Maximizing the effectiveness of national commitments to protected area expansion for conserving biodiversity and ecosystem carbon under climate change

Abstract

Global commitments to protected area expansion should prioritize opportunities to protect climate refugia and ecosystems which store high levels of irrecoverable carbon, as key components of an effective response to biodiversity loss and climate change. The United States and Canada are responsible for one‐sixth of global greenhouse gas emissions but hold extensive natural ecosystems that store globally significant above‐ and below‐ground carbon. Canada has initiated a process of protected area network expansion in concert with efforts at reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples, and acknowledged nature‐based solutions as a key aspect of climate change mitigation. The US, although not a party to global biodiversity conventions, has recently committed to protecting 30% of its extent by 2030 and achieving the UNFCCC Paris Agreement's mitigation targets. The opportunities afforded by these dual biodiversity conservation and climate commitments require coordinated national and regional policies to ensure that new protected areas maximize biodiversity‐focused adaptation and nature‐based mitigation opportunities. We address how global commitments can best inform national policy initiatives which build on existing agency mandates for regional planning and species conservation. Previous analyses of global conservation priorities under climate change have been tenuously linked to policy contexts of individual nations and have lacked information on refugia due to limitations of globally available datasets. Comparison and synthesis of predictions from a range of recently developed refugia metrics allow such data to inform planning despite substantial uncertainty arising from contrasting model assumptions and inputs. A case study for endangered species planning for old‐forest‐associated species in the US Pacific Northwest demonstrates how regional planning can be nested hierarchically within national biodiversity‐focused adaptation and nature‐based mitigation strategies which integrate refugia, connectivity, and ecosystem carbon metrics to holistically evaluate the role of different land designations and where carbon mitigation and protection of biodiversity's resilience to climate change can be aligned.

Mainstreaming the Ambition, Coherence, and Comprehensiveness of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework Into Conservation Policy

“…The 2015 planning process for conservation of the greater sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), which resulted in new protections on 67,000 km 2 of habitat "strongholds" in 10 western states (Pidot, 2018), and the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP), which coordinated biodiversity conservation in in California's southeastern desert with expansion of solar, wind, and geothermal infrastructure (Kreitler et al, 2015), were subsequently weakened by the Trump administration's focus on resource development. However, with political resolve, new efforts could employ similar templates to advance regional and landscape-level conservation planning, including that designed to achieve ecosystem-based carbon mitigation goals, while at the same time efficiently protecting individual species facing extinction (Carroll and Ray, 2021). President Biden took one such step in 2022, issuing an executive order requiring the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management to inventory mature and old-growth forests on federal land and develop "climate-smart management and conservation strategies" to address threats to those forest ecosystems (White House, 2022).…”

“…Although these commitments are strongly stated, it is not yet clear how they will be achieved, especially given that the Biodiversity Strategy for 2020 target to restore at least 15% of degraded ecosystems has had limited success (Cortina-Segarra et al, 2021). Coordinated and binding measures must be taken by the EU to ensure that Member States successfully contribute to meeting ambitious restoration targets, which should also be coordinated with ecosystem-based climate mitigation efforts (Carroll and Noss, 2020;Carroll and Ray, 2021).…”

“…Although this linkage is central to the EU Habitats Directive and its FCS concept, there is currently insufficient information on the degree to which place-based conservation via the Natura 2000 system achieves GBF targets for establishing a representative connected network of sites that conserves native ecosystems and species. Although the US has less formal statutory support for targets analogous to those in the GBF, practical opportunities for building such a network are enhanced by the fact that the federal government directly manages ~30% of the US land base, over which it has the authority to initiate comprehensive biodiversityinclusive land use planning processes (Carroll and Ray, 2021).…”

Targeting current species ranges and carbon stocks fails to conserve biodiversity in a changing climate: opportunities to support climate adaptation under 30×30

“…However, some challenges exist. First, a growing body of available spatial data for identifying areas important for climate adaptation means that planners must reconcile a diversity of data (Carroll and Ray 2021). Previous research indicates that identified priority areas can be highly dependent on the datasets used as each represents different mechanisms and highlights different landscapes (Michalak et al 2020, Carroll andRay 2021).…”

“…First, a growing body of available spatial data for identifying areas important for climate adaptation means that planners must reconcile a diversity of data (Carroll and Ray 2021). Previous research indicates that identified priority areas can be highly dependent on the datasets used as each represents different mechanisms and highlights different landscapes (Michalak et al 2020, Carroll andRay 2021). Second, the majority of prioritization frameworks for protected areas expansion focus on current spatial patterns in biodiversity, landscape connectivity and other key factors (Cushman et al 2009, Lookingbill et al 2010, Dickson et al 2013, Belote et al 2016.…”