Journal Article

Nature requires investment: Applying priority threat management to support biodiversity and climate targets

Giles, Emily, Matchett, Sarah, Schueler, Frederick W., Rumney, Robyn H. M., Liang, Chris, Timms, Laura, Snider, James, Alambo, Katherine I., Perron, Mary Ann C., Paquette, Catherine, Lamoureux, Jennifer, Hemming, Victoria, Martin, Tara G., Norris, D. Ryan, Frank, Beatrice, Camaclang, Abbey E., Iyer, Aranya, Miller, Tyler

2025

Overview

Stemming biodiversity loss requires greater investment in conservation and more efficient use of available resources. Prioritizing conservation actions that yield the most biodiversity benefit for the least cost can help maximize return on investment. Actions that have co‐benefits for other objectives, such as climate change mitigation, can also help mobilize additional funds for conservation. We used Priority Threat Management to identify actions to secure the greatest number of species groups of conservation concern for the least cost in the Lake Simcoe‐Rideau ecoregion, Ontario—one of Canada's biodiversity crisis ecoregions. We also estimated the carbon sequestration benefits of actions related to land protection and restoration. We found that without additional investment in conservation, 13 of 16 species groups were expected to have <50% probability of persistence in this ecoregion by 2050. Implementing all proposed strategies would yield the greatest biodiversity benefits and secure 12 of the 16 species groups with ≥60% probability of persistence, at a cost of CA $113 million per year over 27 years. In comparison, investing CA$ 97 million per year in landowner stewardship, habitat protection and restoration and regeneration strategies could secure 10 species groups and improve the probability of persistence of one additional group from 39% to 55%. The habitat protection and restoration strategies also deliver direct carbon benefits of around 11.2 Mt in total avoided CO2 emissions and 137.6 Mt CO2 in total potential sequestration, respectively, over the long‐term, thus supporting alignment with climate change mitigation targets and delivering co‐benefits that may further justify investment. Practical implication. By estimating the costs and demonstrating the expected benefits and potential carbon co‐benefits of conservation actions, Priority Threat Management can help maximize return on investment and identify actions that address multiple environmental crises. We worked with a diverse group of local experts to identify cost‐effective and complementary management strategies that could help secure the persistence of species of conservation concern for the least cost in the Lake Simcoe‐Rideau ecoregion of Southern Ontario. We found that without additional investment in conservation, 130 out of 133 species of conservation concern in the region could be lost by 2050. Investing up to $113 million more per year on strategies informed by local experts can help reverse this outcome, securing up to 100 species while also delivering significant co‐benefits for climate change mitigation objectives.

• Publisher: John Wiley & Sons, Inc,Wiley
• Subject: Biodiversity / biodiversity conservation / Biodiversity loss / carbon co‐benefits / Carbon dioxide / Carbon dioxide emissions / Carbon sequestration / Climate change / Climate change mitigation / complementarity / Conservation / conservation prioritization / Costs / cost‐effectiveness / Environmental protection / Environmental restoration / nature‐based climate solutions / Restoration strategies / Return on investment / species at risk / Wildlife conservation / Workshops