Tropical dry woodland loss occurs disproportionately in areas of highest conservation value

A global clustering of terrestrial food production systems

Food production is at the heart of global sustainability challenges, with unsustainable practices being a major driver of biodiversity loss, emissions and land degradation. The concept of foodscapes, defined as the characteristics of food production along biophysical and socio-economic gradients, could be a way addressing those challenges. By identifying homologues foodscapes classes possible interventions and leverage points for more sustainable agriculture could be identified. Here we provide a globally consistent approximation of the world's foodscape classes. We integrate global data on biophysical and socio-economic factors to identify a minimum set of emergent clusters and evaluate their characteristics, vulnerabilities and risks with regards to global change factors. Overall, we find food production globally to be highly concentrated in a few areas. Worryingly, we find particularly intensively cultivated or irrigated foodscape classes to be under considerable climatic and degradation risks. Our work can serve as baseline for global-scale zoning and gap analyses, while also revealing homologous areas for possible agricultural interventions.

Rates of tree cover loss in Key Biodiversity Areas on Indigenous Peoples' lands

Indigenous Peoples' lands (IPL) cover at least 38 million km2 (28.1%) of Earth's terrestrial surface. These lands can be important for biodiversity conservation. Around 20.7% of IPL intersect areas protected by government (PAs). Many sites of importance for biodiversity within IPL could make a substantial but hitherto unquantified contribution to global site-based conservation targets. Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) represent the largest global network of systematically identified sites of high importance for biodiversity. We assessed the effectiveness of IPL in slowing biodiversity loss inside and outside PAs by quantifying tree cover loss from 2000 to 2019 in KBAs at international and national levels and comparing it with losses at equivalent sites outside mapped IPL. Based on a matched sample of 1-km2 cells in KBAs inside and outside mapped IPL, tree cover loss in KBAs outside PAs was lower inside IPL than outside IPL. By contrast, tree cover loss in KBAs inside PAs was lower outside IPL than inside IPL (although the difference was far smaller). National rates of tree cover loss in KBAs varied greatly in relation to their IPL and PA status. In one half of the 44 countries we examined individually, there was no significant difference in the rate of tree cover loss in KBAs inside and outside mapped IPL. The reasons for this intercountry variation could illuminate the importance of IPL in meeting the Convention on Biological Diversity's ambition of conserving 30% of land by 2030. Critical to this will be coordinated action by governments to strengthen and enforce Indigenous Peoples' rights, secure their collective systems of tenure and governance, and recognize their aspirations for their lands and futures.