To address the ongoing global biodiversity crisis, governments have set strategic objectives and have adopted indicators to monitor progress toward their achievement. Projecting the likely impacts on biodiversity of different policy decisions allows decision makers to understand if and how these targets can be met. We projected trends in two widely used indicators of population abundance Geometric Mean Abundance, equivalent to the Living Planet Index and extinction risk (the Red List Index) under different climate and land-use change scenarios. Testing these on terrestrial carnivore and ungulate species, we found that both indicators decline steadily, and by 2050, under a Businessas-usual (BAU) scenario, geometric mean population abundance declines by 18-35% while extinction risk increases for 8-23% of the species, depending on assumptions about species responses to climate change. BAU will therefore fail Convention on Biological Diversity target 12 of improving the conservation status of known threatened species. An alternative sustainable development scenario reduces both extinction risk and population losses compared with BAU and could lead to population increases. Our approach to model species responses to global changes brings the focus of scenarios directly to the species level, thus taking into account an additional dimension of biodiversity and paving the way for including stronger ecological foundations into future biodiversity scenario assessments.

The limited availability of resources for conservation has led to the development of many quantitative methods for selecting reserves that aim to maximize the biodiversity value of reserve networks. In published analyses, species are often considered equal, although some are in much greater need of protection than others. Furthermore, representation is usually treated as a threshold: a species is either represented or not, but varying levels of representation over or under a given target level are not valued differently. We propose that a higher representation level should also have higher value. We introduce a framework for reserve selection that includes species weights and benefit functions for under-and overrepresentation (number of locations for each species). We applied the method to conservation planning for herb-rich forests in southern Finland. Our use of benefit functions and weighting changed the identity of about 50% of the selected sites at different funding levels and improved the representation of rare and threatened species. We also identified a small area of additional land that would substantially enhance the existing reserve network. We suggest that benefit functions and species weighting should be considered as standard options in reserve-selection applications.El Valor de la Biodiversidad en la Selección de Reservas: Representación, Ponderación de Especies y Funciones de Beneficio Resumen: La limitada disponibilidad de recursos para la conservación ha llevado al desarrollo de muchos métodos cualitativos para la selección de reservas que tienen como meta maximizar el valor de la biodiversidad de las redes de reservas. En los análisis publicados, las especies son consideradas iguales a menudo, a pesar del hecho de que algunas tienen mayor necesidad de protección que otras. Más aún, la representación generalmente es tratada como umbral: una especie es representada o no, pero los niveles de representación por arriba o por debajo de un nivel determinado no son valorados diferentemente. Proponemos que un mayor nivel de representación también debería tener un mayor valor. Introducimos un marco de referencia para la selección de reservas que incluye la ponderación de especies y funciones de beneficio para la falta de-y la sobrerepresentación (número de localidades para cada especie). Aplicamos el método a la planificación de la conservación de bosques ricos en hierbas del sur de Finlandia. Nuestro uso de las funciones de beneficio y ponderaciones cambió la identidad de alrededor de 50% de los sitios seleccionados en diferentes niveles de financiamiento y mejoró la representación de especies raras y amenazadas. También identificamos una pequeñaárea de terreno adicional que daría realce sustancial a la actual red de reservas. Sugerimos que se

The efforts to protect biological diversity must be prioritized because resources for nature conservation are limited. Conservation prioritization can be based on numerous criteria, from ecological integrity to species representation, but in this review I address only species-level prioritization. Criteria used for species prioritization range from aesthetical to evolutionary considerations, but I focus on the aspects that are biologically relevant. I distinguish between two main aspects of diversity that are used as objectives: Maintenance of biodiversity pattern, and maintenance of biodiversity process. I identify two additional criteria typically used in species prioritization that serve for achieving the objectives: The species' need of protection, and cost and effectiveness of conservation actions. I discuss how these criteria could be combined with either of the objectives in a complementarity-based benefit function framework for conservation prioritization. But preserving evolutionary process versus current diversity pattern may turn out to be conflicting objectives that have to be traded-off with each other, if pursued simultaneously. Although many reasonable criteria and methods exist, species prioritization is hampered by uncertainties, most of which stem from the poor quality of data on what species exist, where they occur, and what are the costs and benefits of protecting them. Surrogate measures would be extremely useful but their performance is still largely unknown. Future challenges in species prioritization lie in finding ways to compensate for missing information.

There is high-level political support for the use of green infrastructure (GI) across Europe, to maintain viable populations and to provide ecosystem services (ES). Even though GI is inherently a spatial concept, the modern tools for spatial planning have not been recognized, such as in the recent European Environment Agency (EEA) report. We outline a toolbox of methods useful for GI design that explicitly accounts for biodiversity and ES. Data on species occurrence, habitats, and environmental variables are increasingly available via open-access internet platforms. Such data can be synthesized by statistical species distribution modeling, producing maps of biodiversity features. These, together with maps of ES, can form the basis for GI design. We argue that spatial conservation prioritization (SCP) methods are effective tools for GI design, as the overall SCP goal is cost-effective allocation of conservation efforts. Corridors are currently promoted by the EEA as the means for implementing GI design, but they typically target the needs of only a subset of the regional species pool. SCP methods would help to ensure that GI provides a balanced solution for the requirements of many biodiversity features (e.g., species, habitat types) and ES simultaneously in a cost-effective manner. Such tools are necessary to make GI into an operational concept for combating biodiversity loss and promoting ES.

Global conservation priorities have often been identified based on the combination of species richness and threat information. With the development of the field of systematic conservation planning, more attention has been given to conservation costs. This leads to prioritizing developing countries, where costs are generally low and biodiversity is high. But many of these countries have poor governance, which may result in ineffective conservation or in larger costs than initially expected. We explore how the consideration of governance affects the selection of global conservation priorities for the world's mammals in a complementarity-based conservation prioritization. We use data on Control of Corruption (Worldwide Governance Indicators project) as an indicator of governance effectiveness, and gross domestic product per capita as an indicator of cost. We show that, while core areas with high levels of endemism are always selected as important regardless of governance and cost values, there are clear regional differences in selected sites when biodiversity, cost or governance are taken into account separately. Overall, the analysis supports the concentration of conservation efforts in most of the regions generally considered of high priority, but stresses the need for different conservation approaches in different continents owing to spatial patterns of governance and economic development.