Coastal habitats refer mainly to mangroves, salt marshes, seagrass beds, and coral reefs, which are important ecosystems that provide resilience services such as fisheries that contribute to human well-being . Coastal habitats are important for marine biodiversity as they function as breeding grounds for fish and shelter for water birds. They sequester carbon at a much greater rate per area than most terrestrial ecosystems e.g. mangroves sequester 174 gC m⁻² yr⁻¹ on average, while local measurements range from 10 to 920 gC m⁻² yr⁻¹;. Finally, they prevent coastal erosion, which protects human settlements.

The importance of a healthy coastal habitat is well established , but coastal ecosystems are under threat at concerning rates due to unsustainable development and climate change . For example, 35 % of mangroves have been lost due to local drivers, but 50 % of mangrove ecosystems are at risk of collapse due to climate change and local factors . The widespread retreat of coastal habitat is likely to occur at warming levels greater than 1.5 °C ; 500 million people are projected to experience challenges (e.g. loss of food source) within decades due to the likely loss and degradation of coral reefs that they currently depend on for food and tourism or as coastal barriers . Global warming of 1.5 to 2.0 °C would double the area of tidal marsh exposed to 4 mm yr⁻¹ of rising sea level by the end of this century. With 3 °C of warming, nearly all of the world's mangrove forests and coral reef islands and almost 40 % of mapped tidal marshes are estimated to be affected by this rise in sea level . Yet each coastal habitat responds differently to climate change , making it important to consider local responses. The pressure on coastal habitats from climate change accumulates on top of other anthropogenic stressors such as overtourism, invasive species , land reclamation , pollution , aquaculture, and development of hard infrastructure, making it a challenge to involve all relevant stakeholders.

Research on nature-based solutions demonstrating co-benefits of biodiversity provides numerous co-benefits locally (e.g. ensuring livelihoods while increasing resilience to coastal hazards such as storms) compared to engineered solutions with hard infrastructure that can be expensive and often can have negative consequences on habitats . This means that investing in the space to preserve and recover coastal habitats can help restore biodiversity and mitigate help to adapt to climate change while also providing leisurely functions or a source of livelihood. Doing so improves resilience to a variety of identified hazards (e.g. coastal erosion, storms) and restores a healthy environment . Moreover, many stakeholders already prefer nature-based solutions over grey infrastructure . This was also the case in the Philippines for the Bakhawan Mangrove Eco-Park in the province of Aklan, which is widely considered a successful multispecies mangrove reforestation project, led by the local government and the Kalibo Save the Mangroves Association . Studies suggest that mangrove reforestation also provides great benefits for mitigation globally. Mangroves provide 60 % more blue carbon benefits than afforestation on marginal tidal flats for the same area (study conducted on 370 restoration sites in various parts of the world) . Utilizing the right mangrove species for the right location may further prevent retreat of the coastal zones, reduce impacts from storms on human settlements, and positively contribute to fishing, among other expected co-benefits . Similarly, recent studies point to the potential of coral reef restoration, combined with coral adaptation and climate change mitigation, to prevent mass coral deterioration and allow reefs to keep up with sea level rise of low to moderate carbon emission scenarios .

Various projects have insufficiently considered locally relevant species when planning with nature-based solutions. For example, China introduced an invasive species called Spartina alterniflora (salt marsh cordgrass) to reduce soil erosion and provide a number of other ecosystem services in 1979. Although successful in fulfilling its purpose, it occupies the niche of some local plant species (such as Phragmites communis and Scirpus mariqueter) and degrades the habitat of some species of water birds . Managing invasive species such as Spartina alterniflora can be costly and complex. Wise use of biomass can contribute to the local economy, prevent coastal erosion, and still benefit wildlife that depends on it. Hence, local species should be prioritized when vegetation re-establishment efforts are being planned to ensure greater co-benefits (e.g. when using mangrove or salt marshes).

Mitigation of coastal habitat loss/degradation can be realized through management and restoration. In doing so, ensuring sustainable development, it is also important to take on a watershed approach to protect coastal habitats e.g. preventing nutrient enrichment, coastal development, hydrological disturbances, anchoring, or sedimentation;. Trade-offs and synergies between biodiversity conservation/restoration and other services such as carbon sequestration, coastal protection, water purification, aquaculture, and ecotourism should be considered holistically. For example, dedicated locations where coastal habitats serve productive purposes and contribute to biodiversity conservation may hold a solution for socio-ecological balance.

Community involvement in coastal habitat restoration can increase willingness to participate in stewardship activities, thus improving biodiversity and climate change outcomes . As demonstrated by the nascent concept of “blue justice” that protests the marginalization of small-scale fishers , coastal stakeholders (including communities, Indigenous peoples, and small-scale fishers) have tended to be excluded from marine decision-making , yet meaningful community engagement in projects can result in equitable and resilient project outcomes . Integrating stewardship practices of Indigenous peoples and local communities into environmental governance can provide meaningful lessons for societies across borders by ensuring livelihoods and biodiversity are restored or conserved e.g. in California, USA;see also Sect.  and . New practices of restoring coastal habitats with co-benefits for people and nature have also been documented (e.g. Zwin Natuur Park, which consists of dunes, marshes, and mudflats along the Belgian and the Netherlands border open to tourists and the Mai Po Wetland in Hong Kong managed for the benefit of migrating birds, aquaculture, and tourism; ).

Institutional mechanisms must be aligned to allow for innovative or unconventional practices. Institutional barriers to nature-based solutions are currently higher than for grey infrastructure . Structural recognition of co-benefits of nature-based solutions could include project funding schemes that recognize the multiple benefits of restoring coastal habitats (e.g. beyond mitigating flood risks), incorporation of feedback from engaged stakeholders into the project design, and robust monitoring beyond the implementation phase . Researchers have also begun exploring the role of art in raising awareness around coastal sustainability . Institutional mechanisms also play an important role in jurisdiction. Coastal habitats are inseparable from upstream land-based activities. Integrated watershed management that transcends jurisdictional boundaries including through financing for long-term action can foster healthy coastal ecosystems see also Sect. .

Climate change is altering rainfall patterns and intensity in the tropics with significant implications for ecological and human water security. Changes in the seasonal variability in rainfall patterns across the tropics have also been observed . Tropical forests mitigate climate change not only by absorbing nearly half of fossil fuel emissions but also through their key role in the global water cycle . About 40 % of the global land precipitation is estimated to originate from evapotranspiration , which is regulated by vegetation cover.

The tropical water cycle is essential for the health of ecosystems, supports biodiversity, and maintains regional rainfall e.g.. High rates of evapotranspiration occur across the tropics due to a combination of intense radiation, a large evaporation surface (up to 10 m² leaves per square metre ground) and high temperatures, significantly contributing to atmospheric moisture. For example, about one-third of the moisture in the Amazon basin is recycled regionally with evapotranspiration from the Amazon forest specifically contributing to up to 70 % of precipitation in certain basins . Likewise, almost half of the moisture in the Congo Basin is recycled regionally . Furthermore, in tropical montane forests, interception of water from clouds is estimated to contribute 5 % of total precipitation in wet regions and up to 75 % in dry regions . This contributes to cloud formation and generation of rainfall patterns and other regional climatic conditions intricately linked to forest cover e.g.. In South America, evaporated water is transported further across the continent, contributing to regional rainfall e.g.. In some regions, this rainfall provides a large fraction of the water needed for rainfed agriculture e.g.. In model simulations, deforestation in the tropics was shown to decrease cloud cover not only locally but also over extratropical regions .

Despite efforts to curb deforestation, tropical forest loss has accelerated over the last 2 decades . Several lines of research suggest that deforestation reduces regional and downwind rainfall, further highlighting the role of forests in sustaining regional hydrological cycles . Loss of forest cover disrupts transpiration and reduces precipitation, leading to a drier climate, lower agricultural productivity and increased stream flow in large watersheds . In the Amazon basin, this has led to a measurable decrease in precipitation across South America . Across the tropics, a 1 % reduction in forest cover is thought to have reduced precipitation by an average of 0.25±0.1 mm per month over the past 2 decades . Deforestation in South America might delay the onset of the rainy season by 30 to 40 d compared to historical averages through mid-century . Modelling studies indicate that future deforestation in the Congo can reduce local precipitation by 8 %–10 % in 2100 . Current Earth system models are known to underestimate water recycling in the tropical forests, especially in the Amazon . In this context, recent studies show that the coupling between the water cycle and vegetation is tightening in many regions across the globe such that LAI (leave area index per area ground) affects evapotranspiration more strongly over time , and LAI gets more sensitive to soil moisture availability . However, such an increase in water–vegetation coupling has not been reported in the tropics so far.

Droughts during heat waves appear to be intensified by deforestation and can spread via teleconnections . Droughts have increased in many tropical regions. For example, severe and exceptional droughts occurred in the Amazon region in 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2023 e.g.. Other tropical rainforests have also been affected . Droughts can also lead to forest loss and thus cause a positive feedback with decreasing precipitation .

Uncertainty in analysing tropical water–vegetation interactions results from limited soil data and the challenges in estimating evapotranspiration using remote sensing techniques, due to dense vegetation. Therefore, hydrological datasets derived with machine learning techniques that extrapolate water variables in space are limited in the tropics . Due to these uncertainties, it is not yet clear when the tipping point at which the rainforest turns into a dryland or grassland will be reached. The reduced soil moisture as a result of deforestation would lead to severe dieback due to a drier climate , with severe consequences for the water and carbon cycle .

In addition to impacts on natural systems, increasing droughts also result in increasingly heavy socio-economic losses. Globally, droughts are estimated to affect 1.8 million people and cost more than USD 307 billion each year . For example, droughts in Africa are estimated to have affected almost half a billion people and resulted in 700 000 deaths from 1950 to 2021, with associated damages of about USD 6.6 billion . In Europe, economic consequences of drought have been estimated to cost about EUR 6.2 billion per year on average between 1991 and 2020 and even more for extreme droughts such as 2003 (EUR 8.3 billion) . Future impact of drought on critical infrastructure in Europe is expected to increase in the next few years .

Great efforts are needed to halt deforestation, prevent forest degradation, and accelerate forest restoration by 2030, as pledged in the New York Declaration on Forests and the Glasgow Leaders’ Declaration on Forests and Land Use , particularly in areas with high rates of deforestation . Protecting forests is essential to mitigating future droughts and maintaining stable seasonal rainfall patterns. Evidence indicates that deforestation arises from activities such as speculative land clearing, land tenure conflicts, transient agricultural practices, abandoned farmland, and agriculture-related fires encroaching on adjacent forests . Effective measures to curb deforestation require sustainable economic alternatives for intact forests e.g.see Sect. , , the establishment of protected areas, the enforcement of substantial penalties for illegal logging e.g.see also Sect. , and broader improvements in land governance and rural development e.g.. International supply chain interventions can help reduce tropical deforestation and forest degradation, but they will be most effective when targeting high-risk areas with initiatives that promote sustainable rural development and strengthen territorial governance . Indigenous peoples are also crucial to forest conservation, as their traditional land management practices have proven exceptionally effective in conserving forest ecosystems . Empowering indigenous communities and legally securing their land rights are, therefore, crucial to long-term conservation success.

Restoring degraded and deforested areas worldwide can increase precipitation and thus mitigate the reduction caused by forest loss see also Sect. . An increase in forest cover increases evapotranspiration, low-level cloud cover, and precipitation. For instance, showed that in 67 % of the areas they studied, afforestation would increase low-level cloud cover in most months. These indirect biophysical effects of cloud formation would likely counteract, on average, the darkening of the surface following afforestation see also. However, cloud formation is also influenced by the concentration of fine aerosols in the atmosphere, which can be modified by changes in forest cover e.g.. Moreover, in the southern and eastern Amazon, reforestation could increase precipitation, which is critical given the risk of climate change-induced drying and a possible tipping point at which a forest transitions to a dryland or grassland due to decreased moisture . Similarly, reforestation in Middle America (Mexico and the islands of the Caribbean) and South East Asia (including southern China) could largely offset projected drying, and Mediterranean Europe would also benefit from regional reforestation efforts. Furthermore, due to moisture recycling of forests, reforestation in the south-eastern Amazon would increase gross primary productivity . All these biophysical effects give the forests an additional value that goes beyond carbon sequestration and local cooling of the surface through evaporation.

However, afforestation for carbon sequestration in savannahs and other naturally tree-poor ecosystems can disrupt local water balances and biodiversity . Trees often use more water than grasslands, which can lower the water table and reduce the availability of water for other plants and animals native to these areas. This change can lead to the drying up of wetlands and less water flow in streams and rivers , impacting species that are adapted to specific water regimes. Moreover, the planting of non-native tree species can alter soil properties and inhibit the growth of native vegetation, which relies on fire and open sunlight conditions to thrive (see Sect. ). These ecological shifts can diminish the natural resilience of these ecosystems, making them less adaptable to climatic changes and more susceptible to invasive species. Therefore, while afforestation in certain contexts can be beneficial for carbon sequestration and local societies, it requires careful planning and management to avoid unintended ecological consequences . More and more accurate data on tropical vegetation and water could be collected through more standardized and regionally distributed ground-based measurements and monitoring, as often a water-related perspective and country- or regional-level analysis are missing to understand region-specific feasibility.

More accurate data on tropical vegetation and water could be collected through a standardized and harmonized approach, as water-related perspectives are often lacking in country- or regional-level analysis but are needed to understand region-specific feasibility. Furthermore, there is a need for more regionally distributed ground-based measurements and monitoring, covering under-represented biomes and vegetation types, e.g. the tropics and semi-arid regions, and providing more country or regional detail, which is crucial to understand region-specific feasibility. Further, future satellite missions will collect data using longer wavelengths such as SAR L-band or P-band missions . However, the latter are restricted by the military in many areas. This can provide a basis for more accurate observation-based analysis and better constrain state-of-the-art models to quantify better the large-scale pan-tropical effect of afforestation or deforestation on the hydrological cycle see also. Consequently, this can also contribute to a more accurate understanding and estimation of increasing, and often unexpected, trends in tree mortality globally .

Fire is a natural phenomenon that has shaped many ecosystem types worldwide and contributed to their biodiversity . Humans have altered fire regimes by utilizing fire and changing the landscape and also by suppressing fires to avoid its destructive consequences . However, unprecedented record wildfires have recently affected different parts of the world. In 2023, 7.8×106 ha burned in Canada , and Greece experienced the largest fire ever recorded in Europe, burning more than 93 000 ha , raising concerns about future fire dynamics.

Many factors affect fire regimes, but recent research suggests that two major factors – human activities (including land use change) and meteorological fire danger – are pulling in opposite directions. On the one hand, human factors, in particular agricultural expansion and intensification in African savannas, grasslands and shrublands biomes, have caused a decrease in burned area of these biomes by 13 % over the last 2 decades . On the other hand, increasing fire weather severity and decreased snow cover have increased burned area and fire intensity in high-latitude regions; for example, burned area has increased by 58 % since 2002 in the North American boreal forest biome , albeit with large regional variability . Across the globe, the two factors may change individually or in conjunction. Against a backdrop of globally decreasing burned area, some areas are experiencing increasing extreme fire seasons , so-called “extreme fires” or “megafires” that are large, intense, difficult to control, and becoming more frequent with a 2.2-fold global increase since 2003 .

These megafires exceed natural fire regimes and are extremely detrimental to biodiversity , human infrastructure, air quality , and carbon stocks . In 2023–2024, carbon emissions from wildfires increased globally by 16 % above the long-term average . While emissions from African savannas declined slightly, this reduction was insufficient to counterbalance the substantial rise stemming from extreme fires in Canada’s boreal forests , where carbon emission anomalies reached 9 times above average .

Analyses of fire trends and future projections show strong climate-change-induced increases in fire weather severity across most of the world . This poses a significant challenge for society, particularly forestry and civil protection. Year 2023 was a year of extensive civil protection efforts. In Canada alone, over 230 000 people were evacuated due to wildfires. However, the scale of these efforts often exceeded capacity with negative consequences for fire suppression, as seen in civil protection efforts in Greece . Furthermore, millions of civilians were exposed to smoke; during the Canadian fires, around 50 million people suffered from health-threatening air quality . However, the problem is highly heterogeneous, with already fire-prone areas experiencing increased risk of extreme weather conditions but also fire-prone conditions emerging in relatively cooler and wetter areas that have been little affected by fire so far, e.g. boreal and temperate zones and mountains .

These challenges are heightened by local factors relating to ignition, vegetation, and land cover, which can play a major role in increasing fire danger. In some regions, land cover is characterized by highly flammable species such as pine, spruce, and eucalyptus and planted in large and homogeneous stands, which can promote fire spread. For one of the largest wildfires in central Europe, where Norway spruce monocultures suffer heavily from bark beetle attacks since the exceptional drought of 2018, it has been shown that burn severity was highest in dead spruce stands . For fire risk assessments, both climatic and non-climatic factors need, thus, to be considered .

Changing fire regimes also threaten large carbon reservoirs but with regionally unique consequences. In the humid tropics, intact forest and peatlands are threatened by deforestation fires and wildfires exacerbated by climate and land use change . High-latitude peatlands in remote areas are vulnerable to large, long-lasting fires burning through deep peat layers , which are not actively controlled and lead to large carbon losses . Future stocks from potential “nature-based solutions” may also be vulnerable to wildfires, undermining climate mitigation efforts. However, long-term predictions of fire risk that could be incorporated into planning still include large uncertainties at the local scale . See also Sects.  and .

Decreasing trends in burned area in regions where the fire weather has become more severe, such as non-Mediterranean Europe , clearly show that fire risks can be mitigated, albeit at an increasing cost . However, the costs of fire mitigation are surpassed by losses, especially for extreme fire seasons and comparable to other climate change mitigation costs . Several studies emphasize that the burned area is negatively related to the Human Development Index at both global and continental scale . This demonstrates that more economically developed societies tend to reduce their burnt area, either due to effective fire prevention measures or because of rapid and successful firefighting (see also Sect. ). Whilst this broad picture is encouraging, it is important that this view is tempered with the knowledge that relying on fire suppression as a sole strategy is risky and potentially counterproductive, as it can increase fuel accumulation and, therefore, fire severity . A clear example of this is the forests of the United States where, despite a high level of economic development, burnt area is increasing . Whilst climate change plays a important role in this trend , a very effective strategy of fire suppression over the 20th century without a sufficient fuel reduction strategy has led to current levels of very high fuel accumulation. These high fuel loads contribute to the current crisis, a phenomenon anticipated over 50 years ago .

Strategies should be developed targeting risks at local, national, and regional levels . Locally, fire suppression can be aided by introducing fire breaks and access points, particularly roads . However, this solution should be cautiously applied as land fragmentation also negatively affects species richness . Fuel reduction techniques might also be considered, including mechanical or grazing, but prescribed burning might also provide a more natural solution also useful for maintaining fire-dependent vegetation types and biodiversity . Moreover, fire suppression should be limited in areas where regular low-intensity fires play a vital role in naturally clearing fuels. There, maintaining fires as a part of the ecosystem can reduce the risk of more severe fires from excessive fuel accumulation. National strategies should promote biodiversity because this also promotes fire resilience by avoiding monocultures of highly flammable species. Furthermore, studies have shown that cross-border collaborations are necessary and effective for allocating resources efficiently and minimizing risk . International cooperations can benefit from comprehensive “fire-smart” solutions, such as those recently targeted in the EU Green Deal . A number of cases document the value of incorporating Indigenous knowledge and governance into fire management strategies in Latin America , Africa , North America , and Australia ; see also Sect. , .

A key intersection point between ecology and climate change research is the role of terrestrial ecosystems in exchanging carbon between terrestrial and atmospheric carbon pools. Human activities are affecting these carbon exchanges directly via deforestation and other land use activities, as well as indirectly via the response of terrestrial ecosystems to elevated CO2 and resulting changing climate conditions . Direct effects, including deforestation, forest regrowth, and other land use activities, currently produce net emissions to the atmosphere of about 4×109 t of CO2 per year (about 10 % of global fossil fuel emissions), which includes an estimated removal flux from reforestation activities of 2×109 t of CO2 per year. Indirect carbon fluxes, resulting from processes like CO2 fertilization and changing growing season length, currently absorb about 12×109 t of CO2 per year. This indirect carbon sink shows inter-annual variability, as it has consistently represented an absorption of close to one-third of annual fossil fuel CO2 emissions over the past several decades .

Given the current role of the terrestrial biosphere as a net carbon sink (the net of direct emissions and indirect uptake), there is considerable interest in pursuing strategies to enhance nature-based carbon dioxide removal (CDR) to contribute to climate mitigation efforts. Many studies have highlighted the potential of nature-based CDR as a key component of a range of potential CDR options.

Reforestation and afforestation are typically seen as the largest potential contributors. However, nature-based CDR also includes strategies such as biochar and other agricultural management practices to increase soil carbon sequestration. Many concerns about nature-based carbon removal have also been raised in recent literature however, including whether a focus on CDR in research and policy discussion could lead to delays in fossil fuel emission reductions , as well as whether nature-based CDR has a large enough potential to be a meaningful contribution to climate change mitigation goals . also highlight an important concern that reforestation with non-native tree plantation species could lead to the loss of native ecosystems that may negate any carbon-related gains, supporting previous findings that more biodiverse forests are better at capturing and storing carbon . These and other concerns highlight a growing understanding that nature-based CDR must be undertaken with attention to local ecosystems and community needs and that nature-based CDR should in all cases be treated as a complement (and not an alternative) to fossil fuel CO2 emission reductions .

Nature-based CDR, particularly in the case of its use as an offset for fossil fuel CO2 emissions, faces a number of known and well-understood challenges. These challenges include the following: i.

accounting, including accurate measurement of forest carbon accounting, such as removal and storage;

The durability challenge associated with nature-based carbon storage has been of particular concern in recent years, owing to increases in natural disturbances (as discussed in Sect. ). Climate-driven changes in wildfire and other natural disturbance regimes have considerable potential to lead to increased the future vulnerability of land-based carbon stocks with continuing climate change . Furthermore, the permanence of land carbon storage can also be compromised by changing human disturbance pressures, including those emerging from potential uses of biomass as an energy source in climate mitigation strategies .

The potential for land-based carbon storage to be temporary evokes a particular accounting challenge when used as an offset for fossil fuel CO2 emissions, which represent a permanent transfer of new carbon from a geologic reservoir into the atmosphere–land–ocean carbon system. Concerns of impermanence (or risks of reversal) are a key concern associated with the application of nature-based carbon storage as a contributor to climate mitigation efforts . However, even temporary carbon storage does have climate value and, in particular, has been shown to decrease peak warming if coupled with ambitious fossil fuel emission reductions .

One solution to the challenge of the durability of land carbon storage may be to treat all nature-based carbon removal and storage as a temporary quantity and to explicitly account for the amount of time the carbon remains in storage as part of its climate value. proposed a new application of tonne-year accounting to measure the time integral of land carbon removal and storage as a way of tracking the climate benefit of temporary storage. Previous applications of tonne-year accounting have focused on trying to equate temporary and permanent storage, leading to strategies such as vertical stacking of offset credits to claim that a given amount of temporary storage is equivalent to a unit of permanent storage . This previous use of tonne-year accounting has been criticized in the literature given that it is not grounded in any physical climate science relationship and leads to a false equivalency of temporary and permanent storage that could further disconnect carbon offset calculations from the scientific understanding of carbon stocks and flows in natural systems .

However, showed that a reimagined approach to tonne years could effectively track nature-based carbon storage over time. Furthermore, they showed that tonne years of temporary carbon storage are proportional to degree years of avoided warming (i.e. the time integral of the temperature change caused by temporary storage), providing an approach to measure the climate effect of temporary carbon storage in a way that is coherent with scientific understanding . Measuring and quantifying the time dimension of nature-based carbon storage and treating carbon offset as a time share rather than a single purchase (e.g. by using horizontal stacking to guard against loss over time) could be an important improvement to current carbon offset protocols .

Biodiversity is declining faster than ever with global wildlife populations declining by an average of 73 % over the last 50 years . Around 1 million animal and plant species are now threatened with extinction despite decades of increased conservation investment to bend the curve of biodiversity decline . This decline is mainly driven by changes in land and sea use, overexploitation of resources, pollution, invasion of exotic species, and climate change . Such decline is also associated with the expansion of global systems of extractivism in recent centuries, which contrasts sharply with earlier patterns of stewardship see also Sect. .

The conversion of natural habitats has provided benefits by creating more space for agriculture, housing, and industry but at a significant cost to biodiversity, reducing the area of natural ecosystems by about half, with agriculture alone occupying 38 % of the Earth’s land surface . Currently, only 16.64 % of terrestrial areas and 8 % of marine areas are protected, many of which are not fully ecologically representative or effectively managed, while about 75 % of the terrestrial environment and about 66 % of the marine environment have been significantly altered by human activities . This habitat conversion jeopardizes valuable ecosystem functions and beneficial contributions, such as healthy and sustainable food production, clean air and water, and recreational spaces, among others. For example, over 75 % of global food crops rely on animal pollination, but pollinator populations are declining due to habitat loss, pesticides, and climate change . These contributions, known as ecosystem services or nature’s contributions to people (NCPs), directly or indirectly contribute to human well-being, economic stability, and overall quality of life see also Sect.  and .

Biodiversity has multiple dimensions, making it challenging to define synthetic policy objectives and metrics or to track progress . Most conservation efforts focus on halting the conversion of remaining intact natural ecosystems and safeguarding their unique species as articulated in Goal A of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework . However, human-modified lands and waters, which cover approximately half of the global Earth surface , including highly managed agricultural fields and urban green spaces in mixed mosaic landscapes where natural functions are limited to small habitat patches, are often overlooked in conservation policies and setting global targets , despite their critical roles in maintaining and supporting human well being and sustainable food production . The close proximity and relationship between people and biodiversity in these areas makes their contributions to human well-being even more important. Identifying metrics to ensure continuous contributions of such nature to human well-being is challenging due to the highly context-specific conditions under which biodiversity supports ecosystem functions (e.g. Sect. ). Yet few proposals for the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) explicitly address human-modified lands or the role of functional biodiversity in maintaining a good quality of life for all people .

NCP provisioning in human-modified landscapes relies on the amount, quality, and spatial arrangement of habitat fragments and their accessibility to beneficiaries . These landscape components serve as proxy measures for the functional integrity of ecosystems . Evidence suggests that many NCPs can be maintained by habitat within highly human-modified landscapes as long as a minimum level, quality, and distance to biodiversity are present, and/or the functional integrity is retained or rebuilt . The required habitat levels for NCP provisioning vary depending on the context, the NCPs, the demand for it, the landscape type, and the taxa involved, making it difficult to assess direct relationships . Nonetheless, below a certain threshold, nature can no longer provide a majority of benefits .

A recent systematic review of 154 studies found that the capacity of human-modified lands to pollinate crops, regulate pests and diseases, maintain clear water, limit soil erosion, and maintain recreational spaces for people declined significantly and often disappears when habitat area falls below 20 % km⁻²–25 % km⁻² and nearly disappeared below 10 % habitat per km² . Alarmingly, only one-third of global human-modified lands are above the 20 % km⁻²–25 % km⁻² level to sustain NCP provisioning, emphasizing the urgent need for policy interventions to restore and regenerate ecosystem functions and their benefits in the remaining two-thirds of global human-modified lands .

The proposed minimum habitat levels can serve as a general guide to identify priority locations for conservation and restoration in support of sustainable NCP provisions. However, uncertainties remain about the successful implementation of these minimum habitat levels in practice due to factors such as climate change, habitat loss, unsustainable agriculture, and human settlement expansion, which complicate the implementation and may create trade-offs. General estimates and targets for land management are important but often oversimplify the complexity of local conditions and can misrepresent the needs of local communities due to the inherent biases in ecological research that may not account for all biomes or ecosystem functions . Additionally, these metrics often overlook finer-scale NCPs, such as those provided by soil biodiversity, and ignore the important role of complementary agricultural practices such as no-till age farming, cover cropping, and leguminous rotations, which can reduce erosion, reduce nutrient loss, and maintain biodiversity . Current remote-sensing technologies also struggle to detect small and linear habitat elements or to differentiate complex landscape types, likely leading to underestimations of the current state of (semi-)natural habitats globally . Therefore, allocating 20 %–25 % of each square kilometre to (semi-)natural habitat within human-modified lands using general estimates, without proper management and consideration of local socio-economic priorities and ecological needs, can lead to significant social and economic challenges. These include high restoration costs, land tenure issues, policy constraints, lack of expertise and knowledge, and potential conflict with the provisioning of material NCPs, which might compete with food production ambitions and local community needs (e.g. housing), which negatively affect the well-being of local people relying on those NCPs .

The implementation of such strategies effectively necessitates adapting and adopting practices best suited to local context and conditions, rather than prescribing a single practice to be applied globally. Restoration could, for instance, prioritize areas where habitat additions align with community needs and minimize trade-offs with food production. Countless context-specific strategies exist to enhance NCP provisioning and can be implemented in ways that create more synergies than trade-offs and support food security, livelihood, and overall human well-being without compromising local resources . For example, show that wild pollination is sustained when semi-natural cover is 20 % km⁻². Further, modern agroecological practices and nature-based solutions, including diverse crop rotations and mixed cropping systems, maintain habitat heterogeneity and promote ecosystem resilience . Agroforestry systems enhance soil health, water retention, and global carbon sequestration . Strategically incorporating habitats such as hedgerows, no-mow zones around field margins, or other practices combined with innovations such as precision agriculture practices can maintain biodiversity while optimizing agricultural productivity . Protecting green spaces and parks in cities can enhance physical and mental well-being , and planting vegetation buffers along waterways can capture sediment and pollutants, among many other tools .

To implement this approach, it is essential to enhance tools and methodologies for identifying and quantifying key NCPs at the landscape scale. This includes determining the locally specific quantity (20 % km⁻²–25 % km⁻²), composition, and spatial configuration of habitat elements required for effective NCP provisioning. To avoid conflicts, partnerships with diverse stakeholders – such as Indigenous peoples, local communities, scientists, and NGOs – should be prioritized in decision-making. These groups offer valuable, practical solutions for halting and reversing the loss of NCPs and promoting sustainable conservation efforts. In addition, resources must be reallocated to promote innovation in agriculture, production systems, and urban planning that prioritize biodiversity.

The 25 % of high-functioning nature per square kilometre offers a key policy tool, as it is the first widely applicable measurement of the minimum level of human-modified land that needs to be in a (semi-)natural state across several NCPs and a wide range of landscapes. This proposed habitat level is the minimum level, not the optimal level required to meet adequate NCP demand . This habitat threshold reflects an approach that harmonizes human activities with ecosystem integrity, focusing on integration rather than strict separation between human and nature. It serves as a general guideline synergizing with existing policy targets (e.g. UN Decade on Restoration) for prioritizing conservation initiatives and formulating adaptive, scalable policies beyond natural areas. See also Sect.  and .

Today's dominant production and consumption patterns are far from achieving the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) 2050 vision of “living in harmony with nature”. Even under the “most sustainable” climate scenarios (SSP1, RCP 2.6), biodiversity loss continues at an alarming rate, with over 75 % of terrestrial ecosystems significantly altered by human activity and more than 85 % of wetlands lost since the pre-industrial era . While global efforts focus heavily on achieving climate targets, this emphasis undermines our shared life-support systems and overlooks opportunities to synergize human–nature relationships and reverse alarming biodiversity trends while addressing climate impacts .

Addressing these challenges requires a paradigm shift toward sustainable practices. Restoration efforts have demonstrated substantial ecological and economic benefits, with reforestation initiatives capable of sequestering up to 200 Gt of CO2 over the next century , while wetland rehabilitation can reduce flood risks by 35 % in vulnerable coastal regions . The increasing adoption of “nature-positive” business strategies reflects a shift towards circular economy models, emphasizing waste minimization, resource efficiency, and closed-loop systems. For example, circular economy initiatives have the potential to reduce global resource extraction by up to 28 % by 2050, aligning economic activities with planetary boundaries and fostering resilience against environmental degradation and climate change . Effective policy integration and international cooperation are critical to mitigating environmental degradation and incentivizing sustainable economic growth. Despite ambitious global agreements, biodiversity financing remains insufficient, with a current annual funding gap of approximately USD 700 billion needed to meet global conservation targets . Strengthening governance frameworks that simultaneously address climate, biodiversity, and resource management goals is essential to reversing ecosystem decline while maintaining economic stability .

Current global trade structures often exacerbate environmental and social inequalities, disproportionately affecting developing countries with weaker regulations . Industrial agricultural practices and resource extraction have a devastating impact on the biosphere that exceeds even the direct effects of climate change. For example, agricultural expansion accounts for approximately 80 % of global deforestation, with the Amazon rainforest alone losing over 17 % of its total forest cover since 1970, primarily due to cattle ranching and soybean cultivation . This environmental degradation is accompanied by social displacement, as an estimated 250 million people, primarily Indigenous and rural communities, are at risk of being forced from their lands due to large-scale land acquisitions and resource extraction projects see also Sect. , . This phenomenon, known as “telecoupling”, highlights the interconnectedness of distant economic activities and their environmental impacts . Several studies demonstrate this telecoupling: for instance, the global demand for palm oil has driven the loss of 56 % of Borneo’s lowland forests since 1985, leading to a 50 % decline in orangutan populations . Similarly, mining in Africa has led to the contamination of over 20 % of freshwater resources in affected regions, impacting both human health and biodiversity . In this context, while lithium extraction raises environmental concerns such as water depletion – wherein lithium brine mining in the Atacama Desert consumes up to 65 % of the region's freshwater – it is generally less harmful than large-scale fossil fuel extraction, which contributes to 73 % of global greenhouse gas emissions . Moreover, lithium mining's impact on local water sources is significantly lower than that of coal mining, which is responsible for approximately 10 % of global freshwater pollution. Enhancing lithium recycling from spent batteries, which currently has an efficiency of only 5 %, could significantly reduce the need for new mining operations and mitigate environmental damage .

Effective biodiversity governance faces significant challenges, including the lack of platforms to set norms, address injustices, and enforce accountability . These problems are often rooted in exploitative practices and colonial legacies as seen in cases where biodiversity-rich regions are overexploited for global markets without fair compensation for local communities. For example, only 1 % of the profits from global biodiversity-derived pharmaceutical products return to the countries of origin, despite the fact that 70 % of these compounds originate in the Global South . Revitalizing the relationship between people and nature and fostering collective action are essential to halting biodiversity loss and restoring ecosystems.

Therefore, understanding global trade networks and their impacts is crucial to develop fair and sustainable integrated policies and international cooperation. Current projections suggest that adopting circular economy principles – such as reducing raw material extraction and increasing material reuse – could decrease global resource extraction by 28 % and reduce waste generation by up to 39 % by 2050 .

Integrated policy packages should integrate environmental, economic, and social policies to address the root causes of biosphere degradation and pollution and to mitigate climate change while promoting sustainable practices such as the promotion of renewable energy and the enhancement of carbon sinks and conservation of ecosystems e.g. see also Sect. . Measures include stricter regulations on resource extraction, the adoption of cleaner technologies, and incentives to restore ecosystems. Policies such as the European Green Deal are examples of comprehensive frameworks that align climate action with economic and social objectives . International cooperation is also crucial to harmonize efforts across borders and prevent environmental damage from being displaced. For example, the Paris Agreement demonstrates the potential of global commitments to reduce carbon emissions and promote sustainability .

International environmental agreements with improved compliance mechanisms and accountability are crucial for strengthening global environmental agreements. Lessons learnt from international human rights agreements, such as the integration of accountability measures, can improve compliance with biodiversity commitments such as the Convention on Biological Diversity .

Sustainable trade policies should be enforced through certification schemes such as the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), or Fair Trade International for goods. Control mechanisms such as the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), which aims to reduce illegal deforestation, are another lever. Incentives such as tax breaks or subsidies should also encourage companies to adopt sustainable practices, minimize waste, conserve resources, and reduce emissions .

Transnational conservation collaborations such as the Amazon Cooperation Treaty Organization (ACTO) and Africa's Great Green Wall project demonstrate the value of multinational approaches to conservation. These initiatives focus on combating deforestation and wildlife trafficking, restoring degraded lands, and supporting local communities. Such projects show how regional cooperation can protect critical ecosystems and promote sustainable livelihoods .

Although there are several promising policy packages, like those presented above, they have to be developed further and applied from international to local scale. Future policies should adopt frameworks that integrate multiple values of biodiversity, promote cross-sectoral actions, and ensure stakeholder participation. Locally tailored solutions and scalable approaches are necessary to restore ecosystems and foster positive outcomes for nature and people. Progress should be tracked through innovative biodiversity monitoring and adaptive management that incorporates Indigenous and local knowledge systems.

The following framework by promises to improve future action, reversing current trends of degeneration of the biosphere: (i) the identification process for locally suitable actions and the promotion of stakeholder ownership must recognize the multiple values of biodiversity and account for remote responsibility; (ii) cross-sectoral implementation and mainstreaming of biodiversity considerations need scalable and multifunctional approaches to restoring ecosystems and aim for positive futures for nature and people; (iii) assessment of progress and adaptive management needs to be informed by novel biodiversity monitoring and modelling approaches that address the multidimensionality of biodiversity change, including the incorporation of Indigenous and local knowledge e.g. in.

The Nature Futures Framework (NFF) supports collaborative decision-making by recognizing diverse values of nature and exploring shared pathways toward sustainable futures . It emphasizes adaptive management and scenario analysis to plan for positive synergies between biodiversity conservation and climate action. Immediate actions include (i) integrating plural values and engaging diverse stakeholders in decision-making processes; (ii) mainstreaming biodiversity conservation into all sectors; (iii) using nexus approaches to address interlinkages, co-benefits, and trade-offs; (iv) improving policy coherence and integration; and (v) applying best practices in ecosystem restoration and management see also.

The implementation of global environmental policy packages requires an equity lens and a rights-based approach, as projects that are aligned with local people's preferences and through inclusive governance are likely to have more effective social and environmental outcomes . In addition, unpacking elements of social and environmental justice, including procedural, recognitional, and distributive dimensions, is needed to support long-term transformation towards sustainability . Indigenous peoples and local communities are leading by example by managing the biosphere in ways that support ecological integrity and thus biodiversity conservation ; see also Sect.  and ).

Integrating biodiversity into global trade policy ensures that efforts to protect the environment are coordinated and effective across borders. These interlinked actions provide a way to address the twin crises of climate change and biodiversity loss and promote a healthier planet for people and nature.

Humans derive various benefits from nature, such as through biodiversity, ecosystems, or ecosystem functioning. These benefits can manifest as tangible outputs, such as water and food, but also include cultural, recreational, and spiritual interactions that directly or indirectly influence human well-being e.g..

Although assigning monetary values to the benefits humans derived from ecosystem services involves numerous philosophical and practical challenges, as emphasized in Sect. , the alternative is often to consider no value at all in governmental planning processes such as benefit–cost analyses, leading to an underinvestment in ecosystems . Thus, already in 2010, at the 10th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity in Japan, the international community agreed that the values of biodiversity needed to be integrated into planning processes (Aichi Target 2). In the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, this is reflected in Target 14: Integrate Biodiversity in Decision-Making at Every Level.

One tangible approach to conceptualize these ecosystem service benefits is through the notion of ecosystem services that include both use and non-use values of nature. The values in this category are anthropocentric, encompassing both instrumental and relational values . The continuous loss of animal and plant species and their respective habitats leads to the loss of the services they provide. Governments often convert ecosystem services into monetary values to better reflect these ecosystem services in benefit–cost analyses, environmental–economic national accounting, or damage litigation processes .

Governments around the world are currently looking for new approaches to appropriately assess the benefits from scarce ecosystems and their economic value. This is intended to assist in making the consequences of the destruction or the benefits of the conservation of nature more visible in analyses that underpin political decision-making processes and help with an economically efficient and environmentally effective allocation of tight governmental budgets.

For now, calculation methods of nature’s values incorporate – if at all – solely the monetary value of ecosystem services as determined under current conditions , which means that nature becomes relatively less valuable over time compared to other goods and services whose value increases with the expected rise in global economic prosperity. In fact, our appreciation of nature also increases over time as we get wealthier and ecosystems become scarcer. Two factors play a key role in this changing value of scarce ecosystems over time. The prosperity of the world's population is expected to rise – by an estimated inflation-adjusted 2 % per year – and as household incomes increase, people will be willing to pay more to conserve nature and enjoy its services in the future. In addition, as the services provided by ecosystems become scarcer, this will further increase their value to society. The fact that scarce goods become more expensive is a fundamental principle in economics, and it also applies to nature’s values.

provide governments with a ready-to-use formula to estimate the future economic values of scarce ecosystem services that can be used in decision-making processes. The formula scrutinizes up-to-date evidence on the so-called relative price change of non-market environmental goods e.g. and recommends considering nature’s values to increase proportionally with real market income. This is in line with what governmental bodies use to value reductions in mortality risk or travel time. As a result, if only the expected increases in income over the next 100 years were taken into account, the value of global ecosystems would have to increase by more than 130 %. This holds for stagnating ecosystems. If ecosystems are projected to decline or degrade further, the value adjustment needs to be higher still. In the case of endangered species, as captured in the prominent Red List Index, for instance, the value adjustment would amount to more than 180 %. Accounting for these effects would thus increase the likelihood of projects that conserve ecosystem services to pass a benefit–cost test.

apply the formula to the evaluation of global climate policy. Economists typically use integrated climate–economy assessment models, such as the DICE model developed by Nobel Laureate William Nordhaus, to evaluate the trade-offs between mitigation costs and avoided damages from climate change and to estimate the required CO2 prices . A key criticism levelled at these models is that they do not appropriately capture the loss of nature’s services and thus underestimate climate damages. disentangle how non-market goods and services, such as environmental amenities, are captured within these models and explicitly account for this based on an empirical analysis of fundamental drivers of the relative price effect of non-market goods. They find that the social costs of climate change increase by more than 50 %, suggesting substantially higher economically optimal CO2 prices (see also Sect. ). The increase in the economically optimal global mean temperature change is accordingly reduced by half a degree Celsius, which highlights the importance of accounting for the scarcity of nature when evaluating climate policy.

Convivial conservation is a new “vision, a politics and a set of governance principles for the future of conservation” p. 284. Through its focus on “living with” biodiversity within planetary boundaries, it aligns with transformative action for climate change . Grounded in political ecology, it foregrounds the political economy as a significant constraint to transformative conservation. Political ecology is inherently cross-scalar, charting connections from global to local while emphasizing the importance of history and power relations . Furthermore, convivial conservation allies itself with social and environmental movements (e.g. Indigenous and decolonial). It proposes a long-term, holistic, “post-capitalist approach to conservation that promotes radical equity, structural transformation, and environmental justice and thus contributes to an overarching movement to create a more equal and sustainable world” p. 283.

Convivial conservation responds to two dominant conservation agendas. The first is “new conservation”, which breaks with a long-standing fixation on “pristine wilderness” seen as separate from humans and instead promotes integration into human development , but it does not address the harmful capitalist model of economic development that underpins biodiversity loss (e.g. tourism or payments for ecosystem services). The second approach, neo-protectionism, tries to completely separate nature from human development, calling for an expansion of conventional “fortress”-style protected areas, and therefore reinforces the dichotomies between nature and culture . Although new conservation moves beyond these dualisms, it looks to market mechanisms to fund and save nature (e.g. payments for ecosystem services, ecotourism), creating other social and environmental problems. Convivial conservation proposes that both approaches have limitations, as inherited from the philosophies and global development models that drive the intertwined biodiversity and climate crises.

The specific contribution of long-term convivial conservation is that it aims to produce integrated nature–culture spaces within post-capitalist conservation strategies. At its core, it investigates and challenges dominant global political–economic structures, assumptions, beliefs, and knowledge production systems, “including those that are the foundation of paradigms of economic growth and adaptation without limits” p. 385.

Convivial conservation is gaining traction in research, policy, and practice : “There is widespread agreement that our current reality of global, human-induced ecosystemic and climatic change presents stark challenges for conservation” p. 285. At the same time, breaking through the hegemony of protectionist neo-liberal conservation is also the greatest challenge for convivial conservation. To further address this challenge, a manifesto was developed that outlines 10 core principles of convivial conservation. We summarize key elements of these principles here; for a complete overview of all 10 principles, we refer to the manifesto website .

Humans have always shaped the ecosystems in which they live, co-producing diverse landscapes that in turn have shaped and supported people. However, mainstream conservation interventions often separate people from their surrounding ecosystems based on the unfounded assumption that local communities threaten biodiversity . The question is not whether people should live with the rest of nature but how (see Sect. ).

International and regional inequality contributes to the destruction of global commons necessitating equitable stewardship of ecosystems, centred on those who live within them. Nurturing extra-local commons, institutions and economies based on values of care would help cross-generational and cross-scale conviviality. Convivial conservation challenges dominant top-down forms of political power and advocates for inclusive decision-making processes, in particular for those dependent on the ecosystems in question . All decisions that can be reached effectively at the local level should be with higher-level processes that support local autonomy and intervene only when necessary e.g.see also Sect. .

Emphasizing only the monetary valuation of biodiversity can be counterproductive. Instruments such as payments for ecosystem services, REDD+, and carbon credits use the logic of the problem (capitalist accumulation through the use of natural resources as the logic of the solution; ). This conflicts with convivial co-existence between humans and non-humans and can undermine other non-monetary ways of valuing nature. It is crucial to support existing livelihoods rather than (further) forcing locals into exploitative external markets. Moreover, mechanisms to redistribute existing wealth and resources would preclude the need to finance conservation through environmentally harmful economic growth .

Protected areas have usually relied on paradigms based on positivist scientific knowledge at the expense of rich local and Indigenous philosophies, histories, and practices. However, many different other ways of knowing and practical ways of being in relation to the world such as Ubuntu , Buen Vivir, and Eco-Swaraj promote life through mutual care and sharing between humans and non-humans, discouraging individualism and unsustainable extraction . This diversity of knowledge must be valued .

Too often, those who live in or close to conservation areas are expected to change their behaviour the most . However, large industrial extractive practices and high-consumption lifestyles drive disproportionate loss of biodiversity. Nonetheless, these people and organizations are not perceived as causative agents because they are far from conservation spaces or too powerful to influence . Conservationists should challenge both the regimes that indulge in human rights violations and displacement in the name of biodiversity and the rights of global or national elites to control or hinder conservation efforts (see also Sect. ).

Some examples where (core elements of) convivial conservation are already visible are the broader investigation of a conservation basic income (CBI) , early results of which show a promising reduction of logging in the Amazon , or human–wildlife cohabitation that is grounded in a strong bottom-up approach. A clear example of the latter, focused on human–bear cohabitation in Bulgaria, was investigated by .