReynaJMitchardETÅkessonCMBakerTRet al. Risks to carbon storage from land-use change revealed by peat thickness maps of Peru. Nat Geosci (2022) doi: 10.1038/s41561-022-00923-4

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 39

  HarrisLIRichardsonKBonaKADavidsonSJFinkelsteinSAGarneauMet al. The essential carbon service provided by northern peatlands. Front Ecol Environ (2022) 20:222–30 doi: 10.1002/fee.2437

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 40

  Bourgeau-ChavezLLGrelikSLBattagliaMJLeismanDJChimnerRAHribljanJAet al. Advances in Amazonian peatland discrimination with multi-temporal PALSAR refines estimates of peatland distribution, c stocks and deforestation. Front Earth Sci (2021) 9:676748 doi: 10.3389/feart.2021.676748

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 41

  LoiselJGallego-SalaAVAmesburyMMagnanGAnshariGBeilmanDet al. Expert assessment of future vulnerability of the global peatland carbon sink. Nat Climate Change (2021) 11:70–7 doi: 10.1038/s41558-020-00944-0

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 42

  HuangYCiaisPLuoYZhuDWangYQiuCet al. Tradeoff of CO2 and CH4 emissions from global peatlands under water-table drawdown. Nat Climate Change (2021) 11:618–22 doi: 10.1038/s41558-021-01059-w

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 43

  United Nations Environment Programme. Global peatlands assessment: the state of the world’s peatlands. UNEP (2022). Available at: http://www.unep.org/resources/global-peatlands-assessment-2022

  • Google Scholar

• 44

  DarusmanTMurdiyarsoDImpronAnasI. Effect of rewetting degraded peatlands on carbon fluxes: a meta-analysis. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2023) 28:10. doi: 10.1007/s11027-023-10046-9

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 45

  SuarezEChimbolemaSJaramilloRZurita-ArthosLArellanoPChimnerRAet al. Challenges and opportunities for restoration of high-elevation Andean peatlands in Ecuador: Mitigation & Adaptation Strategies for Global Change. Mitig Adap Strateg Global Change (2022) 27:1–17. doi: 10.1007/s11027-022-10006-9

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 46

  DonatoDCKauffmanJBMurdiyarsoDKurniantoSStidhamMKanninenM. Mangroves among the most carbon-rich forests in the tropics. Nat Geosci (2011) 4:293–7 doi: 10.1038/ngeo1123

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 47

  DuarteCMLosadaIJHendriksIEMazarrasaIMarbàN. The role of coastal plant communities for climate change mitigation and adaptation. Nat Climate Change (2013) 3:961–8 doi: 10.1038/nclimate1970

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 48

  AtwoodTBConnollyRMAlmahasheerHCarnellPEDuarteCMEwers LewisCJet al. Global patterns in mangrove soil carbon stocks and losses. Nat Climate Change (2017) 7:523–8 doi: 10.1038/nclimate3326

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 49

  EzcurraEBarriosEEzcurraPEzcurraAVanderplankSVidalOet al. A natural experiment reveals the impact of hydroelectric dams on the estuaries of tropical rivers. Sci Adv (2019) 5:eaau9875. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aau9875

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 50

  DayJWColtenCKempGP. Mississippi Delta Restoration and Protection: Shifting Baselines, Diminishing Resilience, and Growing Nonsustainability. In: WolanskiEDayJWElliottMRamachandranR, editors. Coasts and Estuaries. Amsterdam: Elsevier (2019). 167–86. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-814003-1.00010-1

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 51

  DayJWShafferGPCahoonDRDeLauneRD. Canals, backfilling and wetland loss in the Mississippi Delta. Estuarine Coast Shelf Sci (2019) 227:106325 doi: 10.1016/j.ecss.2019.106325

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 52

  DudaJJTorgersenCEBrenkmanSJPetersRJSuttonKTConnorHAet al. Reconnecting the elwha river: spatial patterns of fish response to dam removal. Front Ecol Evol (2021) 9. doi: 10.3389/fevo.2021.765488

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 53

  FoleyMMWarrickJARitchieAStevensAWShafrothPBDudaJJet al. Coastal habitat and biological community response to dam removal on the Elwha River. Ecol Monogr (2017) 87:552–77. doi: 10.1002/ecm.1268

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 54

  GrableJ. Salmon have returned above the Klamath River dams. Now what? Hatch Magazine (2024). Available at: https://www.hatchmag.com/articles/salmon-have-returned-above-klamath-river-dams-now-what/7716021

  • Google Scholar

• 55

  McCafferyRDudaJJSoissonsLRousselJ-M. Editorial: Large-scale dam removal and ecosystem restoration. Front Ecol Evol (2024) 12. doi: 10.3389/fevo.2024.1471146

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 56

  MolinaRDSalazarJFMartínezJAVillegasJCAriasPA. Forest-induced exponential growth of precipitation along climatological wind streamlines over the Amazon. J Geophys Res: Atmos (2019) 124:2589–99. doi: 10.1029/2018JD029534

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 57

  LovejoyTENobreC. Amazon tipping point: Last chance for action. Sci Adv (2019) 5:eaba2949. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aba2949

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 58

  MapBiomas Amazonia [website]. Available at: https://amazonia.mapbiomas.org/en/

  • Google Scholar

• 59

  Armstrong McKayDIStaalAAbramsJFWinkelmannRSakschewskiBLorianiSet al. Exceeding 1.5 °C global warming could trigger multiple climate tipping points. Science (2022) 377:eabn7950. doi: 10.1126/science.abn7950

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 60

  BoultonCALentonTMBoersN. Pronounced loss of Amazon rainforest resilience since the early 2000s. Nat Climate Change (2022) 12:271–8. doi: 10.1038/s41558-022-01287-8

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 61

  MitchardETA. The tropical forest carbon cycle and climate change. Nature (2018) 559:527–34. doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0300-2

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 62

  CostaMHFleckLCCohnASAbrahãoGMBrandoPMCoeMTet al. Climate risks to Amazon agriculture suggest a rationale to conserve local ecosystems. Front Ecol Environ (2019) 17:584–90. doi: 10.1002/fee.2124

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 63

  FinneyDLMarshamJHWalkerDPBirchCEWoodhamsBJJacksonLSet al. The effect of westerlies on East African rainfall and the associated role of tropical cyclones and the Madden–Julian Oscillation. Q J R Meteorol Soc (2020) 146:647–64. doi: 10.1002/qj.3698

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 64

  Leite-FilhoATSoares-FilhoBSDavisJLAbrahãoGMBörnerJ. Deforestation reduces rainfall and agricultural revenues in the Brazilian Amazon. Nat Commun (2021) 12:2591. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-22840-7

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 65

  SmithCBakerJSpracklenD. Tropical deforestation causes large reductions in observed precipitation. Nature (2023) 615:270–5. doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05690-1

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 66

  VeraCBaezJDouglasMEmmanuelCBMarengoJMeitinJet al. The south american low-level jet experiment. Bull Am Meteorol Soc (2006) 87:63–78. doi: 10.1175/BAMS-87-1-63

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 67

  LauranceWFPeresCA, editors. Emerging threats to tropical forests. Chicago: University of Chicago Press (2006). Available at: https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/E/bo3750533.html

  • Google Scholar

• 68

  WordenSFuRChakrabortySLiuJWordenJ. Where does moisture come from over the Congo Basin? J Geophys Res: Biogeosc (2021) 126:e2020JG006024. doi: 10.1029/2020JG006024

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 69

  GarcinYSchefußEDargieGCHawthorneDLawsonITSebagDet al. Hydroclimatic vulnerability of peat carbon in the central Congo Basin. Nature (2022) 612:277–82. doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05389-3

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 70

  GattiLVBassoLSMillerJBGloorMGatti DominguesLCassolHLet al. Amazonia as a carbon source linked to deforestation and climate change. Nature (2021) 595:388–93 doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03629-6

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 71

  StaalAFetzerIWang-ErlandssonLBosmansJHCDekkerSCvan NesEHet al. Hysteresis of tropical forests in the 21st century. Nat Commun (2020) 11:4978. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-18728-7

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 72

  ReaserJKWittATaborGMHudsonPJPlowrightRK. Ecological countermeasures for preventing zoonotic disease outbreaks: when ecological restoration is a human health imperative. Restor Ecol (2021) 29:e13357 doi: 10.1111/rec.13357

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 73

  BernsteinASAndoAWLoch-TemzelidesTValeMMLiBVLiHet al. The costs and benefits of primary prevention of zoonotic pandemics. Sci Adv (2022) 8:eabl4183. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abl4183

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 74

  DobsonAPPimmSLHannahLKaufmanLAhumadaJAAndoAWet al. Ecology and economics for pandemic prevention. Science (2020) 369:379–81. doi: 10.1126/science.abc3189

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 75

  CoffeyYBhullarNDurkinJIslamMSUsherK. Understanding Eco-anxiety: A systematic scoping review of current literature and identified knowledge gaps. J Climate Change Health (2021) 3:100047. doi: 10.1016/j.joclim.2021.100047

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 76

  HickmanCMarksEPihkalaPClaytonSLewandowskiREMayallEEet al. Climate anxiety in children and young people and their beliefs about government responses to climate change: a global survey. Lancet Planet Health (2021) 5:e863–73. doi: 10.1016/S2542-5196(21)00278-3

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 77

  NinomiyaMEMBurnsNPollockNJGreenNTGMartinJLintonJet al. Indigenous communities and the mental health impacts of land dispossession related to industrial resource development: a systematic review. Lancet Planet Health (2023) 7:e501–17. doi: 10.1016/S2542-5196(23)00079-7

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 78

  NejadeRMGraceDBowmanLR. What is the impact of nature on human health? A scoping review of the literature. J Global Health (2022) 12. doi: 10.7189/jogh.12.04099

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 79

  AbbasiKAliPBarbourVBenfieldTBibbins-DomingoKHancocksSet al. Time to treat the climate and nature crisis as one indivisible global health emergency. BMJ (2023) 383:p2355. doi: 10.1136/bmj.p2355

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 80

  DasguptaP. The economics of biodiversity: the Dasgupta review. London: HM Treasury (2021). Available at: https://www.vliz.be/imisdocs/publications/377863.pdf

  • Google Scholar

• 81

  FolkeCPolaskySRockströmJGalazVWestleyFLamontMet al. Our future in the Anthropocene biosphere. Ambio (2021) 50:834–69. doi: 10.1007/s13280-021-01544-8

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 82

  RussoA. Half of world’s GDP moderately or highly dependent on nature, says new report. World Economic Forum (2020). Available at: https://www.weforum.org/press/2020/01/half-of-world-s-gdp-moderately-or-highly-dependent-on-nature-says-new-report/

  • Google Scholar

• 83

  Network for Greening the Financial System. Nature-related financial risks: a conceptual framework to guide action by central banks and supervisors. Paris: NGFS (2023). Available at: https://www.ngfs.net/sites/default/files/medias/documents/ngfs_conceptual-framework-on-nature-related-risks.pdf

  • Google Scholar

• 84

  DíazSFargioneJChapinFSTilmanD. Biodiversity loss threatens human well-being. PloS Biol (2006) 4:e277. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0040277

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 85

  ZalasiewiczJWatersCNSummerhayesCPWolfeAPBarnoskyADCearretaAet al. The Working Group on the Anthropocene: summary of evidence and interim recommendations. Anthropocene (2017) 19:55–60 doi: 10.1016/j.ancene.2017.09.001

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 86

  CeballosGEhrlichPRDirzoR. Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines. Proc Natl Acad Sci (2017) 114:E6089–96. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1704949114

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 87

  Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Global Biodiversity Outlook 5. Montreal: SCBD (2020). Available at: https://www.cbd.int/gbo5

  • Google Scholar

• 88

  SteffenWRockströmJRichardsonKLentonTMFolkeCLivermanDet al. Trajectories of the earth system in the anthropocene. Proc Natl Acad Sci (2018) 115:8252–9. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1810141115

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 89

  GuterresA. The State of the Planet. Secretary-General’s address at Columbia University [online] (2020). Available at: https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/un-secretary-general-speaks-state-planet

  • Google Scholar

• 90

  Post 2020 Partnership [website] (2025). Available at: https://post2020partnership.com/

  • Google Scholar

• 91

  LockeHRockströmJBakkerPBapnaMGoughMHiltyJet al. A nature-positive world: the global goal for nature. Nature Positive Initiative (2021). Available at: https://f.hubspotusercontent20.net/hubfs/4783129/Nature%20Positive%20The%20Global%20Goal%20for%20Nature%20paper.pdf

  • Google Scholar

• 92

  Government of the United Kingdom. G7 2030 Nature Compact [online] (2021). Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/g7-2030-nature-compact/g7-2030-nature-compact

  • Google Scholar

• 93

  Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework [website]. Available at: https://www.cbd.int/gbf

  • Google Scholar

• 94

  GirardinCAJJenkinsSSeddonNMylesALewisSLWheelerCEet al. Nature-based solutions can help cool the planet — if we act now. Springer Nat Lim (2021) 593 doi: 10.1038/d41586-021-01241-2

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 95

  PörtnerHOScholesRJArnethABarnesDKABurrowsMTDiamondSEet al. Overcoming the coupled climate and biodiversity crises and their societal impacts. Science (2023) 380. doi: 10.1126/science.abl4881

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 96

  ShinYJMidgleyGFArcherEArnethABarnesDKAChanLet al. Actions to halt biodiversity loss generally benefit the climate. Global Change Biol (2022) 28:2846–74. doi: 10.1111/gcb.16109

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 97

  LockeHMackeyB. The nature of climate change: reunite international climate change mitigation efforts with biodiversity conservation and wilderness protection. Int J Wildern (2009) 14(2):7–13.

  • Google Scholar

• 98

  United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Outcome of the first global stocktake. Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement Fifth session (2023). Available at: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/cma2023_L17_adv.pdf

  • Google Scholar

• 99

  United Nations Environment Programme, Convention on Biological Diversity. Decision adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. 16/22. Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework [decision CBD/COP/DEC/16/22]. Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity Sixteenth meeting (2024). Available at: https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-16/cop-16-dec-21-en.pdf

  • Google Scholar

• 100

  WascoDGarciaMSroujiJSwabyGLarsenGCogswellNet al. Beyond the headlines: COP 30s outcomes and disappointments [online] (2025). Available at: https://www.wri.org/insights/cop30-outcomes-next-steps

  • Google Scholar

• 101

  United Nations Development Programme. What are the sustainable development goals [online] (2024). Available at: https://www.undp.org/sustainable-development-goals

  • Google Scholar

• 102

  United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development Preamble and para 55 [online] (2024). Available at: https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda

  • Google Scholar

• 103

  BrundtlandG. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: our common future [A/42/427]. United Nations General Assembly. (1987). Available at: https://www.are.admin.ch/dam/en/sd-web/oUREniCte9uh/our_common_futurebrundtlandreport1987.pdf

  • Google Scholar

• 104

  RaworthK. A safe and just space for humanity: can we live within the doughnut? Oxfam International (2012). Available at: https://policy-practice.oxfam.org/resources/a-safe-and-just-space-for-humanity-can-we-live-within-the-doughnut-210490/

  • Google Scholar

• 105

  FolkeCBiggsRNorströmAReyersBRockströmJ. Social-ecological resilience and biosphere-based sustainability science. Ecol Soc (2016) 21(3):41. doi: 10.5751/ES-08748-210341

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 106

  YoungORSteffenW. The earth system: sustaining planetary life-support systems. In: FolkeCKofinasGChapinF, editors. Principles of Ecosystem Stewardship. New York: Springer (2009). doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-73033-2_14

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 107

  BrownLR. Eco-economy: building an economy for the Earth (1st edition). London: Routledge (2001). doi: 10.4324/9781315071893

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 108

  DalyH. Economics for a Full World. Great Transition Initiative (2015). Available at: http://www.greattransition.org/publication/economics-for-a-full-world

  • Google Scholar

• 109

  WatersCNTurnerSD. Defining the onset of the anthropocene. Science (2022) 378:706–8. doi: 10.1126/science.ade2310

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 110

  RockströmJSteffenWNooneKPerssonÅChapinFSLambinEFet al. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature (2009) 461:472–5. doi: 10.1038/461472a

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 111

  SteffenWRichardsonKRockströmJCornellSEFetzerIBennettEMet al. Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science (2015) 347:1259855 doi: 10.1126/science.1259855

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 112

  Planetary Boundaries Science. Planetary health check 2025: a scientific assessment of the state of the planet. Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (2025). doi: 10.48485/PIK.2025.017

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 113

  Wang-ErlandssonLTobianAvan der EntRJFetzerIte WierikSPorkkaMet al. A planetary boundary for green water. Nat Rev Earth Environ (2022) 3:380–92 doi: 10.1038/s43017-022-00287-8

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 114

  BiermannFKimRE. The boundaries of the planetary boundary framework: A critical appraisal of approaches to define a “Safe operating space” for humanity. Annu Rev Environ Resour (2020) 45:497–521. doi: 10.1146/annurev-environ-012320-080337

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 115

  United Nations. Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. New York: UN (1992). Available at: https://docs.un.org/en/A/CONF.151/26/Rev.1(vol.I)

  • Google Scholar

• 116

  World Health Organization. One Health [online] (2017). Available at: https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/one-health

  • Google Scholar

• 117

  United Nations. Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction: [C.N.447.2025.TREATIES-XXI.10] [online] (2023). Available at: https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:VA6C2:42fb2c5e-1048-416d-b2db-89931e4b932a

  • Google Scholar

• 118

  SalaEMayorgaJBradleyDCabralRBAtwoodTBAuberAet al. Protecting the global ocean for biodiversity, food and climate. Nature (2021) 592:397–402. doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03371-z

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 119

  XueYBakshiBR. Metrics for a nature-positive world: A multiscale approach for absolute environmental sustainability assessment. Sci Total Environ (2022) 846:157373. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.157373

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 120

  BurgessNDAliNBedfordJBholaNBrooksSCiernaAet al. Global metrics for terrestrial biodiversity. Annu Rev Environ Resour (2024) 49:673–709. doi: 10.1146/annurev-environ-121522-045106

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 121

  WatsonJEMEvansTVenterOWilliamsBTullochAStewartCet al. The exceptional value of intact forest ecosystems. Nat Ecol Evol (2018) 2(4):599–610). doi: 10.1038/s41559-018-0490-x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 122

  ArlidgeWNBullJWAddisonPFBurgassMJGianucaDGorhamTMet al. A global mitigation hierarchy for nature conservation. BioScience (2018) 68:336–47 doi: 10.1093/biosci/biy029

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 123

  Arroyo-RodríguezVFahrigLTabarelliMWatlingJITischendorfLBenchimolMet al. Designing optimal human-modified landscapes for forest biodiversity conservation. Ecol Lett (2020) 23:1404–20. doi: 10.1111/ele.13535

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 124

  RivaFFahrigL. The disproportionately high value of small patches for biodiversity conservation. Conserv Lett. (2022) 15:e12881. doi: 10.1111/conl.12881

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 125

  GriscomBWAdamsJEllisPWHoughtonRALomaxGMitevaDAet al. Natural climate solutions. Proc Natl Acad Sci (2017) 114:11645–50 doi: 10.1073/pnas.1710465114

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 126

  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate change 2023: synthesis report. Summary for policymakers. Geneva: IPCC (2023). Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_SYR_SPM.pdf

  • Google Scholar

• 127

  ShuklaPRSkeaJCalvo BuendiaEMasson-DelmotteVPörtnerHORobertsDet al, editors. Climate change and land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems. Geneva: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2019). Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/

  • Google Scholar

• 128

  RogersBMMackeyBShestakovaTAKeithHYoungVKormosCFet al. Using ecosystem integrity to maximize climate mitigation and minimize risk in international forest policy. Front Forests Global Change (2022) 5:929281 doi: 10.3389/ffgc.2022.929281

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 129

  GoldsteinATurnerWRSpawnSAAnderson-TeixeiraKJCook-PattonSFargioneJet al. Protecting irrecoverable carbon in Earth’s ecosystems. Nat Climate Change (2020) 10:287–95 doi: 10.1038/s41558-020-0738-8

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 130

  KePCiaisPSitchSLiWBastosALiuZet al. Low latency carbon budget analysis reveals a large decline of the land carbon sink in 2023. Natl Sci Rev (2024) 11:nwae367. doi: 10.1093/nsr/nwae367

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 131

  HonigsbaumM. Disease X and other unknowns. Lancet (2019) 393:1496–7. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30803-7

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 132

  StrassburgBBNIribarremABeyerHLCordeiroCLCrouzeillesRJakovacCCet al. Global priority areas for ecosystem restoration. Nature (2020) 586:724–9. doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2784-9

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 133

  StrassburgBBNBeyerHLCrouzeillesRIribarremABarrosFde SiqueiraMFet al. Strategic approaches to restoring ecosystems can triple conservation gains and halve costs. Nat Ecol Evol (2018) 3:62–70. doi: 10.1038/s41559-018-0743-8

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 134

  SchmitzOJSylvénMAtwoodTBBakkerESBerzaghiFBrodieJFet al. Trophic rewilding can expand natural climate solutions. Nat Climate Change (2023) 13:324–33. doi: 10.1038/s41558-023-01631-6

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 135

  ChazdonRLPeresCADentDSheilDLugoAELambDet al. The potential for species conservation in tropical secondary forests. Conserv Biol (2009) 23:1406–17. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01338.x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 136

  LeadleyPArcherEBendandiBCavender-BaresJDavalosLDeClerckFet al. Setting ambitious international restoration objectives for terrestrial ecosystems for 2030 and beyond. PloS Sustain Transform (2022) 1:e0000039. doi: 10.1371/journal.pstr.0000039

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 137

  SeddonNChaussonABerryPGirardinCASmithATurnerB. Understanding the value and limits of nature-based solutions to climate change and other global challenges. Philos Trans R Soc B (2020) 375:20190120. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2019.0120

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 138

  SolerGAEdgarGJThomsonRJKininmonthSCampbellSJDawsonTPet al. Reef fishes at all trophic levels respond positively to effective marine protected areas. PloS One (2015) 10:e0140270. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0140270

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 139

  RojoIAnadónJDGarcía-ChartonJA. Exceptionally high but still growing predatory reef fish biomass after 23 years of protection in a Marine Protected Area. PloS One (2021) 16:e0246335. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246335

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 140

  TeagueRKreuterU. Managing grazing to restore soil health, ecosystem function, and ecosystem services. Front Sustain Food Syst (2020) 4. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2020.534187

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 141

  BullJWGordonALawEASuttleKBMilner-GullandEJ. Importance of baseline specification in evaluating conservation interventions and achieving no net loss of biodiversity. Conserv Biol (2014) 28:799–809. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12243

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 142

  RiggioJBaillieJEBrumbySEllisEKennedyCMOakleafJRet al. Global human influence maps reveal clear opportunities in conserving Earth’s remaining intact terrestrial ecosystems. Global Change Biol (2020) 26:4344–56 doi: 10.1111/gcb.15109

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 143

  LockeHEllisECVenterOSchusterRMaKShenXet al. Three global conditions for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use: An implementation framework. Natl Sci Rev (2019) 6:1080–2 doi: 10.1093/nsr/nwz136

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 144

  PörtnerH-OScholesRJAgardJArcherEArnethABaiXet al. Scientific outcome of the IPBES-IPCC co-sponsored workshop on biodiversity and climate change. Bonn: Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Secretariat. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.5101125

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 145

  LeadleyPOburaDArcherECostelloMJDávalosLMEsslFet al. Actions needed to achieve ambitious objectives of net gains in natural ecosystem area by 2030 and beyond. PloS Sustain Transform (2022) 1:e0000040. doi: 10.1371/journal.pstr.0000040

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 146

  OburaDOKaterereYMayetMKaeloDMsweliSMatherKet al. Integrate biodiversity targets from local to global levels. Science (2021) 373:746–748. doi: 10.1126/science.abh2234

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 147

  WaldronAAdamsVAllanJArnellAPalacios AbrantesJAsnerGet al. Protecting 30 percent of the planet: Costs, benefits and economic implications. ResearchGate [preprint] (2020). doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19950.64327

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 148

  KokMTJMeijerJRvan ZeistW-JHilbersJPImmovilliMJanseJHet al. Assessing ambitious nature conservation strategies in a below 2-degree and food-secure world. Biol Conserv (2023) 284:110068. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2023.110068

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 149

  PascualUMcElweePDDiamondSENgoHTBaiXCheungWWLet al. Governing for transformative change across the biodiversity–climate–society nexus. BioScience (2022) 72(7):684–704. doi: 10.1093/biosci/biac031

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 150

  BenkwittCED’AngeloCDunnREGunnRLHealingSMardonesMLet al. Seabirds boost coral reef resilience. Sci Adv (2023) 9:eadj0390. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.adj0390

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 151

  HalpernBSFrazierMPotapenkoJCaseyKSKoenigKLongoCet al. Spatial and temporal changes in cumulative human impacts on the world’s ocean. Nat Commun (2015) 6:7615. doi: 10.1038/ncomms8615

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 152

  PaulyDChristensenVDalsgaardJFroeseRTorresF. Fishing down marine food webs. Science (1998) 279:860–3. doi: 10.1126/science.279.5352.860

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 153

  LiangCPaulyD. Masking and unmasking fishing down effects: The Bohai Sea (China) as a case study. Ocean Coast Manage (2020) 184:105033. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.105033

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 154

  DaliriMKamraniESalarpouriABen-HasanA. The Geographical Expansion of Fisheries conceals the decline in the Mean Trophic Level of Iran’s catch. Ocean Coast Manage (2021) 199:105411. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2020.105411

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 155

  NorseEABrookeSCheungWWLClarkMREkelandIFroeseRet al. Sustainability of deep-sea fisheries. Mar Policy (2012) 36:307–20. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2011.06.008

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 156

  SumailaURLamVWYMillerDDTehLWatsonRAZellerDet al. Winners and losers in a world where the high seas is closed to fishing. Sci Rep (2015) 5:8481. doi: 10.1038/srep08481

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 157

  JonesKRKleinCJHalpernBSVenterOGranthamHKuempelCDet al. The location and protection status of earth’s diminishing marine wilderness. Curr Biol (2018) 28:2506–12.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2018.06.010

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 158

  SalaEGiakoumiS. No-take marine reserves are the most effective protected areas in the ocean. ICES J Mar Sci (2018) 75:1166–8 doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsx059

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 159

  McClanahanTRFriedlanderAMWantiezLGrahamNAJBruggemannJHChabanetPet al. Best-practice fisheries management associated with reduced stocks and changes in life histories. Fish Fish (2022) 23:422–44. doi: 10.1111/faf.12625

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 160

  DinersteinEJoshiARHahnNRLeeATLVynneCBurkartKet al. Conservation Imperatives: securing the last unprotected terrestrial sites harboring irreplaceable biodiversity. Front Sci (2024) 2:1349350. doi: 10.3389/fsci.2024.1349350

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 161

  International Union for Conservation of Nature. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species [online]. Available at: https://www.iucnredlist.org/

  • Google Scholar

• 162

  MairLBennunLABrooksTMButchartSHMBolamFCBurgessNDet al. A metric for spatially explicit contributions to science-based species targets. Nat Ecol Evol (2021) 5:836–44. doi: 10.1038/s41559-021-01432-0

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 163

  GraceMKAkçakayaHRBennettELBrooksTMHeathAHedgesSet al. Testing a global standard for quantifying species recovery and assessing conservation impact. Conserv Biol (2021) 35:1833–49. doi: 10.1111/cobi.13756

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 164

  Convention on Biological Diversity Secretariat. COP 5 Decision V/6, Retired sections: paragraphs 4-5 [online] (2000). Available at: https://www.cbd.int/decision/cop?id=7148

  • Google Scholar

• 165

  TerborghJLopezLNuñezPRaoMShahabuddinGOrihuelaGet al. Ecological meltdown in predator-free forest fragments. Science (2001) 294:1923–6. doi: 10.1126/science.1064397

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 166

  SouléMEEstesJAMillerBHonnoldDL. Strongly interacting species: conservation policy, management, and ethics. BioScience (2005) 55:168–76. doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2005)055[0168:SISCPM]2.0.CO;2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 167

  MirandaEBPPeresCACarvalho-RochaVMiguelBVLormandNHuizingaNet al. Tropical deforestation induces thresholds of reproductive viability and habitat suitability in Earth’s largest eagles. Sci Rep (2021) 11:13048. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-92372-z

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 168

  MirandaEBPPeresCAMariniMÂDownsCT. Harpy Eagle (Harpia harpyja) nest tree selection: Selective logging in Amazon forest threatens Earth’s largest eagle. Biol Conserv (2020) 250:108754. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108754

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 169

  WittmannFHouseholderJEPiedadeMTFSchöngartJDemarchiLOQuaresmaACet al. A review of the ecological and biogeographic differences of amazonian floodplain forests. Water (2022) 14:3360. doi: 10.3390/w14213360

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 170

  AndersonJTSaldaña RojasJFleckerAS. High-quality seed dispersal by fruit-eating fishes in Amazonian floodplain habitats. Oecologia (2009) 161:279–90. doi: 10.1007/s00442-009-1371-4

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 171

  AvissarRWerthD. Global hydroclimatological teleconnections resulting from tropical deforestation. J Hydrometeorol (2005) 6:134–45 doi: 10.1175/JHM406.1

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 172

  LealCGLennoxGDFerrazSFFerreiraJGardnerTAThomsonJRet al. Integrated terrestrial-freshwater planning doubles conservation of tropical aquatic species. Science (2020) 370:117–21. doi: 10.1126/science.aba7580

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 173

  PalmerMRuhiA. Linkages between flow regime, biota, and ecosystem processes: Implications for river restoration. Science (2019) 365:1–13. doi: 10.1126/science.aaw2087

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 174

  SouléMEMackeyBGRecherHFWilliamsJEWoinarskiJCZDriscollDet al. (2004). The role of connectivity in Australian conservation. Pac Conserv Biol. 10(4), 266–79. doi: 10.1071/pc040266

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 175

  Convention on Migratory Species. Relevance of the Global Biodiversity Framework to the Convention on Migratory Species – Analysis [online] (2023). Available at: https://www.cms.int/en/publication/relevance-global-biodiversityframework-convention-migratory-species-%E2%80%93-analysis

  • Google Scholar

• 176

  HiltyJWorboysGLKeeleyAWoodleySLauscheBJLockeHet al. Guidelines for conserving connectivity through ecological networks and corridors. Gland: International Union for Conservation of Nature (2020). Available at: https://policycommons.net/artifacts/1372387/guidelines-for-conserving-connectivity-through-ecological-networks-and-corridors/1986564/

  • Google Scholar

• 177

  World Wide Fund for Nature. Living Planet Report 2022. WWF (2022). Available at: https://www.worldwildlife.org/publications/2022-living-planet-report/

  • Google Scholar

• 178

  HauerFRLockeHDreitzVJHebblewhiteMLoweWHMuhlfeldCCet al. Gravel-bed river floodplains are the ecological nexus of glaciated mountain landscapes. Sci Adv (2016) 2:e1600026–e1600026. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1600026

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 179

  HarveyJGomez-VelezJSchmadelNScottDBoyerEAlexanderRet al. How hydrologic connectivity regulates water quality in river corridors. J Am Water Resour Assoc (2019) 55:369–81. doi: 10.1111/1752-1688.12691

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 180

  LorangMSHauerFR. Chapter 5 - fluvial geomorphic processes. In: HauerFRLambertiGA, editors. Methods in Stream Ecology, Volume 1 (3rd edition). Boston: Academic Press (2017). 89–107. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-416558-8.00005-6

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 181

  SchindlerDE. The phenology of migration in an unpredictable world. J Anim Ecol (2019) 88:8–10. doi: 10.1111/1365-2656.12937

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 182

  RosenbergDMMcCullyPPringleCM. Global-scale environmental effects of hydrological alterations: introduction. BioScience (2000) 50:746–51. doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2000)050[0746:GSEEOH]2.0.CO;2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 183

  FalkenmarkM. Shift in thinking to address the 21st century hunger gap. Water Resour Manage (2007) 21:3–18. doi: 10.1007/s11269-006-9037-z

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 184

  SheilD. Forests, atmospheric water and an uncertain future: The new biology of the global water cycle. For Ecosyst (2018) 5(1):19. doi: 10.1186/s40663-018-0138-y

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 185

  GentinePGreenJKGuérinMHumphreyVSeneviratneSIZhangYet al. Coupling between the terrestrial carbon and water cycles—A review. Environ Res Lett (2019) 14(8):083003. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/ab22d6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 186

  LawrenceDCoeMWalkerWVerchotLVandecarK. The unseen effects of deforestation: biophysical effects on climate. Front Forests Global Change (2022) 5. doi: 10.3389/ffgc.2022.756115

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 187

  GreenJKSeneviratneSIBergAMFindellKLHagemannSLawrenceDMet al. Large influence of soil moisture on long-term terrestrial carbon uptake. Nature (2019) 565(7740):476–9. doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0848-x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 188

  SalatiEDall’OlioAMatsuiEGatJR. Recycling of water in the Amazon Basin: An isotopic study. Water Resour Res (1979) 15(5):1250–8. doi: 10.1029/WR015i005p01250

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 189

  RunyanCWD’OdoricoPLawrenceD. Physical and biological feedbacks of deforestation. Rev Geophys (2012) 50. doi: 10.1029/2012RG000394

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 190

  HosonumaNHeroldMDe SyVDe FriesRSBrockhausMVerchotLet al. An assessment of deforestation and forest degradation drivers in developing countries. Environ Res Lett (2012) 7(4):44009. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/044009

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 191

  HughesAC. Understanding the drivers of Southeast Asian biodiversity loss. Ecosphere (2017) 8(1):e01624. doi: 10.1002/ecs2.1624

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 192

  GardnerCJBicknellJEBaldwin-CantelloWStruebigMJDaviesZG. Quantifying the impacts of defaunation on natural forest regeneration in a global meta-analysis. Nat Commun (2019) 10(1):4590. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-12539-1

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 193

  FrickeECCook-PattonSCHarveyCFTerrerC. Seed dispersal disruption limits tropical forest regrowth. Proc Natl Acad Sci (2025) 122(30):e2500951122. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2500951122

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 194

  FrancoMARizzoLVTeixeiraMJArtaxoPAzevedoTLelieveldJet al. How climate change and deforestation interact in the transformation of the Amazon rainforest. Nat Commun (2025) 16(1):7944. doi: 10.1038/s41467-025-63156-0

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 195

  WardJ. The four-dimensional nature of lotic ecosystems. J North Am Benthol Soc (1989) 8:2–8 doi: 10.2307/1467397

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 196

  VannoteRLMinshallGWCumminsKWSedellJRCushingCE. The river continuum concept. Can J Fish Aquat Sci (1980) 37(1):130–7. doi: 10.1139/f80-017

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 197

  JunkWJBayleyPBSparksRE. The flood pulse concept in river-floodplain systems. Can J Fish Aquat Sci (1989), 110–27

  • Google Scholar

• 198

  BoultonAJFindlaySMarmonierPStanleyEHValettHM. The functional significance of the hyporheic zone in streams and rivers. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst (1998) 29(Volume 29, 1998):59–81. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.29.1.59

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 199

  StanfordJALorangMSHauerFR. (2005). The shifting habitat mosaic of river ecosystems. SIL Proceedings, 1922-2010, 29(1), 123–36. doi: 10.1080/03680770.2005.11901979

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 200

  PeipochMBraunsMHauerFRWeitereMValettHM. Ecological simplification: human influences on riverscape complexity. BioScience (2015) 65:1057–65. doi: 10.1093/biosci/biv120

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 201

  RockströmJGuptaJQinDLadeSJAbramsJFAndersenLSet al. Safe and just earth system boundaries. Nature (2023) 619:102–11. doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06083-8

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 202

  United States Environmental Protection Agency. Causal Analysis/Diagnosis Decision Information System (CADDIS) [website]. (2024). Available at: https://www.epa.gov/caddis

  • Google Scholar

• 203

  BeechieTJSearDAOldenJDPessGRBuffingtonJMMoirHet al. Process-based principles for restoring river ecosystems. BioScience (2010) 60:209–22. doi: 10.1525/bio.2010.60.3.7

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 204

  United States Environmental Protection Agency. Sediments. Causal Analysis/Diagnosis Decision Information System (CADDIS) [online] (2024). Available at: https://www.epa.gov/caddis/sediments

  • Google Scholar

• 205

  HauerFRStanfordJALorangMS. Pattern and process in northern rocky mountain headwaters: ecological linkages in the headwaters of the crown of the continent 1. JAWRA J Am Water Resour Assoc (2007) 43:104–17. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2007.00009.x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 206

  ClarkDAtalahJSinnerJJiangWTaiapaCPattersonMet al. Multiple stressor effects in marine ecosystems: responses of estuarine species and functions under stress. Sci Rep (2017) 7. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-12323-5

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 207

  KeithDAFerrer-ParisJRNicholsonEKingsfordRT, editors. The IUCN global ecosystem typology 2.0: descriptive profiles for biomes and ecosystem functional groups. Gland: International Union for Conservation of Nature (2020). Available at: https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/2020-037-En.pdf

  • Google Scholar

• 208

  WoodwardFILomasMRKellyCK. Global climate and the distribution of plant biomes. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci (2004) 359(1450):1465–76. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2004.1525

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 209

  NairUSWuYKalaJLyonsTPielkeRSr.HackerJ. The role of land use change on the development and evolution of the west coast trough, convective clouds, and precipitation in southwest Australia. J Geophys Res: Atmos (2011) 116. doi: 10.1029/2010JD014950

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 210

  WilliamsBAVenterOAllanJRAtkinsonSCRehbeinJAWardMet al. Change in terrestrial human footprint drives continued loss of intact ecosystems. One Earth (2020) 3(3):371–82. doi: 10.1016/j.oneear.2020.08.009

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 211

  FloresBMMontoyaESakschewskiBNascimentoNStaalABettsRAet al. Critical transitions in the Amazon forest system. Nature (2024) 626(7999):555–64. doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06970-0

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 212

  Di SaccoAHardwickKABlakesleyDBrancalionPHBremanECecilio RebolaLet al. Ten golden rules for reforestation to optimize carbon sequestration, biodiversity recovery and livelihood benefits. Global Change Biol (2021) 27:1328–48 doi: 10.1111/gcb.15498

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 213

  DingleHDrakeVA. What is migration? BioScience (2007) 57(2):113–21. doi: 10.1641/B570206

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 214

  RosenbergKVDokterAMBlancherPJSauerJRSmithACSmithPAet al. Decline of the north american avifauna. Science (2019) 366:120–4. doi: 10.1126/science.aaw1313

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 215

  LossSRWillTMarraPP. The impact of free-ranging domestic cats on wildlife of the United States. Nat Commun (2013) 4:1396. doi: 10.1038/ncomms2380

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 216

  LossSRWillTLossSSMarraPP. Bird–building collisions in the United States: Estimates of annual mortality and species vulnerability. Condor (2014) 116:8–23. doi: 10.1650/CONDOR-13-090.1

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 217

  DingleH. Migration: the biology of life on the move (2nd edition). New York: Oxford University Press (2014).

  • Google Scholar

• 218

  HellerNEZavaletaES. Biodiversity management in the face of climate change: A review of 22 years of recommendations. Biol Conserv (2009) 142(1):14–32. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2008.10.006

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 219

  WingfieldJCKrauseJSPerezJHChmuraHENémethZWordKRet al. A mechanistic approach to understanding range shifts in a changing world: What makes a pioneer? Gen Comp Endocrinol (2015) 222:44. doi: 10.1016/j.ygcen.2015.08.022

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 220

  LewinPJWynnJArcosJMAustinREBlagroveJBondSet al. Climate change drives migratory range shift via individual plasticity in shearwaters. Proc Natl Acad Sci (2024) 121(6):e2312438121. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2312438121

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 221

  MartinTGChadèsIArcesePMarraPPPossinghamHPNorrisDR. Optimal conservation of migratory species. PloS One (2007) 2:e751 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0000751

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 222

  IversonARBenscoterAMFujisakiILamontMMHartKM. Migration corridors and threats in the Gulf of Mexico and Florida Straits for loggerhead sea turtles. Front Mar Sci (2020) 7. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2020.00208

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 223

  KotCYÅkessonSAlfaro-ShiguetoJAmorocho LlanosDFAntonopoulouMBalazsGHet al. Network analysis of sea turtle movements and connectivity: A tool for conservation prioritization. Diversity Distrib (2022) 28:810–29. doi: 10.1111/ddi.13485

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 224

  BlancherP. Estimated number of birds killed by house cats (Felis catus) in Canada. ACE (2013) 8:art3. doi: 10.5751/ACE-00557-080203

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 225

  Van DorenBMWillardDEHennenMHortonKGStuberEFSheldonDet al. Drivers of fatal bird collisions in an urban center. Proc Natl Acad Sci (2021) 118:e2101666118. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2101666118

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 226

  KeeleyABeierPJennessJ. Connectivity metrics for conservation planning and monitoring. Biol Conserv (2021) 255:109008. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109008

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 227

  United Nations Environment Programme. Convention on Biological Diversity. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (1992). Available at: https://www.cbd.int/convention/text

  • Google Scholar

• 228

  KeithDARodríguezJPRodríguez-ClarkKMNicholsonEAapalaKAlonsoAet al. Scientific foundations for an IUCN red list of ecosystems. PloS One (2013) 8:e62111. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0062111

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 229

  HollingCS. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst (1973) 4:1–23. doi: 10.1146/annurev.es.04.110173.000245

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 230

  SchefferMCarpenterSR. Catastrophic regime shifts in ecosystems: linking theory to observation. Trends Ecol Evol (2003) 18:648–56. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2003.09.002

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 231

  HobbsRJHiggsEHarrisJA. Novel ecosystems: Implications for conservation and restoration. Trends Ecol Evol (2009) 24(11):599–605. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2009.05.012

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 232

  HarrisJBullockJPettorelliNPerringMMercerT. Novel ecosystems: the new normal? British Ecological Society (2024). Available at: https://www.britishecologicalsociety.org/content/novel-ecosystems-the-new-normal/

  • Google Scholar

• 233

  RobergeJ-MAngelstamP. Usefulness of the umbrella species concept as a conservation tool. Conserv Biol (2004) 18(1):76–85. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00450.x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 234

  ZarriECNaugleDEMartinTE. Impacts of umbrella species management on non-target species. J Appl Ecol (2024) 61(6):1411–25. doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.14654

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 235

  HoekstraJMBoucherTMRickettsTHRobertsC. Confronting a biome crisis: global disparities of habitat loss and protection. Ecol Lett (2005) 8:23–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00686.x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 236

  GaribaldiLAOddiFJMiguezFEBartomeusIOrrMCJobbágyEGet al. Working landscapes need at least 20% native habitat. Conserv Lett (2021) 14:e12773. doi: 10.1111/conl.12773

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 237

  LeeACJordanHCHorsleyJ. Value of urban green spaces in promoting healthy living and wellbeing: prospects for planning. Risk Manag Healthc Policy. (2015) 8:131–37. doi: 10.2147/RMHP.S61654. PMID: PMC4556255

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 238

  IvesCDLentiniPEThrelfallCGIkinKShanahanDFGarrardGEet al. Cities are hotspots for threatened species. Global Ecol Biogeogr (2016) 25(1):117–26. doi: 10.1111/geb.12404

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 239

  DeClerckFAJKoziellIBentonTGaribaldiLAKremenCMaronMet al. A whole earth approach to nature-positive food: biodiversity and agriculture. In: von BraunJAfsanaKFrescoLOHassanMHA, editors. Science and Innovations for Food Systems Transformation. Cham: Springer International Publishing (2023). 469–96. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-15703-5_25

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 240

  WillettWRockströmJLokenBSpringmannMLangTVermeulenSet al. Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet (2019) 393:447–92. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 241

  RockströmJThilstedSHWillettWCGordonLJHerreroMHicksCCet al. The EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy, sustainable, and just food systems. Lancet (2025) 406(10512):1625–700. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(25)01201-2

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 242

  NossRFCooperriderADefenders of WildlifeSchlickeisenR. Saving nature’s legacy: protecting and restoring biodiversity. Washington, DC: Island Press (1994). Available at: https://islandpress.org/books/saving-natures-legacy

  • Google Scholar

• 243

  SouléMEEstesJABergerJDel RioCM. Ecological effectiveness: conservation goals for interactive species. Conserv Biol (2003) 17:1238–50 doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.01599.x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 244

  HoldenPBRebeloAJWolskiPOdoulamiRCLawalKAKimutaiJet al. Nature-based solutions in mountain catchments reduce impact of anthropogenic climate change on drought streamflow. Commun Earth Environ (2022) 3:51. doi: 10.1038/s43247-022-00379-9

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 245

  JamesDGKappenL. Further insights on the migration biology of monarch butterflies, Danaus plexippus (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) from the Pacific Northwest. Insects (2021) 12:161. doi: 10.3390/insects12020161

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 246

  Monarch Joint Venture. Tracking the monarch migration through community science [online] (2024). Available at: https://monarchjointventure.org/monarch-biology/monarch-migration

  • Google Scholar

• 247

  MooreJHGibsonLAmirZChanthornWAhmadAHJansenPAet al. The rise of hyperabundant native generalists threatens both humans and nature. Biol Rev (2023) 98:1829–44. doi: 10.1111/brv.12985

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 248

  United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. Target 4: halt species extinction, protect genetic diversity, and manage human-wildlife conflicts [online] (2025). Available at: https://www.cbd.int/gbf/targets/4

  • Google Scholar

• 249

  JaureguiberryPTiteuxNWiemersMBowlerDECosciemeLGoldenASet al. The direct drivers of recent global anthropogenic biodiversity loss. Sci Adv (2022) 8:eabm9982. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abm9982

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 250

  DavisMBShawRG. Range shifts and adaptive responses to Quaternary climate change. Science (2001) 292:673–9. doi: 10.1126/science.292.5517.673

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 251

  ShenXLiuMHansonJOWangJLockeHWatsonJEet al. Countries’ differentiated responsibilities to fulfill area-based conservation targets of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. One Earth (2023) 6:548–59. doi: 10.1016/j.oneear.2023.04.007

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 252

  KaranthKKNicholsJDKaranthKUHinesJEChristensenNL. The shrinking ark: patterns of large mammal extinctions in India. Proc R Soc B: Biol Sci (2010) 277:1971–9. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2010.0171

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 253

  SaitoMKoikeF. Distribution of wild mammal assemblages along an urban–rural–forest landscape gradient in warm-temperate East Asia. PloS One (2013) 8:e65464. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0065464

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 254

  SchmitzOJLawlerJJBeierPGrovesCKnightGBoyceDAet al. Conserving biodiversity: practical guidance about climate change adaptation approaches in support of land-use planning. naar (2015) 35:190–203. doi: 10.3375/043.035.0120

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 255

  YoungHSMcCauleyDJGalettiMDirzoR. Patterns, causes, and consequences of Anthropocene defaunation. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst (2016) 47:333–58. doi: 10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-112414-054142

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 256

  VynneCGoslingJManeyCDinersteinELeeATLBurgessNDet al. An ecoregion-based approach to restoring the world’s intact large mammal assemblages. Ecography (2022). doi: 10.1111/ecog.06098

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 257

  BarnoskyADMatzkeNTomiyaSWoganGOSwartzBQuentalTBet al. Has the Earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived? Nature (2011) 471:51–7. doi: 10.1038/nature09678

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 258

  RounsevellMDHarfootMHarrisonPANewboldTGregoryRDMaceGM. A biodiversity target based on species extinctions. Science (2020) 368:1193–5. doi: 10.1126/science.aba6592

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 259

  Reverse The Red. Conservation status improvement [online] (2025). Available at: https://www.reversethered.org/conservation-status-improvement

  • Google Scholar

• 260

  International Union for the Conservation of Nature. Using the STAR metric to support nature-positive outcomes: guidance for civil society organizations. Gland: IUCN (2025). Available at: https://nc.iucnredlist.org/redlist/content/attachment_files/STAR_Guidance_for_Civil_Society_Organizations.pdf

  • Google Scholar

• 261

  ShawREFarquharsonKABrufordMWCoatesDJElliottCPMergeayJet al. Global meta-analysis shows action is needed to halt genetic diversity loss. Nature (2025) 638:704–10. doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-08458-x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 262

  EllisECGauthierNKlein GoldewijkKBliege BirdRBoivinNDíazSet al. People have shaped most of terrestrial nature for at least 12,000 years. Proc Natl Acad Sci (2021) 118(17):e2023483118. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2023483118

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 263

  FisherMPLuysterR. Chapter 2: Indigenous sacred ways. In FisherMP. Living Religions. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall (1997).

  • Google Scholar

• 264

  Little BearL. Aboriginal paradigms: implications for relationship to land and treaty making. In: WilkinsK, editor. Advancing Aboriginal claims: visions/strategies/directions. Vancouver: Purich Publishing (2000). 26–38.

  • Google Scholar

• 265

  RedversN. The determinants of planetary health. Lancet Planet Health (2021) 5:e111–2 doi: 10.1016/S2542-5196(21)00008-5

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 266

  LockeHLittle BearLÉlianeUBaptisteBWeiF. Building a nature-positive society. In: LambertiniMBullJWLittle BearLLockeHZabeyEMasekeDet al., editors. Becoming nature positive (1st edition). London: Routledge (2025). doi: 10.4324/9781003474043-8

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 267

  KenterJOCarmentaRChristieMGriffithsHIhemezieEMartinAet al. Toward a relational biodiversity economics: Embedding plural values for sustainability transformation. Proc Natl Acad Sci United States America (2025) 122(40):e2314586122. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2314586122

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 268

  ErmineW. The ethical space of engagement. Indigenous Law J (2007) 6(1):193–203. Available at: https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/ilj/article/view/27669

  • Google Scholar

• 269

  Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES thematic assessment report on interlinkages among biodiversity, water, food and health (nexus assessment) – summary for policy makers. Bonn: IPBES Secretariat (2024). Available at: https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/publication/ipbes-thematic-assessment-report-interlinkages-among-biodiversity-water-food-health_en

  • Google Scholar

• 270

  LentonTMMckayDIALorianiSAbramsJFLadeSJDongesJFet al. The Global Tipping Points report 2023. Exeter: University of Exeter (2025). Available at: https://hal.umontpellier.fr/hal-04548845

  • Google Scholar

• 271

  International Court of Justice. Obligation of states in respect of climate change. (2025) [online]. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/187/187-20250723-pre-01-00-en.pdf

  • Google Scholar

• 272

  RodríguezCMTeelucksinghSS. Nature-Positive governance. In: LambertiniMBullJWLittle BearLLockeHZabeyEMasekeDet al, editors. Becoming nature positive: transitioning to a safe and just future (1st edition). London: Routledge (2025). doi: 10.4324/9781003474043-11

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 273

  Nature Positive Initiative. Coalition of international and Japanese organizations announce second Global Nature Positive Summit, to take place in Kumamoto City, Japan [online] (2025). Available at: https://www.naturepositive.org/. https://www.naturepositive.org/news/latest-news/second-global-nature-positive-summit-announced/

  • Google Scholar

• 274

  United Nations. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples [online] (2007). Available at: https://social.desa.un.org/issues/indigenous-peoples/united-nations-declaration-on-the-rights-of-indigenous-peoples

  • Google Scholar

• 275

  GavinMCMcCarterJBerkesFMeadATPSterlingEJTangRet al. Effective biodiversity conservation requires dynamic, pluralistic, partnership-based approaches. Sustainability (2018) 10(6):1846. doi: 10.3390/su10061846

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 276

  KennedyCMFarissBOakleafJRGarnettSTFernández-LlamazaresÁFaJEet al. Indigenous Peoples’ lands are threatened by industrial development; conversion risk assessment reveals need to support Indigenous stewardship. One Earth (2023) 6(8):1032–49. doi: 10.1016/j.oneear.2023.07.006

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 277

  CrosschildRStarblanketGVothDHubbardTBearLL. Awakening buffalo consciousness: lessons, theory, and practice from the buffalo treaty. Wicazo Sa Rev (2021) 36(1):5–29. doi: 10.1353/wic.2021.a903665

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 278

  Te Arawhiti The Office for Māori Crown Relations. Te Tari Whakatau—Tēnā koutou katoa [website] (2014). Available at: https://whakatau.govt.nz/

  • Google Scholar

• 279

  DeutzAHealGMNiuRSwansonETownshendTZhuLet al. Financing nature: closing the global biodiversity financing gap. Chicago: The Paulson Institute (2020). 256.

  • Google Scholar

• 280

  ApapJ. Defining ‘climate refugee’: challenges and the way forward. Brussels: European Parliament Research Service (2023). Available at: https://policycommons.net/artifacts/1335316/the-concept-of-climate-refugee/1941760/

  • Google Scholar

• 281

  EvansS. Analysis: Which countries are historically responsible for climate change? Carbon Brief (2021). Available at: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-which-countries-are-historically-responsible-for-climate-change/

  • Google Scholar

• 282

  TietjenB. Who is responsible when climate change harms the world’s poorest countries, and what does compensation look like? The Conversation [online] (2022). Available at: https://phys.org/news/2022-11-responsible-climate-world-poorest-countries.html

  • Google Scholar

• 283

  LenzenMMoranDKanemotoKForanBLobefaroLGeschkeA. International trade drives biodiversity threats in developing nations. Nature (2012) 486:109–12 doi: 10.1038/nature11145

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 284

  MarquesA. Distant drivers of deforestation. Nat Ecol Evol (2021) 5:713–4. doi: 10.1038/s41559-021-01420-4

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 285

  MeyfroidtPDe BremondARyanCMArcherEAspinallRChhabraAet al. Ten facts about land systems for sustainability. Proc Natl Acad Sci (2022) 119:e2109217118 doi: 10.1073/pnas.2109217118

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 286

  Government of the United Kingdom. England Biodiversity Indicators [online] (2024). Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/england-biodiversity-indicators

  • Google Scholar

• 287

  COP 29 Azerbaijan. Historic decision in Baku: the loss and damage fund fully operationalised [online] (2024). Available at: https://cop29.az/en/media-hub/news/-1732385682

  • Google Scholar

• 288

  ResorJP. Debt-for-nature swaps: a decade of experience and new directions for the future. Unasylva (1997) 188(1). Available at: https://www.fao.org/4/w3247e/w3247e06.htm

  • Google Scholar

• 289

  NedopilCSunT. Current perspectives on debt-for-nature swaps: Moving from exploratory to empirical research. Curr Opin Environ Sustain (2025) 74:101538. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2025.101538

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 290

  RadhakrishnanHPatelSKellyLSteeleP. Aligning debt relief for climate and nature with the Principles of Effective Development Cooperation. London: International Institute for Environment and Development (2005). Available at: https://www.iied.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/2025-02/22608iied.pdf

  • Google Scholar

• 291

  BriceñoJAMorrisJ. The debt-for-nature lifeline. The Nature Conservancy (2023). Available at: https://www.nature.org/en-us/what-we-do/our-insights/perspectives/debt-for-nature-lifeline/

  • Google Scholar

• 292

  MarcosC. How debt-for-nature swaps have protected the world’s tropical forests for 25 years. World Wildlife Fund (2024). Available at: https://www.worldwildlife.org/news/stories/how-debt-for-nature-swaps-have-protected-the-worlds-tropical-forests-for-25-years/

  • Google Scholar

• 293

  VatnAPascualUChaplin-KramerRTermansenMArias-ArévaloPBalvaneraPet al. Incorporating diverse values of nature in decision-making—Theory and practice. Philos Trans R Soc B: Biol Sci (2024) 379(1903):20220315. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2022.0315

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 294

  BalvaneraPPascualUChristieMBaptisteBGonzá-JiménezD, editors. Methodological assessment report on the diverse values and valuation of nature of the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Bonn: IPBES secretariat (2022). doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6522522

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 295

  ConniffR. What's wrong with putting a price on nature? Yale Environment 360. (2012). Available at: https://e360.yale.edu/features/ecosystem_services_whats_wrong_with_putting_a_price_on_nature

  • Google Scholar

• 296

  NaiduSC. Conservation as Economic Imperialism. (2015). Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280922007_Conservation_as_Economic_Imperialism/citation/download

  • Google Scholar

• 297

  Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES transformative change assessment: summary for policymakers. Bonn: IPBES Secretariat (2025). doi: 10.5281/zenodo.17099400

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 298

  RingIHansjürgensBElmqvistTWittmerHSukhdevP. Challenges in framing the economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: The TEEB initiative. Curr Opin Environ Sustain (2010) 2:15–26. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2010.03.005

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 299

  The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity. The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: mainstreaming the economics of nature: a synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB. Geneva: TEEB (2010). Available at: https://wedocs.unep.org/items/722bd6f7-8296-464b-b678-6cd6b181f960

  • Google Scholar

• 300

  CostanzaRd’ArgeRde GrootRFarberSGrassoMHannonBet al. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature (1997) 387(6630):253–60. doi: 10.1038/387253a0

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 301

  EdensBMaesJHeinLObstCSiikamakiJSchenauSet al. Establishing the SEEA Ecosystem Accounting as a global standard. Ecosyst Serv (2022) 54:101413. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2022.101413

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 302

  United Nations. System of environmental economic accounting—ecosystem accounting. New York, NY: UN (2024). Available at: https://seea.un.org/sites/seea.un.org/files/documents/EA/seea_ea_f124_web_12dec24.pdf

  • Google Scholar

• 303

  International Public Sector Accounting Standards Board. IPSASB enews: September 2025 [online] (2025). Available at: https://www.ipsasb.org/news-events/2025-09/ipsasb-enews-september-2025

  • Google Scholar

• 304

  International Public Sector Accounting Standards Board. Tangible natural assets held for conservation [online] (2026). Available at: https://www.iasplus.com/en-ca/news/psas/2026/ipsasb-finalizes-guidance-on-accounting-for-tangible-natural-resources-january-2026

  • Google Scholar

• 305

  van DijkPEyquemJMayJKSO. Canada’s natural capital is a key in the Trump era but requires a new approach. Policy Options (2025). Available at: https://policyoptions.irpp.org/2025/05/natural-capital-trump/

  • Google Scholar

• 306

  United States Environmental Protection Agency. Introduction to the Clean Water Act [online]. Watershed Academy Web. Available at: https://cfpub.epa.gov/watertrain/moduleframe.cfm?parent_object_id=2808

  • Google Scholar

• 307

  Government of the United Kingdom. Biodiversity net gain [online] (2025). Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/biodiversity-net-gain

  • Google Scholar

• 308

  MaronMvon HaseAQuétierFSonterLJTheisSzu ErmgassenSOSE. Biodiversity offsets, their effectiveness and their role in a nature positive future. Nat Rev Biodivers (2025) 1(3):183–96. doi: 10.1038/s44358-025-00023-2

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 309

  European Commission. 2025 Strategic Foresight Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union (2025). Available at: https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/strategic-foresight/2025-strategic-foresight-report_en

  • Google Scholar

• 310

  International Advisory Panel on Biodiversity Credits. A way forward for high integrity biodiversity credits [online] (2024). Available at: https://www.iapbiocredits.org/

  • Google Scholar

• 311

  MasekeD. Nature-positive finance. In: LambertiniMBullJWLittle BearLLockeHZabeyEMasekeDet al., editors. Becoming nature positive: transitioning to a safe and just future (1st edition). London: Routledge (2025). 41. doi: 10.4324/9781003474043

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 312

  Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF). Concept Note 3.0. [online] (2025). Available at: https://tfff.earth/feedback/

  • Google Scholar

• 313

  BarberCDaveyEZallesVOliveriaM. The tropical forest facility could finally finance nature conservation. Will funders back it? [online] (2025). Available at: https://www.wri.org/insights/financing-nature-conservation-tropical-forest-forever-facility

  • Google Scholar

• 314

  BlackRock Investment Institute. Capital at risk: nature through an investment lens [online] (2024). Available at: https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/insights/blackrock-investment-institute/publications/investment-perspective-august-2024

  • Google Scholar

• 315

  QuigleyE. Universal ownership in the Anthropocene. SSRN [preprint] (2019). Available at: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3457205

  • Google Scholar

• 316

  Natural Capital Coalition. Natural Capital Protocol [online] (2016). Available at: https://capitalscoalition.org/capitals-approach/natural-capital-protocol/

  • Google Scholar

• 317

  ZabeyE. The role of business in a nature-positive economy. In: LambertiniMBullJWLittle BearLLockeHZabeyEMasekeDet al., editors. Becoming nature positive: transitioning to a safe and just future (1st edition). London: Routledge (2025). 34. doi: 10.4324/9781003474043-9

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 318

  Institute for Development of Environmental-Economic Accounting. Natural capital protocol: system of environmental economic accounting toolkit. IDEEA (2017). Available at: https://capitalscoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/NCP-SEEA-Toolkit-Sep-2017-IDEEA-Group-1.pdf

  • Google Scholar

• 319

  Capitals Coalition. Nature on the balance sheet initiative—Capitals Coalition (2025) [online]. Available at: https://capitalscoalition.org/project/nature-on-the-balance-sheet/

  • Google Scholar

• 320

  International Organization for Standardization. Biodiversity — considering biodiversity in the strategy and operations of organizations — requirements and guidelines. ISO (2025). Available at: https://www.iso.org/standard/17298

  • Google Scholar

• 321

  KohliSValentiniA. These 10 nature finance models could help deliver returns and impact – here’s how. World Economic Forum (2025). Available at: https://www.weforum.org/stories/2025/09/nature-finance-sustainable-investing-priority-models/

  • Google Scholar

• 322

  OburaDODeClerckFVerburgPHGuptaJAbramsJFBaiXet al. Achieving a nature-and people-positive future. One Earth (2023) 6:105–17 doi: 10.1016/j.oneear.2022.11.013

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 323

  LambertiniMBullJWLittle BearLLockeHZabeyEMasekeDet al. Becoming nature positive: transitioning to a safe and just future (1st edition). London: Routledge (2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 324

  Australian Government. The Global Nature Positive Summit 2024-DCCEEW [online] (2024). Available at: https://www.dcceew.gov.au/environment/international/nature-positive-summit

  • Google Scholar

• 325

  FisherLMatteiniA. 3 reasons why 2025 is the year for nature-positive finance. World Economic Forum (2025). Available at: https://www.weforum.org/stories/2025/01/3-reasons-2025-is-the-year-for-nature-positive-finance/

  • Google Scholar

• 326

  Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures. Over 500 organisations and $17.7 trillion AUM now committed to TNFD-aligned risk management and corporate reporting [online] (2024). Available at: https://tnfd.global/over-500-organisations-and-17-7-trillion-aum-now-committed-to-tnfd-aligned-risk-management-and-corporate-reporting/

  • Google Scholar

• 327

  Nature Positive Initiative [website] (2025). Available at: https://www.naturepositive.org/

  • Google Scholar

• 328

  Science Based Targets Network. Nature positive and SBTs for nature [online] (2025). Available at: https://sciencebasedtargetsnetwork.org/about/what-are-sbts/sbts-nature-positive/

  • Google Scholar

• 329

  SegalM. EU to delay CSRD sustainability reporting standards for non-EU companies. ESG Today (2025). Available at: https://www.esgtoday.com/eu-to-delay-sustainability-reporting-standards-for-non-eu-companies/

  • Google Scholar

• 330

  International Council on Mining and Metals. Position statement: nature. London: ICMM (2025). Available at: https://www.icmm.com/en-gb/our-principles/position-statements/nature

  • Google Scholar

• 331

  VicturineRAnsteeSJonesKRRaineyHDeGemmisACrowleyH. Nature Positive mining: Guidance for a critical transition. PloS Sustain Transform (2024) 3:e0000142. doi: 10.1371/journal.pstr.0000142

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 332

  PardoJCFAuneMHarmanCWaldayMSkjellumSF. A synthesis review of nature positive approaches and coexistence in the offshore wind industry. ICES J Mar Sci (2023), fsad191. doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsad191

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 333

  Nature Positive Universities [website] (2025). Available at: https://www.naturepositiveuniversities.net/

  • Google Scholar

• 334

  MaronMQuétierFSarmientoMten KateKEvansMCBullJWet al. ‘Nature positive’ must incorporate, not undermine, the mitigation hierarchy. Nat Ecol Evol (2024) 8(1):14–7. doi: 10.1038/s41559-023-02199-2

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 335

  Milner-GullandEBullJ. Greenwashing is a threat to achieving a nature positive world [online] (2023). Available at: https://www.biology.ox.ac.uk/article/greenwashing-is-a-threat-to-achieving-a-nature-positive-world

  • Google Scholar

• 336

  BoothHMilner-GullandEJMcCormickNStarkeyM. Operationalizing transformative change for business in the context of Nature Positive. One Earth. (2024) 7 (7):1235–49. doi: 10.1016/j.oneear.2024.06.003

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 337

  United Nations Environment Programme. State of finance for nature: the big nature turnaround- Repurposing $7 trillion to combat nature loss. Nairobi: UNEP (2023). Available at: https://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/44278

  • Google Scholar

• 338

  Schmidt-TraubGLockeHGaoJOuyangZAdamsJLiLet al. Integrating climate, biodiversity, and sustainable land-use strategies: innovations from China. Natl Sci Rev (2021) 8:nwaa139. doi: 10.1093/nsr/nwaa139

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 339

  McCullochMTWinterAShermanCETrotterJA. 300 years of sclerosponge thermometry shows global warming has exceeded 1.5 °C. Nat Climate Change (2024) 14(2):171–7. doi: 10.1038/s41558-023-01919-7

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 340

  BevacquaESchleussnerC-FZscheischlerJ. A year above 1.5 °C signals that Earth is most probably within the 20-year period that will reach the Paris Agreement limit. Nat Climate Change (2025) 15(3):262–5. doi: 10.1038/s41558-025-02246-9

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 341

  ForsterPMSmithCWalshTLambWFLambollRCassouCet al. Indicators of Global Climate Change 2024: Annual update of key indicators of the state of the climate system and human influence. Earth Syst Sci Data (2025) 17(6):2641–80. doi: 10.5194/essd-17-2641-2025

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 342

  Nature Positive Initiative. State of Nature Metrics: ready for testing [online] (2025). Available at: https://www.naturepositive.org/news/latest-news/state-of-nature-metrics-ready-for-testing/

  • Google Scholar