Biodiversity is the variety of life on Earth. It includes several levels of biological organization and encompasses the diverse species of plants, animals, fungi and microorganisms that live in a given space, their genetic variability , the ecosystems of which these species are a part, and the landscapes or regions where the ecosystems are located. Biodiversity also includes the ecological and evolutionary processes that occur at the level of genes, species, ecosystems and landscapes.

The word “biodiversity” was first coined in the 80s. While the concepts of diversity of “species” or “ecosystems” are relatively easy to grasp, that of “genes”, which is the third element of biodiversity (also referred to as “genetic variability”), might be more difficult to understand. Put simply, genetic variability is the individual genetic characteristics that vary from one member of a population to another. This “variability” provides the species with the potential to survive changing environmental conditions, for example. The many breeds of species that have become staples of our human food systems through “domestication” practices (selection of different varieties because of particular characteristics that result from their genetic variability) include corn, beans, horses and cows, among many others. The processes used to create them and the traditional knowledge that maintain them are part of biological and cultural diversity.

Biodiversity loss is the loss of genetic variability, species and ecosystems. Staggering rates of biodiversity loss over the past half century have led to massive species extinction , increased food insecurity , aggravated climate change and the rise of Zoonotic diseases such as COVID-19.

Biodiversity loss occurs at the genetic level, for example, when limited varieties or breeds of a certain crop are cultivated, resulting in a decline of the genetic variability within the crop species. An example is corn (also known as maize), which is the most cultivated cereal in the world. While only five varieties of corn are favored commercially (and therefore highly cultivated), it is different native races that possess genetic variabilities that are flood or drought resistant, for example, or able to withstand certain pest infestations. If any of these varieties or breeds is no longer cultivated, certain combinations of genes are lost forever, threatening the potential adaptation and hardiness of maize when faced with new conditions brought on by climate change, for example.

Biodiversity loss at the species level is tragically evident in the extinction of living organisms. Among well-assessed taxonomic groups, nearly one quarter (23.7%) of species are currently threatened with extinction, with an estimated total one million threatened species across all groups. Wild animal populations have fallen by more than two-thirds since 1970.

Biodiversity loss at the ecosystem level includes degradation, fragmentation and loss of habitats that remain high in forest and other biomes, especially in the most biodiversity-rich ecosystems in tropical regions. Wilderness areas and global wetlands continue to decline, while fragmentation of riparian systems (rivers) remains a critical threat to freshwater biodiversity.

According to the 2019 Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) report, the main global drivers of biodiversity loss (in order of impact) are habitat loss due to land use change, invasive species, over-exploitation of natural resources, pollution, and climate change.

Industrial agriculture expansion is the most widespread form of land-use change, with over one third of terrestrial land surface currently used for cropping or animal husbandry. This expansion - alongside a doubling of urban areas since 1992 and an unprecedented expansion of infrastructure linked to growing population and consumption - has come mostly at the expense of forests (largely old-growth tropical forests), wetlands and grasslands.

Human activity has also had large and widespread impacts on the world’s oceans. These include direct exploitation (in particular overexploitation) of fish, shellfish and other organisms, land and sea-based pollution (including from river networks), and land and sea-use change (including coastal development for infrastructure and aquaculture). In marine ecosystems, direct exploitation of organisms (mainly fishing) has had the largest relative impact, followed by land and sea-use change.

Biodiversity loss is already impacting human lives around the world. Outstanding examples are the changes in food availability, diversity and quality; the increased impact of natural disasters where the use of land has been changed, and the spread of zoonotic diseases such as COVID-19.

Like climate change, biodiversity loss disproportionately impacts poor and vulnerable groups such as Indigenous peoples and local communities, women, children and the elderly. It is a cruel irony that these same groups are the least likely to have caused or benefited from the industries and activities that drive biodiversity loss.

Global leaders must commit to protect and conserve at least 50% of the Earth’s lands and seas by 2030, especially ecosystems that provide services such as carbon storage, water provisioning, sustainable livelihoods and climate resilience. They must always recognize, respect and take into account the rights, wisdom and leadership of Indigenous peoples and local communities in planning, implementation and reviewing efforts, given the fact they they currently occupy and care for 80% of the Earth's known biodiversity, and 37% of all land designated as particularly important for biodiversity and carbon storage.

Some countries will have more areas needing protection than others. As a result, protection measures for areas rich in biodiversity will vary in type and scope depending on the location, the communities living in and from them, biodiversity richness, and role in larger ecological systems. The good news is that 15% of the world’s lands and 5% of the world’s oceans are already formally protected, and that the international community has identified different measures that are effective for biodiversity conservation!

There are several scientific approaches already established to identify which areas of our planet should be protected. One is the Global Safety Net (see Accordion 4).

Global leaders and productive sectors must commit to ensuring the sustainable use of natural resources - including the mainstreaming of biodiversity - across 100% of the planet. This requires the legal and economic instruments - legal frameworks, binding agreements, development of innovative financial approaches, investment in education and capacity building, and the promotion of incentives to conserve biodiversity- necessary for the transformational change human societies must implement to live better with nature.

All governments Parties to the CBD are now designing the 2030 goals to implement measures that could potentially result in the sustainable use of natural resources across the globe, including the mainstreaming of biodiversity conservation in all productive sectors.

We must mainstream biodiversity within and across all economic sectors to ensure sustainable production and consumption patterns. This means integrating actions and policies related to the conservation of biodiversity into broader public and private development plans, programmes, processes or policies including productive and services sectors. Most critical are agriculture, forestry, fisheries, aquaculture, tourism, energy, mining, infrastructure, manufacturing and processing sectors.

The science and technology for mainstreaming biodiversity for wellbeing already exists (for example sustainable means of food production and consumption) and it comes with the bonus of new, clean, sustainable jobs.

Gender equality is an issue that tends to be overlooked when planning for biodiversity conservation. This omission is extremely misguided as it forgoes the proven expertise of women in biodiversity conservation and often results in tragic human rights violations..

Women traditionally tend to favor long-term and diversified resources management approaches that support biodiversity conservation, while men usually focus on maximizing profits or production. Women are also much more likely to consider other components of well-being such as health and food security. This is especially salient in forest management where women instinctively place a special value on species that provide food, medicinal herbs, or fibers traditionally used in households and which men are often unfamiliar to men. This in turn leads to a higher valuation of diverse forest ecosystems.

Women make up 80% of household spending decisions and they account for 43% of the global agricultural workforce yet they have much less access than men to credit directed to rural sectors. A recent report by FAO estimates that female farmers receive only ten percent of the total aid allocated for agriculture, forestry and fishing, and as little as five percent of all agricultural extension services.

In many households, women make the key decisions for their families related to nutrition and health. They are also directly and indirectly involved in numerous productive activities that often constitute communities’ livelihoods. Women are known to regularly involve their children, and other family members, in conservation efforts, thereby mobilizing larger communities of support for biodiversity conservation while transmitting to future generations valuable learning, including traditional knowledge, in several areas that are vital for ecosystem governance.

Increasing women’s access to credit, ensuring that land titles are also issued to women, and allowing them to manage funding for conservation activities would provide a significant boost for biodiversity conservation. In response to the growing awareness of this issue (thanks in part to terrific work by civil society) the CBD has established a working group on biodiversity and gender, while the African Union has set a goal of increasing land ownership by women to 30% by 2030  (currently just under 10% across Africa.)

Not including women in decision-making processes undermines biodiversity conservation efforts worldwide.

The world’s approximate 370 million Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPLCs) constitute less than 5% of the global population, however they manage over 25% of global land surfaces that hold 80% of the world’s biodiversity.

IPLCs are the Earth’s most effective stewards of nature. The strategic role they play in in situ protection, conservation, and sustainable use of biodiversity has significant positive implications for our global food, health, and ecological security. These conclusions were confirmed by the 2019 IPBES assessment (following a landmark 2018 report that showed the beneficial results of their conservation approaches.)

IPLCs land management is also cost-effective. A recent cost-benefit analysis performed by the WRI in Colombia, Brazil and Bolivia found that the investment required for securing land tenure in indigenous forest land represents at most 1% of the benefits derived from it. These benefits include carbon sequestration, regulation of local climate dynamics and water cycling, hydrological services, pollination, nutrient retention, existence values, maintenance of genetic variety, in situ conservation and recreation and tourism values.

There are many important scientific, pragmatic and ethical reasons to elevate and expand the role of IPLCs within the international bodies working to stop biodiversity loss. The few arguments against doing so tend to be based on colonialist attitudes and biases towards IPLCs and in no way justify putting our planet in further peril.

In situ conservation is when the conservation of ecosystems and natural habitats results in the maintenance and recovery of viable populations, species and their genes in their natural surroundings. The sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity for food and agriculture calls for increased implementation of in situ approaches where genetic resources, species, and ecosystems are directly integrated into production systems.
For centuries, Indigenous People and Local Communities (IPLCs) have managed landscapes and seascapes to align with changes in local conditions. For the most part, management methods are compatible with, or actively support, biodiversity conservation by “accompanying” natural processes with anthropogenic assets.

For example, lands managed by IPLCs, farmers, pastoralists and herders are important areas for in situ conservation of remaining crop varieties and breeds, as well as their wild relatives. The importance of the protection and conservation of these genetic pools is highly relevant for, among other things, our food systems. According to available data , genetic diversity within wild species globally has been declining by about 1 percent per decade since the mid-19th century. Less genetic diversity means less resilience to a changing planet.

Without officially recognized stewardship over their lands, IPLCs often find themselves in the position of having to fight outsiders determined to exploit the natural resources of their lands, or to force land use changes leading to increased biodiversity loss - and often to violence. According to Global Witness, two hundred and twelve land and environmental defenders were killed in 2019 alone – an average of more than four people a week. Not even international recognition, such as winning the Goldman Prize has been sufficient for protecting leaders such as Berta Cáceres and Isidro Baldenegro from death.

At Avaaz we are constantly collaborating with IPLCs and strive to deepen and grow these relationships whenever possible. We support the rights of IPLCS to control their lands. And we honor their traditional knowledge, practices and expertise in biodiversity conservation, which is the culmination of many centuries of living in harmony with nature. We are grateful for the opportunity to learn from them.

Here is a list of some important IPLCs organizations:

• Coordinator of Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon Basin (COICA)

• Indigenous Peoples of Africa Co-ordinating Committee (IPACC)


• Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact (AIPP)


• Indigenous Peoples of the Arctic Council


• Indigenous Peoples' Alliance of Nusantara/Indonesia (AMAN)


• Mesoamerican Alliance of Peoples and Forests (AMPB)
• ICCA Consortium


• Forest Peoples Programme
• Indigenous Environmental Network


• NDN Collective



In its 2021 report Territories of Life: A global spatial analysis of the estimated extent of territories and areas conserved by Indigenous peoples and local communities the ICCA estimated that potential ICCAs (indigenous and community conserved areas) cover more than one-fifth (21%) of the world’s land (approximately the size of Africa), and over one fifth (22%) of the extent of the world’s terrestrial Key Biodiversity Areas.

Current economic models and financial markets see nature as an asset of immediate use. This view has led to the overuse of natural systems for profits and short-term gains. As put in The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review (2021) : “Nature is more than a mere economic good. Nature nurtures and nourishes us, so we will think of assets as durable entities that have use value and have intrinsic worth.”

Biodiversity and natural systems must therefore be considered as a capital stock that provides fundamental services for human survival and wellbeing, including economic prosperity. They need to be protected, conserved and invested in which means that we humans must allocate economic resources for conservation, restoration and sustainable use.

In its Global Risks Report (2021) the World Economic Forum places biodiversity loss in its list of existential threats to humankind. Estimates suggest that the extent to which the economy depends on nature is extremely high, as are the costs caused by biodiversity loss. For instance, it’s estimated that more than half of the world’s economic output –US$ 44 trillion of GDP– is either moderately or highly dependent on nature and its ecosystem services, and as a result, is vulnerable to nature loss.

This makes investment in nature a type of insurance policy for humankind. According to the 2021 State of Finance for Nature report by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the World Economic Forum, the Economics of Land Degradation (ELD), and Vivid Economics, investing just 0.1% of global GDP every year in restorative agriculture, forests, pollution control, and protected area management to close a $4.1tn (£2.9tn) financial gap by 2050 could avoid the breakdown of natural ecosystem services that provide human societies with clean water availability, sustainable food production, and protection for our cities and towns from floods and other environmental disasters.

The research for and content of our vision for the Economics of Biodiversity was created in collaboration with Planisphera Sustainability , a multidisciplinary network of professionals who seek to raise awareness and promote best practices for an inclusive and equitable ecological transition of the economy by addressing public policies and regulations, business models, markets, technological innovation and scientific research. Planisphera contributes to shape the new economy and support the different economic actors implementing a smooth and fast transition, keeping human wellbeing and ecosystems health at the core.

The most comprehensive global estimate suggests that ecosystem services provide benefits of USD 125 -145 trillion per year. That equates to more than twice the size of global GDP (and given the complexity of attributing an economic value to the ecosystem services, these numbers are the lowest estimated value).

It will take the concerted efforts of leaders around the globe to push forward with the measures necessary to stop biodiversity loss. According to Deutz et al. (2020), as of 2019, current spending on biodiversity conservation is between US$ 124 and US$ 143 billion per year against a total estimated biodiversity protection need of between US$ 722 and US$ 967 billion per year. This means that financial resources for biodiversity conservation will need to increase approximately US$ 824 billion per year over current levels.

We know that investments in biodiversity conservation quickly pay themselves off in terms of green jobs, global health, food security and more. We also know that the cost of inaction will be significantly higher both in monetary and quality of life terms. Unfortunately, politicians tend not to see beyond their current political cycle and, for the most part, have continuously opted for not pursuing the transformative change needed for biodiversity conservation.

There are several ways to generate some of the necessary funding including the redirection of harmful subsidies; public and private investment in ecosystems-based approaches; green financial products to facilitate the flow of investment capital into biodiversity-positive companies and projects, and the improvement of supply chains through the incorporation of better sustainable management practices as an opportunity to avoid harm and positively impact nature. (Biodiversity taxes are another necessary instrument, although not a very popular one.)

Financial institutions play a big role in biodiversity loss.  According to a 2021 OECD report , in 2019 the world’s largest financial institutions provided more than US$ 2.6 trillion worth of loans and underwriting services to sectors identified as “primary drivers of biodiversity loss” including food, forestry, mining, and fossil fuels. At the same time, financial flows - the lifeblood of the economy- are the most powerful tool for making structural changes towards a  more biodiversity respectful economy.   These are only some of the reasons why  financial flows need to align with global biodiversity goals. Businesses and financial institutions must measure, assess, report and disclose their dependencies and impacts on biodiversity across operations, value chains and portfolios - from local to global - and progressively reduce negative impacts. And governments must put in place regulations to require such actions.  In the next few years, no financial institution can be exempt from the responsibility of investing in biodiversity conservation and mitigating or managing nature-related financial risks.

In addition, given the global recognition of the need to include nature in economic models, it is a wonder that the international community has yet to include biodiversity wealth (regularly provided at no cost by many developing countries) into its calculations of sovereign debt. This is an opportunity to rebalance the global economy and create a more equitable basis for negotiating further debt structuring.

Intensive food production is the leading cause of biodiversity loss and regularly results in a host of negative economic and social changes including loss of livelihoods for vulnerable groups, loss of traditional knowledge and practices, destruction of community infrastructure, and even environmental migration. Still, year after year, governments continue to financially prop up industrial or extensive agriculture.

Although declining slightly in some sectors, the overall level of subsidies remains remarkably high. Leaving aside conceptual and data deficiencies of global estimates for most sectors, conservative estimates point to hundreds of billions of dollars in annual subsidies. According to the OECD , government spending on subsidies to industries that cause harm to biodiversity is at least five times higher than total spending to protect biodiversity. In 2019, subsidies for drivers of biodiversity loss totaled an estimated $273 to $542 billion.

Important modifications to production patterns and supply chains - as well as to consumption habits - are vital if efforts to stop biodiversity loss are to be successful and sustainable. Foremost in this process is the immediate redirection of subsidies for drivers of biodiversity loss. Yes, some governments are still giving financial support to intensive agriculture, livestock production, and fishing, when they could be using that money to finance a transition to biodiversity-friendly industries and initiatives.

There are a wide range of government subsidies besides those given to agriculture, forestry and fishing. For example, those received by the fossil fuel, water, construction, transport, and housing sectors, which also incentivize biodiversity loss. A 2022 study by The B Team and Business for Nature provides a comprehensive estimate of such subsidies and the figure is striking: the world spends at least US$1.8 trillion a year –equal to 2% of global GDP– on subsidies (public money) that are encouraging the depletion of biodiversity.

Phasing out subsidies will free up funds that can be redirected to support biodiversity and ecosystem services. Policymakers already have a range of analytical tools to help them identify subsidies for initiatives that could provide sustainable, equitable, biodiversity conservation measures. At the global level, this could include the removal of capacity-enhancing or effort-enhancing fisheries subsidies, and the continued and deepened reform of subsidies for industrial agriculture that are still prevalent in most OECD countries.

The last two decades have seen efforts to phase out or reform subsidies in various countries. For instance, Costa Rica has redirected cattle subsidies towards paying farmers and landowners to provide ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration and watershed protection. These experiences indicate that subsidy reform or removal can alleviate environmental pressures, increase economic efficiency, and reduce the fiscal burden. It has also become clear that transparency and accountability measures are key preconditions for a well-informed public debate on subsidy programmes, and for protecting against various forms of corruption.

Biodiversity consumption has not been equal across the world. Ecological debt is the debt accumulated by Northern industrial countries towards developing countries as a result of their resource plundering and use of environmental space to deposit waste..

Ecological debt compounds external debt and environmental degradation by exacerbating the asymmetric exchange of environmental goods and services. While it is not a new concept, ecological debt has not been addressed as a limiting factor for developing countries, although it is essentially an issue of economics.

Recent research has shown that less-developed countries that export large volumes of natural resources to more developed countries tend to have lower levels of consumption and carbon dioxide emissions per capita. They are also more likely to experience adverse environmental effects, such as deforestation and loss of biodiversity, than richer countries. Clearly it is not the poor we should be blaming for the biodiversity and climate crisis we are going through.

In addition, several publications have documented the lack of resources and the need to increase budgets for protected areas and biodiversity beneficial investments in developing countries. It is well known that the majority of megadiverse countries (15 out of 17) are developing and emerging economies, housing at least 70% of the planet's terrestrial biological diversity. Countries with a great deal of biodiversity wealth or natural capital are the most financially indebted including emerging or developing economies with huge national debts, like Brazil whose debt ratio to GDP is 89%, or India with nearly 70%.

Debt-for-Nature Swaps (DFNS) is a proposed instrument for biodiversity financing in developing and emerging economies. Debt levels in many developing countries have overtaken economic growth, while the ongoing pandemic is pushing millions of people back into extreme poverty, undoing years of progress. Initially DFNS were designed to relieve debts for low-income countries while safeguarding nature. The swaps were on much too small a scale to meet the needs of today's crisis, and most importantly the proceeds were generally earmarked solely for environmental issues, and not be spent on healthcare, poverty reduction, fiscal gaps, or to mobilize crisis recovery. Belize ’s recent DFNS of debt stocks equivalent to a substantial 10% of GDP is an example that could be followed as it achieves significant scale, it mobilizes privately held debt and incorporates a novel discount mechanism as a grant, all resulting in expanded funding for marine biodiversity conservation and relevant debt relief.

Other more recent financial instruments, like Nature Performance Bonds,  could help countries achieve ambitious climate and biodiversity targets on a broader scale and with greater flexibility than DFNS. While they share the same goal of reducing debt payments and channeling resources for development priorities, these newer instruments also provide greater flexibility through broader categories of proceeds  that  are linked to achievement of  measurable environmental goals. Futhermore, these debt instruments are also scalable, outcome-based; pay-for-performance; and are based on simple, transparent and clearly defined metrics.

2021 For the first time in its history, the G7 discusses Biodiversity
2019 Ecuador’s Waorani community’s victory lawsuit
2019 Establishment of Galápagos Nature Reserve
2018 Stop Belo Sun’s Goldmine in Brazil
2018 Saving the Bees
2016 Creating the World’s Largest Marine Sanctuary
2016 Blocking Monsanto's Glyphosate Weedkiller
2015 Protecting Peru’s rainforest
2015 The Paris Climate Agreement
2014 Protecting Malaysia's rainforests
2013 Maasai fight government, game hunters for ancestral lands

World Leaders: Protect Half our Planet
The Miracle Recovery Plan for our Planet
Sign the Letter for a Green Recovery

Do you have ideas for how to stop the drivers of biodiversity? If so, start your own Avaaz petition here .

Stay on top of developments by following our Twitter feed , and with these Calendars:

Calendar for the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD)
Calendar for the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)
Calendar for the The Road to COP26 (UNFCCC)
Calendar for the Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD)
Calendar for the The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) 

• G7 - Avaaz policy brief Nature’s 7 (June 4, 2021)
• G20 Rome: Pax Climatica for the Planet and People 20 points for a successful G20 communiqué (October 2021)
• Post-2021 Framework: A Transformational Approach A Proposal to revamp resource mobilization and financial mechanism response to implement a strong and inclusive global biodiversity framework Position paper SBI-3 (May 2021)
• Post-2020 Framework: A Transformational Approach A Citizen Proposal to build back better with a strong and inclusive global biodiversity framework for everyone Consider the environment before printing this document Position paper SBSTTA-24/SBI-3 (April/May2021)
• Post-2020 Framework: A Transformational approach Avaaz’s citizen action plan to build back better a strong and inclusive biodiversity framework (February, 2021)
• Avaaz’s response to the draft monitoring framework for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework (August 15, 2020)
• Avaaz review comments on the SBSTTA-24 document: Updated plan of action 2020-2030 for the International Initiative for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Soil Biodiversity (May 2020)

• Deuda argentina y el Club de París: La gira europea de Alberto Fernández: ¿una oportunidad para cambiar paradigmas?
• Don’t Feed the Greed Kristalina - citizen call for debt reform (or revolt) at IMF/WBG spring meetings (April 8, 2021)

• A “Global Safety Net” to Reverse Biodiversity Loss and Stabilize Earth’s Climate (September, 2020)
  Global strategies to stop the dual crises of biodiversity loss and climate change are often formulated separately, even though they are interdependent and risk failure if pursued in isolation. The Global Safety Net maps out how expanded nature conservation addresses both overarching threats, as well as the relevance of indigenous peoples territories for biodiversity conservation. It also confirms the spatial coincidence of areas important for biodiversity conservation.
• A review of evidence for area-based conservation targets for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework (Parks, Vol 25.2, November 2019)
  A review of the scientific evidence for large-scale percentage area conservation targets which, among other conclusions, states that well over 50% (and up to 80%) of protected areas need to be well governed, and effectively and equitably managed to conserve biodiversity. It also states that the global protection of a minimum of 30% (and up to 70% or even higher) of the land and sea on Earth is well supported in the literature, and that the call for 50% of the Earth is a mid-point of these values and is supported by a range of studies.
• Area-based conservation beyond 2020: A global survey of conservation scientists  (Parks, Vol 25.2, November 2019)
  A survey of the views of 335 conservation scientists, from 81 countries, on area-based conservation relating to potential future targets (successors to Aichi Targets). The results include that area-based or in-situ conservation is considered to be important to conserve biodiversity (99% of surveyed scientists); and that conservation scientists showed very strong support for large-scale percentage area conservation targets in the order of 50% of the Earth.
• Territories of Life: A global spatial analysis of the estimated extent of territories and areas conserved by Indigenous peoples and local communities  
  A global spatial analysis of the estimated extent of territories and areas conserved by Indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLC). This technical report provides scientific evidence to strengthen key aspects of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework and its implementation; it illustrates the relevance of a human rights-based approach that underscores how essential it is to appropriately recognise and support IPLCs’ rights and existing conservation efforts in achieving any area-based target in the post-2020 global biodiversity framework, whether it is 30% or otherwise.

• Vatican Covid Commission (general) , April 8, 2021
• Reversing biodiversity loss – the case for urgent action (G7) , March 2020
• Financing Nature: Closing the Global Biodiversity Financing Gap, September 2020 , The Nature Conservancy
• System of Environmental Economic Accounting , March 2021
• The First Climate Smart Sovereign Credit Ratings , March 2021
• The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review , February 2021
• Making Peace With Nature , February 2021
• The Peoples' Climate Vote , January 2021
• Global Biodiversity Outlook 5 , September 2020
• Leaders’ Pledge for Nature , September 2020
• The Living Planet Report 2020 , September 2020
• Collective property rights reduce deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon , August 2020
• Updated Zero Draft of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework , August 2020
• IPBES Workshop on Biodiversity and Pandemics Report , July 2020
• Global Assessment of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services , May 2020
• The economic consequences of conserving or restoring sites for nature , March 2020
• The Global Deal for Nature , April 2019
• A Spatial Overview of the Global Importance of Indigenous Lands for Conservation , July 2018
• Natural Climate Solutions , October 2017
• The Paris Agreement , December 2015
• Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020, Including Aichi Biodiversity Targets 2010
• The Role of Indigenous Peoples in Biodiversity Conservation , May 2008

The Global Safety Net is the first comprehensive global-scale analysis of terrestrial areas essential for biodiversity conservation and climate resilience. More than two years in development, the accompanying report - A “Global Safety Net” to reverse biodiversity loss and stabilize Earth’s climate - highlights the importance of protecting, conserving, and restoring the natural world to address three converging major global crises: the loss of biodiversity, climate change, and the emergence of zoonotic illnesses such as COVID-19.
Designed using metadata from Google Earth and other resources, the analysis concludes that the international community must protect and conserve 50.4% of the Earth's land surface (areas with key ecosystems and biodiversity critical for human survival). Approximately 850 critical areas around the globe have been identified. They are defined by area and not by country as ecosystems do not follow political borders.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) is the world’s first global environmental union, the largest conservation body and runs the world’s most comprehensive data source on the global extinction risk of species, the Red List of Threatened Species . In 1999 IUCN was granted official observer status by the UN General Assembly and has been a pioneer in actions to conserve nature that also address global challenges such as food and water security, climate change and poverty reduction.

During its 2020 World Conservation Congress (held in Marseille in 2021 due to the Covid-19 pandemic), members of the IUCN approved Motion 101 , which among other things: "Calls on all components of IUCN to recognise the evolving science, the majority of which supports that protecting, conserving and restoring at least half or more of the planet is likely necessary to reverse biodiversity loss , address climate change and as a foundation for sustainably managing the entire planet, and calls on the Director General to widely communicate this science in all relevant international fora;".