\documentclass[10pt]{article}

\usepackage{fullpage}
\usepackage{setspace}
\usepackage{parskip}
\usepackage{titlesec}
\usepackage[section]{placeins}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage{breakcites}
\usepackage{lineno}
\usepackage{hyphenat}





\PassOptionsToPackage{hyphens}{url}
\usepackage[colorlinks = true,
            linkcolor = blue,
            urlcolor  = blue,
            citecolor = blue,
            anchorcolor = blue]{hyperref}
\usepackage{etoolbox}
\makeatletter
\patchcmd\@combinedblfloats{\box\@outputbox}{\unvbox\@outputbox}{}{%
  \errmessage{\noexpand\@combinedblfloats could not be patched}%
}%
\makeatother


\usepackage{natbib}




\renewenvironment{abstract}
  {{\bfseries\noindent{\abstractname}\par\nobreak}\footnotesize}
  {\bigskip}

\titlespacing{\section}{0pt}{*3}{*1}
\titlespacing{\subsection}{0pt}{*2}{*0.5}
\titlespacing{\subsubsection}{0pt}{*1.5}{0pt}


\usepackage{authblk}


\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage[space]{grffile}
\usepackage{latexsym}
\usepackage{textcomp}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage{tabulary}
\usepackage{booktabs,array,multirow}
\usepackage{amsfonts,amsmath,amssymb}
\providecommand\citet{\cite}
\providecommand\citep{\cite}
\providecommand\citealt{\cite}
% You can conditionalize code for latexml or normal latex using this.
\newif\iflatexml\latexmlfalse
\providecommand{\tightlist}{\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}\setlength{\parskip}{0pt}}%

\AtBeginDocument{\DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.pdf,.PDF,.eps,.EPS,.png,.PNG,.tif,.TIF,.jpg,.JPG,.jpeg,.JPEG}}

\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[ngerman,english]{babel}



\usepackage{float}








\begin{document}

\title{Understanding and achieving species~ elements in the Kunming-Montreal
Global Biodiversity Framework~~~~~~~~~~~~}



\author[1]{Philip JK McGowan}%
\author[1]{Alison Hutchinson}%
\author[1]{Thomas M. Brooks}%
\author[1]{Wendy Elliott}%
\author[1]{Michael Hoffmann}%
\author[1]{Louise Mair}%
\author[1]{Amy McDougall}%
\author[1]{Domitilla C Raimondo}%
\author[1]{Stuart H.M. Butchart}%
\affil[1]{Affiliation not available}%


\vspace{-1em}



  
  \date{May 27, 2024}


\begingroup
\let\center\flushleft
\let\endcenter\endflushleft
\maketitle
\endgroup





\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{abstract}
The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF) was adopted
on 15 December 2022 by the Parties to the Convention on Biological
Diversity. The Framework states outcomes for species to be achieved by
2050 in Goal A and establishes a range of Targets to reduce pressures on
biodiversity and halt biodiversity loss by 2030. Target 4 calls for
urgent recovery actions for species where the implementation of other
Targets is insufficient to eliminate the risk of extinction. To achieve
the Framework's Goals and Targets, key elements must be understood and
the implications for implementation of agreed words and phrases made
clear. We analyse the key species elements of Goal A and Target 4 and
examine what they mean and what is needed for implementation. We
conclude by considering next steps to identify priorities, support
access and uptake of resources, and ensure co-operation and capacity
development.%
\end{abstract}%



\sloppy


\section*{Background to the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity
Framework
~}

{\label{874460}}

\textbf{} More than 40,000 species are assessed as threatened with
extinction on the IUCN Red List (IUCN 2023). Extrapolations from these
data suggest that more than one million species may be at risk of
extinction, while extinction risk is increasing in those taxonomic
groups that have been assessed (Purvis et al. 2019: Section 2.2.5.2.4:
see also Hochkirch et al. 2023).~ A total of 909 species are known or
suspected to have gone extinct since 1500 (IUCN 2023a), and 84 species
are known or suspected to exist only in captivity (IUCN 2023a). While
there are numerous other manifestations of the biodiversity crisis, such
as declines in genetic diversity (Exposito-Alonso et al. 2022), risk of
ecosystem collapse (Nicholson et al. 2021), and reduction of ecosystem
services (Chaplin-Kramer et al. 2019), losses among the other species
with which we share our planet are the most fundamental, popularly
recognised, and best-known human impacts on living nature. ~

\section*{The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity
Framework}

{\label{256826}}

In response to this crisis, the Parties to the Convention on Biological
Diversity adopted the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework
(KMGBF) in December 2022 (CBD 2022a). ~The Framework has a Vision of a
world of living in harmony with nature where ``by 2050, biodiversity is
valued, conserved, restored and wisely used, maintaining ecosystem
services, sustaining a healthy planet and delivering benefits essential
for all people.'' There are four Goals that describe the outcomes to be
achieved by 2050 so that this vision can be realised. There are then 23
Targets that detail actions to be achieved by 2030 in order to achieve
the 2030 Mission, which is ``To take urgent action to halt and reverse
biodiversity loss to put nature on a path to recovery for the benefit of
people and planet by conserving and sustainably using biodiversity and
by ensuring the fair and equitable sharing of benefits from the use of
genetic resources, while providing the necessary means of
implementation.'' (CBD2022a). The accompanying Monitoring Framework
lists a suite of `headline' indicators for monitoring progress (CBD
2022b), supported by a long list of `component' and `complementary'
indicators for optional use. ~

The first three Goals (i.e. A-C) align directly to the three objectives
of the Convention: a) conservation of biological diversity; b)
sustainable use of the components of biological diversity; and c) fair
and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of
genetic resources, with the fourth Goal concerned with ensuring that
there are adequate means of implementation for the Framework. There are
eight Targets outlining action necessary to reduce threats to
biodiversity (i.e. supporting Goal A); five Targets concerned with
meeting people's needs through sustainable use and benefit-sharing (i.e.
Goals B and C) and 10 Targets for actions needed to implement the KMGBF
(i.e. Goal D).

Here we analyse key species-specific elements of the Framework, namely
the outcomes described in Goal A, and actions in Target 4, which is
concerned with urgent recovery measures for species that need them. We
assess each element in detail drawing on both the negotiations leading
up to the adoption of the KMGBF and relevant literature to promote
understanding that supports operationalisation of this Goal and Target.~
Whilst we do not focus on other Targets (such as Targets 1, 2 and 3 on
habitat conservation, or Targets 5 on overexploitation and 6 on invasive
alien species) we recognise the crucial importance of those Targets in
achieving the species elements of Goal A, given habitat loss,
overexploitation, and invasive alien species are the primary drivers of
species decline.

\section*{Goal A: outcomes for
species}

{\label{467521}}

The first Goal of the KMGBF seeks to conserve biodiversity at the level
of ecosystem, species and genetic diversity (see CBD {[}1992{]} Article
2 for CBD's definition of biological diversity). It mandates that:

\begin{quote}
The integrity, connectivity and resilience of all ecosystems are
maintained, enhanced, or restored, substantially increasing the area of
natural ecosystems by 2050; \emph{Human induced extinction of known
threatened species is halted, and, by 2050, the extinction rate and risk
of all species are reduced tenfold and the abundance of native wild
species is increased to healthy and resilient levels;} The genetic
diversity within populations of wild and domesticated species, is
maintained, safeguarding their adaptive potential.
\end{quote}

Here, we consider the second set of three clauses (in italics above)
relating to species, which deal with three complementary aspects of
species' conservation status: extinctions, extinction risk, and
abundance. The 37 words in these clauses contain some complex concepts
and a considerable degree of nuance that have important implications for
implementation. We address each in turn:

\emph{``Human induced''.} These words establish that this clause refers
directly to extinctions driven by human activities. Species evolve and
go extinct naturally. The intent of Goal A is to focus attention on
extinctions that are driven by human activities, rather than `natural'
extinctions such as those caused by, for example, volcanic eruptions
(e.g. San Benedicto Rock Wren \emph{Salpinctes obsoletus exsul} in 1952:
Brattstrom, 1990), which would be extremely difficult to avoid. Some
natural phenomena, such as hurricanes, floods and fires are occurring at
far higher intensity and frequency because of climate change (e.g.
Habibullah et al. 2022, Tripathy et al. 2023: see also Preston-Allen et
al. 2024), and these in turn are driving extinctions (Murali et al.
2023). As recent climate change is human-driven (IPCC, 2023), it is
appropriate that such extinctions should be considered human-driven,
~although in practice it may be difficult to confirm that climate change
has led to particular extinctions. Hence, actions need to tackle the
full range of threats that are driving species towards extinction, both
directly and indirectly, and including climate change.

``\emph{Known threatened specie}s''. The Goal focuses on extinction of
species that have been documented as threatened. There are an estimated
8.1 million species on Earth (Mora et al. 2011), of which 1.5 million
have been described (e.g. Costello et al. 2013). More than 150,000
species have been assessed for their risk of extinction using the
categories and criteria of the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (IUCN
2023a), which is widely considered to be the most comprehensive and
objective system for classifying species in terms of extinction risk
(Rodrigues et al. 2006; Stuart et al. 2010; Roberts et al. 2023). Of
these, over 42,100 are assessed as threatened with extinction. Numerous
additional species have been assessed for their extinction risk at the
national scale for national red lists, often using the guidelines for
regional and national application of the IUCN Red List categories and
criteria (IUCN 2012). The number of species being assessed at various
scales is continually increasing (e.g. Hochkirch et al.~ 2023). There
are, therefore, certain to be many more species that are threatened, but
are not yet formally documented as such, including large numbers of
species that have not even been described to science. However, these
undocumented species that may be threatened are excluded from the focus
in this clause, as a practical approach to guide the baseline for
measurement. It is therefore critical to identify the factors impacting
known threatened species, and to address these to prevent their
extinction and help recover their populations.

``\emph{Halted}'' makes clear the intention to put in place the action
necessary to stop extinctions from a starting point of December 2022,
when the Framework was adopted. Hence in the first clause Parties have
committed to preventing human activities from driving any further
extinctions of those species that have been identified as threatened.
This is ambitious, but arguably feasible, as evidenced by conservation
impact in preventing extinctions over the last three decades (Bolam et
al. 2021). Halting further extinctions will require urgent, targeted,
interventions, as called for in Target 4 (see below).

\emph{``By 2050, the extinction \textbf{rate}\ldots{}of all species
{[}is{]} reduced tenfold''.} This element of the second clause focuses
on \emph{all} species, complementing the focus in the first clause on
those that are known to be threatened. Hence it implicitly recognises
that while we should aim to halt further extinctions of all species, it
is practically challenging to halt extinctions of species that have not
yet been described to science (``Centinelan extinctions''; Wilson 1992),
or to document having done so. A tenfold reduction in the rate of all
extinctions means that the rate must fall to 10\% of the `current' rate
of extinctions by 2050. The CoP15 Decision on the Monitoring Framework
indicates that the reference period for determining the current rate,
unless otherwise mentioned, is 2011-2020 (see paragraph 2 of CBD 2022b).
The challenges of detecting extinctions (see Akcakaya et al. 2017;
Roberts et al. 2023) mean that there are often time-lags before a
species can be declared extinct, so extinction rates are most accurately
estimated retrospectively. Moreover, absolute extinction rates are also
difficult to estimate given considerable uncertainty over the total
number of species on the planet. It is therefore useful to compare
relative extinction rates, expressed as extinctions per million species
per year (E/MSY; Pimm et al. 1995). Mean fossil species' lifetimes
produce a background extinction rate of 0.1--1 E/MSY, while human
activities have driven species extinct at a rate perhaps 1,000 times
higher (Pimm et al. 2014). Difficulties in assessing extinction rate
mean that it is not possible to make more precise estimates (Purvis et
al. 2019).

For current extinction rates to be assessed meaningfully, Rounsevell et
al. (2020: see also Diaz et al. 2020, Supplementary Information, pp 11
and 18) suggested an approach that is based on known extinctions,
proposing to model extinction rates based on extinctions that have been
documented in the IUCN Red List. This has been considered problematic
for several reasons, including failing to capture the diversity of
biodiversity and variation in knowledge across realms and spatial
scales, and the practical limitations in detecting extinctions (Raven et
al. 2020). An alternative for assessing the extinction rate of all
species, including those not yet described by science, is to apply
modelling approaches using proxies, for example relating to the severity
of threats such as habitat loss (Pimm et al. 1995, Visconti et al.
2016). Further work is therefore needed to explore the best approaches
for capturing progress towards this element of the goal, and for
understanding associated uncertainties.

\emph{``By 2050, the extinction \textbf{risk}\ldots{}of all species
{[}is{]} reduced tenfold}''. \textbf{} This element of the second clause
calls for extinction risk to be reduced tenfold, i.e. to 10\% of its
current level. This reduction should apply to \emph{all} species, but as
discussed above the extinction risk of most species is not known, and
many species remain undescribed. Reduction in extinction risk can
therefore only be measured directly by quantifying trends in extinction
risk for those species for which it has been assessed (i.e., through the
IUCN Red List of Threatened Species). Simplistically, it could be
assumed that this could be assessed by taking the proportion of species
assessed for the IUCN Red List (or equivalent national lists) that are
classified as threatened (i.e. in the categories of Critically
Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable) in 2050, and comparing it with the
proportion in 2022 (Smith et al. 1993). However, this would fail to
account for two important factors. Firstly, it is highly likely that the
pool of species assessed for their risk of extinction will change
between 2022 and 2050: for example, the number assessed for the global
IUCN Red List has increased from 150,388 in December 2022 to 157,190 in
December 2023 (IUCN 2023a). Species added to the pool may differ in
their overall risk of extinction compared with those assessed prior to
2022. Secondly, even for the same pool of species, most
reclassifications on the Red List result from improved knowledge or
revised taxonomy (e.g. improved information on the population size,
trends and distribution of species) rather than genuine improvement or
deterioration in status (Butchart et al. 2004, 2005). Hence an overall
change in the proportion of threatened species may reflect changes in
knowledge more than the effectiveness of conservation efforts in
addressing the drivers of extinction (Cuar\selectlanguage{ngerman}ón 1993).

It is therefore essential to consider only genuine changes in IUCN Red
List category when assessing trends in species extinction risk. The Red
List Index is designed to do exactly this, and can therefore be used to
assess progress towards achieving this clause in Goal A. To avoid bias,
the index is calculated only for groups that have been comprehensively
assessed (i.e. those in which all species have been assessed) or those
representing a random sample. The 2022 value of the global aggregated
index (which is a measure of survival probability ranging from 0, where
all species are extinct, to 1, where all species are Least Concern) was
0.724. Its inverse value (i.e. a measure of extinction risk) was
therefore 0.276. A ten-fold reduction is this value would be 0.028
(equating to a Red List index value of 0.972). Reducing extinction risk
could be achieved through efforts to improve the status of the most
threatened species (e.g. leading to all Critically Endangered species
being `downlisted' to Endangered), or the least threatened (e.g. leading
to all Near Threatened species being downlisted to Least Concern), or by
reducing the extinction risk of a combination of species (e.g. leading
to all species moving to the next lowest category of extinction risk)
(Figure 1).\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.70\columnwidth]{figures/McGowan-et-al--Figure-1/McGowan-et-al--Figure-1}
\caption{{Calculation of a tenfold reduction in extinction risk, as required in
Goal A of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.
{\label{225642}}%
}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}



\emph{``By 2050, the abundance of native wild species is increased to
\ldots{}.}''. In this third clause, abundance is a measure of population
status and is usually expressed as the number of individuals per unit
area (e.g. square kilometre). `Native wild' species are specified to
make clear that the focus is on species that occur naturally in the wild
in the area under consideration, and so excludes alien species and
domesticated species. Alien taxa are defined by the Convention as " A
species, subspecies or lower taxon, introduced outside its natural past
or present distribution; includes any part, gametes, seeds, eggs, or
propagules of such species that might survive and subsequently
reproduce'' (\url{https://www.cbd.int/invasive/terms.shtml}). The
inclusion of this element implies that broad-scale policies (for
example, addressing habitat loss, restoration, and sustainability of
production systems like agriculture, forestry and fisheries) are
required to recover population abundance of all species, including those
that remain common (but depleted) and widespread.

``\emph{\ldots{} healthy and resilient levels}'' are not defined in the
Framework, but this wording implies that species face no threat of
extinction and their abundance is not substantially depleted in
comparison with historical levels and is not diminished to a level that
reduces their contribution to ecosystem structure and function. For
practical purposes, one approach may be to measure the average
population abundance of a suite of species compared with a baseline some
decades ago. For example, the Living Planet Index has a baseline of 1970
(WWF 2022) and the Wild Bird Index for Europe uses a baseline of 1980
(Gregory and Strien 2010), although it should be noted that considerable
biodiversity loss occurred before these dates. It could also be argued
that `healthy and resilient levels' imply that species' populations are
healthy throughout their native range and that no populations have been
extirpated, which suggests that reintroduction or natural recolonisation
would be required to meet this goal. This would be equivalent to a
species being at least Viable (the equivalent of either Least Concern or
otherwise Near Threatened and not declining), and ideally Functional, in
each part of its native range, as defined in the IUCN Green Status of
Species, which provides a framework for measuring species recovery
(Ak\selectlanguage{ngerman}çakaya et al. 2018).

\textbf{Target 4: urgent action for species}

{}The inclusion of this target in the KMGBF demonstrates the value of
timely policy-relevant research designed to address specific knowledge
gaps. The Zero Draft of the KMGBF (CBD 2020a) was released on 6th
January 2020 and contained six Targets to reduce pressures on
biodiversity, but contained no target to undertake the management
actions that are necessary for some species to recover.~ In response,
Parties and Observers called for this gap to be filled, drawing on
evidence provided by a preprint of Bolam et al. (2022
\url{https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.09.374314v1}
preprint; not peer-reviewed), who showed that more than a third of
species would require targeted recovery measures for their conservation
status to improve. Subsequent drafts of the Global Biodiversity
Framework included a target for undertaking urgent action. The final
text adopted stated:

\begin{quote}
``Ensure urgent management actions to halt human induced extinction of
known threatened species and for the recovery and conservation of
species, in particular threatened species, to significantly reduce
extinction risk, as well as to maintain and restore the genetic
diversity within and between populations of native, wild and
domesticated species to maintain their adaptive potential, including
through in situ and ex situ conservation and sustainable management
practices, and effectively manage human-wildlife interactions to
minimize human-wildlife conflict for coexistence.''
\end{quote}

There are presently 3,960 species that have threats requiring urgent
management actions under Target 4 and that will not be addressed (or not
addressed sufficiently) by actions under other Targets, according to the
approach outlined in Bolam et al. (2023) (see Supplementary Material 1).
The most significant threat that requires focussed recovery action is
invasive non-native/alien species and disease, with 2361 species
requiring urgent management actions to tackle such alien species and
disease under Target 4 (Figure 2, see Supplementary Material). The
mitigation of these threats does not guarantee recovery, and other
actions, such as management of breeding sites, will be needed to promote
an increase in species populations. Focussed recovery actions under
Target 4 are also required for species that need particular species
recovery actions and for species that have very small population sizes
or very small ranges.

{}\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.70\columnwidth]{figures/McGowan-et-al--Figure-2-Threats-Figure/McGowan-et-al--Figure-2-Threats-Figure}
\caption{{Number of threatened species requiring urgent recovery action to address
particular threats under Target 4, as identified by the IUCN Red List
(IUCN~2023a), sorted by IUCN Red List category.
{\label{713221}}%
}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

``\emph{Urgent management actions}'' are species-specific management
actions that are required above and beyond efforts to mitigate threats
such as loss of natural habitats, unsustainable harvest, invasive alien
species, pollution, and climate change, which are the focus of other
targets in the Framework. Bolam et al. (2023) found that 57\% of
threatened species from comprehensively assessed groups on the IUCN Red
List of Threatened Species (IUCN 2020) required action in addition to
that described in targets 1-3 and 5-7. These include actions such as
supplementary feeding, vaccinations, ex situ management, reintroduction
and a range of recovery actions such as protection of breeding sites and
provision of additional breeding habitats such as nest boxes for birds
and protection of mature individuals (Bolam et al. 2023 WebTable 1).
Achieving Target 4 will require the identification of such actions and
their urgent implementation at appropriate spatial scale.

Target 4 repeats text from Goal A on the outcomes to be achieved:
halting human-induced extinction of known threatened species and
reducing extinction risk because of the removal of 2030 milestones. The
early drafts (See Supplementary Material 2 for Target text in Zero and
First Drafts and reports of Open-Ended Working Group meetings) did not
contain these elements and were focused on actions needed to achieve the
species outcomes described in Goal A. Once a decision had been taken by
Parties to remove Milestones from the structure of the KMGBF, it was
considered that the outcome elements captured in the milestones should
be reflected elsewhere in the text. The report of the fourth Open-Ended
Working Group (June 2022) listed these elements as for further
consideration in Target 4 (see Supplementary Material 2). Most of these
elements featured in the final text and their repetition, especially `of
threatened species', helps to highlight the focus of this target.

Bolam et al. (2023) clarified that the reduction of extinction risk and
halting extinctions for species that need recovery measures cannot be
achieved solely through the actions identified in Target 4 and require a
range of other interventions such as protected and conserved areas,
ecosystem restoration and threat mitigation as outlined in the other
targets, especially 1-3 and 5-8. These and other targets are also
critical to enable recovery of depleted populations of other threatened
and non-threatened species in order to achieve all species outcomes
described in Goal A. For this reason, it is important that Target 4 is
not seen simply as the ``species target'', but rather as a ``target for
species that require focussed actions''. Put another way: in the absence
of these urgent actions, such species would continue to decline and fail
to recover, despite implementation of other measures.

``\emph{Recovery and conservation of species}''. This wording implies
not only reducing species' extinction risk (e.g. to Least Concern on the
IUCN Red List), but also restoring their populations to levels at which
they contribute to ecosystem function, and then to maintain them at
those levels, consistent with the abundance clause in Goal A. There has
been increasing attention paid to defining species' recovery (e.g.
Redford et al. 2011, Ak\selectlanguage{ngerman}çakaya et al. 2018) and to demonstrating the
recovery potential for species both in the short- and long-term under
scenarios where conservation efforts are sustained and supported (Grace
et al. 2021). There have also been efforts to operationalise this for
pursuing policy and management goals, such as defining `Favourable
Conservation Status' for species' populations in England (e.g. Mousley
2023) and across the European Union (e.g. EC 2020) that involves the
setting of `Favourable Reverence Values' for populations (e.g. Bijlsma
et al. 2019). Achieving full recovery of threatened species will require
a broader range of actions beyond the urgent management actions called
for in Target 4, as outlined in the other targets in the Framework.
Whatever the metric, recovery needs to be measured relative to an
appropriate, quantifiable baseline.

``\emph{to significantly reduce extinction risk}''. The target is
concerned with implementing actions that contribute to a significant
(i.e. large, and measurable) reduction in extinction risk of species and
thus ensuring the recovery and conservation of all species, consistent
with the extinction risk clause of Goal A. Using the IUCN Red List to
document conservation status (e.g. Critically Endangered, Endangered or
Vulnerable) allows such large and sustained reductions in extinction
risk to be measured.

``\emph{in situ and ex situ conservation}''. The target states that
urgent management action includes both in situ and ex situ conservation,
i.e. in the wild and, where appropriate, in captive breeding or
propagation facilities from which individuals can be reintroduced back
into native ranges. Ex situ management can be defined as ``conditions
under which individuals are spatially restricted with respect to their
natural spatial patterns or those of their progeny, are removed from
many of their natural ecological processes, and are managed on some
level by humans.'' (IUCN/SSC 2014). It is important that the full range
of management possibilities is considered, as indicated by the breadth
of both in situ and ex situ management actions that has contributed to
the avoidance of extinction of 28-48 bird and mammal species since 1993
(Bolam et al. 2021), and the importance of ex situ conservation in
providing options for species recovery through the eventual return of
Extinct in the Wild species back to their native range (Smith et al.
2023).~

``\emph{sustainable management practices}''. Reducing extinction risk
for species that are the focus for this target requires sustained
intervention that will deliver a long-term improvement in conservation
status. This phrase, therefore, refers to management practices that are
sustainable, rather than `sustainable management' of wild species, which
is the subject of Target 5, while the importance of sustainable use of
biodiversity to people is the focus of Target 9. During interventions by
Parties during the fourth and fifth meetings of the Open-ended Working
Group established to facilitate negotiations of the KMGBF, there were
different interpretations of `sustainable'. Some Parties assumed it to
relate to sustainable use that would benefit species conservation, but
the final wording makes clear that it is the sustainability of
interventions that is the focus of this clause. This is important
because many studies have shown that conservation recoveries take time
to achieve (e.g. 16 years on average in the cases examined by Young et
al. 2014), and even once recovery is achieved many species will remain
conservation dependent (Scott et al. 2010; Grace et al. 2021).

\emph{``effectively manage human-wildlife interactions to minimize
human-wildlife conflict for coexistence''}. Human wildlife conflict is a
significant threat to species, as well as to human lives and
livelihoods, food security and sustainable development (WWF/UNEP, 2021;
IUCN, 2023b). The issue of human-wildlife conflict was included in this
target when it first appeared in the Updated Zero Draft (see
Supplementary Material 2). There was discussion about whether this
element should remain in this target, which initially had a clear focus
on recovery actions, or be moved to Target 5 (sustainable use) or Target
9 (benefits to people) reflecting the ecological and social aspects of
human-wildlife interactions (CBD, 2021). In the adopted text, it
remained in this target and was modified to reflect broader perspectives
of human-wildlife interactions and co-existence (see Supplementary
Material 2). Minimising human-wildlife conflict will typically require a
very different set of actions than the `urgent management actions'
required by the first part of Target 4, and broader socio-biological
approaches.

\section*{Indicators for measuring
progress}

{\label{848277}}

A Monitoring Framework was also adopted at COP15 and it was agreed that
this would be reviewed at COP16 (CBD 2022b) in late 2024. An Ad Hoc
Technical Expert Group (AHTEG) on Indicators was established to work on
further development and operationalisation (see Annex II of CBD 2022b).
The Monitoring Framework includes Headline (a minimum set to measure
global~{progress), Component (optional, and covering elements of Goals
and Targets) and Complementary (optional for thematic or in-depth
analysis of each Goal and Target) Indicators. Many of the indicators
envisaged at the point of adoption require further development, guided
by the AHTEG. This group is also developing a set of standard questions
to be answered by countries in their CBD National Reports to provide
counts of the number of countries carrying out particular activities
(referred to as `binary indicators'), but none of these currently relate
to Target 4. It is clear, therefore, that further development of the
monitoring framework is needed to provide an adequate system for
measuring progress towards the KMGBF's Goals and Targets.}

The monitoring framework states that the Red List Index (Butchart et al.
2004, 2007) will be used as a Headline Indicator to monitor progress
towards both Goal A and Target 4. While the Red List Index is highly
relevant for assessing progress towards the ten-fold reduction in
extinction risk described in Goal A and the significant reduction in
extinction risk specified in Target 4, it measures these outcomes, not
the implementation of urgent management actions per se, as called for in
Target 4. This is significant given that the intent of the Targets is to
define the actions to be implemented by 2030, while the Goals state the
outcomes to be achieved by 2050. There is, therefore, a clear gap as
there is no indicator for measuring the implementation of action
identified in Target 4 that is necessary to achieve the required
reduction in extinction risk. Bolam et al. (2023) provides a method for
identifying the species that need urgent recovery action, which could
form the focus for an appropriate indicator for this key element of
Target 4, while the development of the Green Status of Species may allow
for development of an indicator of recovery of these species to be
tracked in due course (Grace et al. 2021) ) and for determining whether
species have indeed returned to healthy and resilient levels, as stated
in Goal A. Monitoring progress towards increasing the \emph{abundance of
native wild species} will require indicators like the Living Planet
Index (available globally for vertebrates, with plans to expand to other
taxa; WWF 2022) or, given the methodological challenges associated with
unstructured population indicators (Leung et al. 2020), with metrics
based on more systematic monitoring of subsets of species and regions
(e.g. the Wild Bird Index; BirdLife International 2022). As highlighted
by Geldmann et al. (2023), the absence of such an indicator at headline
level appears as a key omission for tracking progress to Goal A.

\section*{\texorpdfstring{What is needed
now?{}}{What is needed now?}}

{\label{166421}}

\subsection*{\texorpdfstring{\emph{Identifying priorities for each
Party}}{Identifying priorities for each Party}}

{\label{735036}}

Achieving the outcomes for species stated in Goal A will require
progress towards the delivery of all the targets in the Framework, not
just Target 4. Targets 1, 5, 6, 7, and 8 are concerned with reducing
pressures, all of which impact species. Target 2 is about restoring
degraded ecosystems, which will increasingly benefit the species that
these ecosystems once supported, and Target 3 is concerned with the
protection and conservation of areas of particular importance for
biodiversity (e.g. Key Biodiversity Areas, IUCN 2016), including for
species. Target 4 recognises that for some species these responses will
be insufficient to prevent their extinction and enable their recovery,
and targeted species-specific actions are needed. ~Targets 9-13 on
``\emph{Meeting people's needs through sustainable use and
benefit-sharing''} will also be important, as will those Targets on
\emph{``Tools and solutions for implementation and mainstreaming'',}
particularly those Targets focussed on sectors with a significant impact
on species.

For many, if not the majority of, threatened species, assessment of
their threats and identification of actions has already been undertaken
and is widely available. For these species, accelerated implementation
of those plans is now essential, recognising that Target 4 is the only
Target in the KMGBF requiring `urgent' action.

However, for many species, such assessments have not yet been
undertaken.~ Therefore, it will be necessary to understand which actions
will make the biggest difference to species extinction rate, extinction
risk and abundance in each context (e.g. for each Party). This will
allow action to be focused on policies and management that are most
likely to be effective in addressing Targets and thus reducing
pressures. In some countries these may relate to addressing land-use
change, while in others it could be tackling invasive species. For most
Parties, actions covering a range of the Targets will be necessary for
success. This suggests that first it is necessary to understand which
threats are driving extinction risk in each country, to allow the most
appropriate interventions to be identified, maximising impact and
minimising wasted effort. The Species Threat Abatement and Restoration
metric (Mair et al. 2021, 2023, Chaudhury et al. 2022, Irwin et al.
2022) offers such an approach and identifies the main threats driving
extinction risk in any spatial unit, showing where those threats are
having their impact on threatened species. Second, it is critical that
urgent recovery actions are directed towards those species most in need.
Bolam et al. (2023) describes a method for identifying those species. A
priority action for all Parties now is to use this method to first
identify those species in need of urgent actions, then identify which
threats most urgently require abatement, and use this information to
plan, cost, resource and implement these actions in order to halt
extinctions, reduce extinction risk and improve population status.

\subsection*{\texorpdfstring{\emph{Access to information that will
support attainment of species elements in Goal
A}}{Access to information that will support attainment of species elements in Goal A}}

{\label{512332}}

Implementing Targets 1-8 in order to achieve the species outcomes in
Goal A, as well the ecosystem and genetic diversity outcomes, will
require substantial effort. Section C of the KMGBF gives a suite of
considerations to be taken into account when implementing the Framework.
These include taking a `whole of society' approach, ensuring the full,
equitable, inclusive, effective and gender-responsive representation and
participation in decision-making of indigenous peoples and local
communities, galvanising collective effort, and acknowledging the
importance of scientific evidence and traditional knowledge and
practices when implementing the Framework. The last clause of the
Framework states the importance of `Raising awareness on the critical
role of science, technology and innovation to strengthen scientific and
technical capacities to monitor biodiversity, address knowledge gaps and
develop innovative solutions to improve the conservation and sustainable
use of biodiversity.' All of this recognises the need to draw upon all
available science, evidence, approaches, worldviews, knowledge and tools
to make the most progress towards the Goals and Targets.

There is a wide range of resources on species available to support
decision making and monitoring. ~These include the IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species (IUCN 2023a), which is not only an assessment of the
extinction risk facing species, but is also a source of information on
each species' threats and the conservation actions required for their
recovery. A number of countries have developed their own national Red
Lists (see, for example, Raimondo et al. 2022; and~
\href{http://www.nationalredlist.org}{www.nationalredlist.org}) and in
some it informs decision-making (e.g. Kyrkjeeide et al. 2021). The Red
List is one of several globally authoritative data sources available
through the Integrated Biodiversity Assessment Tool (IBAT:
https://www.ibat-alliance.org/), which also includes Protected planet
(the World Database on Protected Areas) and the World Database on Key
Biodiversity Areas), and allows STAR (see above) scores to be derived at
a range of spatial scales.~

Many of the resources that can inform actions to pursue implementation
of the species elements in the KMGBF have been brought together in a
Global Species Action Plan (IUCN 2023c), which lists resources available
to support the implementation of each of the KMGBF Targets to achieve
species outcomes, and should therefore be helpful in the development of
National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans. ~The Global Species
Action Plan is linked to an online toolkit of resources, training
support, and technical guidance.

\subsection*{\texorpdfstring{\emph{Capacity building, co-operation and
knowledge
exchange}}{Capacity building, co-operation and knowledge exchange}}

{\label{249423}}

Maggs et al. (2022) describe some of the capacity that will need to be
developed and shared in order to implement the KMGBF. Whilst the
capacity-building plan that was adopted at CoP 15 (CBD 2022c) provides
the high-level approach, Maggs et al. (2022) suggest that there is a
need to develop capacity in two overarching areas. First, the need for
tools and data to identify and prioritize both the threats that need to
be tackled and the species that need particular attention under Target
4; and, secondly, to develop and maintain an increase in the capacity of
people who can act. The resources above may well provide many of the
tools, approaches and methods needed, but there is a clear need to
significantly upscale support to Parties, especially those from
developing countries with high levels of species endemism, to build the
capability of people, resources and organisations that can act for
species in the KMGBF, especially before 2030.~

The KMGBF contains ambitious outcomes for species in Goal A and Targets
to achieve these. Our analysis of the species elements in the Framework
provides an interpretation of what these politically negotiated elements
mean for implementation given their social and ecological contexts. It
is critical that all stakeholders, Parties, business and civil society
identify where they can act and then implement necessary actions.
Efficient provision of, and access to, information and the development
and sharing of capacity that will inform and enable implementation are
urgently needed to achieve these outcomes. Furthermore, it is essential
that adequate financial resources are available to Parties and other
actors to meet agreed targets and goals. This will require substantial
scaling up of current investments.

\section*{Conclusions}

{\label{117462}}

Our review helps to clarify the ambition of the species elements of the
Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and allows for consistent
interpretation of key terms and phrases within Goal A and Target 4. This
common understanding is critical if implementation is to be adequate and
comparable across Parties and other actors, and to ensure that
implementation is focussed on those actions that are most important to
achieve the agreed outcomes for species that are stated in Goal A.~
While these outcomes are ambitious, research has shown that with
sufficient resources deployed appropriately, extinctions can be avoided
and species' populations can be recovered. Our review may support
Parties updating their National Biodiversity Strategies and Action
Plans, by clarifying the outcomes required and actions needed to achieve
these.

There is much scientific literature that can inform implementation, and
a range of relevant guidance, tools and metrics exist to support actors
in developing appropriate interventions. There are clear research needs
arising from our review , and these include: a) developing an
operational definition of what constitutes a healthy and resilient
population that can be applied across taxonomic groups, and producing an
appropriate indicator to measure this and that can be applied in
countries with wildly varying access to resources; and b) defining the
set of species, and the urgent management actions they require, that are
relevant to Target 4; and c) developing an indicator to measure progress
towards Target 4 by quantifying implementation of urgent recovery
actions for species. Filling these knowledge gaps may make a significant
difference to interpretation of what can be achieved and measured by
2030.

With only six years remaining until 2030, governments and other actors
must rapidly translate the bold commitments made in the KMGBF into
effective policies and management that are implemented comprehensively
and at adequate scale. Achieving the species outcomes in the Framework
will be challenging but is necessary to ensure the persistence of
biodiversity and achieving the CBD's vision of Living in Harmony by
2050.

\section*{References}

{\label{215971}}

Akçakaya~HR,~Keith~DA, Burgman~M, Butchart SHM, Hoffmann~M, Regan~HM,
Harrison~I, Boakes E. 2017. Inferring extinctions III: A cost-benefit
framework for listing extinct species. \emph{Biological
Conservation}~214: 336-342.

Akçakaya HR et al.~2018.~Quantifying species recovery and conservation
success to develop an IUCN Green List of Species.~\emph{Conservation
Biology}~32:~1128--1138.

Bijlsma RJ, Agrillo E, Attorre F, Boitani L, Brunner A, Evans P, Foppen
R, Gubbay S, Janssen JAM, van Kleunen A. 2019. \emph{Defining and
applying the concept of favourable reference values for species habitats
under the EU birds and habitats directives: examples of setting
favourable reference values}. Wageningen Environmental Research Report
2929, Wageningen.

BirdLife International. 2022. State of the World's Birds. BirdLife
International, Cambridge, UK.

Bolam FC et al.~2021.~How many bird and mammal extinctions has recent
conservation action prevented?~\emph{Conservation Letters}~14: e12762.

Bolam FC et al. 2023.~Over half of threatened species require targeted
recovery actions to avert human-induced extinction.~\emph{Frontiers in
Ecology and the Environment}~21:~64--70.

Brattstrom BH 1990. Biogeography of the Islas Revillagigedo, Mexico.
\emph{Journal of} \emph{Biogeography} 17: 177-183.

Butchart SHM. Akçakaya HR, Chanson J, Baillie JEM, Collen B, Quader S,
Turner WR, Amin R, Stuart SN, Hilton-Taylor C. 2007. Improvements to the
Red List Index.~\emph{PLoS One}~2: e140.

Butchart SHM, Stattersfield AJ, Bennun LA, Shutes SM, Akçakaya HR,
Baillie JEM, Stuart SN, Hilton-Taylor C, Mace GM. 2004. Measuring global
trends in the status of biodiversity: Red List Indices for
birds.~\emph{PLoS Biology}~2: e383.

CBD. 2020a. \emph{Zero Draft of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity
Framework}. CBD/WG2020/2/3. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological
Diversity, Montréal, Canada.

CBD. 2020b. \emph{Update of the Zero Draft of the Post-2020 Global
Biodiversity Framework}. CBD/POST2020/PREP/2/1. Secretariat of the
Convention on Biological Diversity, Montréal, Canada.

CBD. 2021. \emph{Reflections by the Co-Chairs Following the first
session of the Third Meeting of the Working Group on the Post-2020
Global Biodiversity Framework}. CBD/WG2020/3/6. Secretariat of the
Convention on Biological Diversity, Montréal, Canada

CBD. 2022a. \emph{Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework}.
CBD/COP/DEC/15/4. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity,
Montréal, Canada.

CBD. 2022b. \emph{Monitoring framework for the Kunming-Montreal Global
Biodiversity Framework}. CBD/COP/DEC/15/5. Secretariat of the Convention
on Biological Diversity, Montréal, Canada.

CBD. 2022c. \emph{Capacity-building and development and technical and
scientific cooperation}. CBD/COP/DEC/15/8. Secretariat of the Convention
on Biological Diversity, Montréal, Canada.

Chaplin-Kramer, R et al. 2019. Global modeling of nature's contributions
to people.~\emph{Science}~366: 255--258.

Chaudhary A, Mair L, Strassburg BBN, Brooks TM, Menon V, McGowan, PJK.
2022. Sub-national assessment of threats to Indian biodiversity and
habitat restoration opportunities.~\emph{Environmental Research Letters}
17, 054022.

Costello MJ,~May RM,~Stork NE.~2013.~Can we name Earth's species before
they go extinct? \emph{Science}~339: 413--16.

Cuarón A. 1993. Extinction rate estimates.~\emph{Nature}~366: 118.

Díaz S et\selectlanguage{english} al.~2020.~Set ambitious goals for biodiversity and
sustainability.~\emph{Science}~370:~411--413.

EC 2020. \emph{Report from the Commission to the European Parliament,
the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee: The state of
nature in the European Union Report on the status and trends in 2013 -
2018 of species and habitat types protected by the Birds and Habitats
Directives}. COM(2020) 635 final. European Commission, Brussels.

Exposito-Alonso M. 2022. Genetic diversity loss in the
Anthropocene.~\emph{Science}~377: 1431-1435.

Geldmann J, Byaruhanga AB, Gregory RD, Visconti P, Xu H. 2023.
Prioritize wild species abundance indicators. \emph{Science}
380:591--592.

Grace, MK~et al.~2021. Testing a global standard for quantifying species
recovery and assessing conservation impact. \emph{Conservation Biology}
35: 1833-1849.

Gregory, RD and van Strien A. 2010. Wild bird indicators: using
composite population trends of birds as measures of environmental
health. \emph{Ornithological Science} 9: 3--22.

Gross E, Jayasinghe N, Brooks A, Polet G, Wadhwa R, Hilderink-Koopmans
F. 2021. \emph{A future for all: the need for human wildlife
coexistence}.~ WWF, Gland, Switzerland.

Habibullah MS, Din BH, Tan SH, Zahid H. 2022. Impact of climate change
on biodiversity loss: global evidence. \emph{Environmental Science and
Pollution Research} 29:1073-1086.

Hoban, S.~et al. 2023.~Genetic diversity goals and targets have
improved, but remain insufficient for clear implementation of the
post-2020 global biodiversity framework.~\emph{Conservation
Genetics}~24:~181--191.

Hochkirch A et al. 2023. A multi-taxon analysis of European Red Lists
reveals major threats to biodiversity. \emph{PLoS ONE} 18: e0293083.

IPBES. 2019. \emph{Summary for policymakers of the global assessment
report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental
Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services}. IPBES
Secretariat, Bonn, Germany.

IPCC. 2023. Summary for Policymakers. Pages 1-34 in Core Writing Team,
H. Lee and J. Romero, eds. \emph{Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report.
Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change}.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland.

Irwin A, Geschke A, Brooks TM, Siimaki J, Mair L, Strassburg BBN. 2022.
Quantifying and categorising national extinction-risk
footprints.~\emph{Scientific Reports} 12: 5861.

IUCN. 2012. \emph{Guidelines for Application of IUCN Red List Criteria
at Regional and National Levels: Version 4.0}. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

IUCN/SSC. 2014. \emph{Guidelines on the Use of Ex Situ Management for
Species Conservation}. Version 2.0. IUCN Species Survival Commission,
Gland, Switzerland.

IUCN. 2016. \emph{A Global Standard for the Identification of Key
Biodiversity Areas, Version 1.0}. First edition. IUCN, Gland,
Switzerland.

IUCN. 2023a. \emph{The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species}. Version
2023-1. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

IUCN. 2023b. \emph{IUCN SSC guidelines on human-wildlife conflict and
coexistence. First edition}. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

IUCN. 2023c. \emph{Global Species Action Plan: Supporting implementation
of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework}. IUCN, Gland,
Switzerland.

Kyrkjeeide MO,~Pedersen B,~Evju M,~Magnussen K,~Mair L,~Bolam
FC,~McGowan PJK,~Vestergaard KM,~Braa J, Rusch G.~2021.~Bending the
curve: Operationalizing national Red Lists to customize conservation
actions to reduce extinction risk.~\emph{Biological Conservation}~261:
109227.

Leung B, Hargreaves AL, Greenberg DA, McGIll B, Dornelas M, Freeman
R.~2020. Clustered versus catastrophic global vertebrate
declines.~\emph{Nature}~588: 267--271.

Mair L et al.~2021. A metric for spatially explicit contributions to
science-based species targets.~\emph{Nature Ecology and Evolution}~5:
836--844.

Mair L.,~et al.~2023.~Quantifying and mapping species threat abatement
opportunities to support national target setting.~\emph{Conservation
Biology}~37: e14046.

Mora C,~Tittensor DP,~Adl S,~Simpson AGB, Worm B. 2011.~How many species
are there on earth and in the ocean?~\emph{PLoS Biology},~9:~1--8.

Murali G, Iwamura T, Meiri S, Roll, U.~2023. Future temperature extremes
threaten land vertebrates.~\emph{Nature}~615: 461--467.

Mousley S, Van Vliet W, Cork C. 2023. \emph{Defining favourable
conservation status in England: Natural England approach}. Natural
England Evidence Information Note EIN062. Natural England, York.

Nicholson E, et al. 2021. Scientific foundations for an ecosystem goal,
milestones and indicators for the post-2020 global biodiversity
framework.~\emph{Nature Ecology and Evolution}~5: 1338--1349.

Pimm SL, Russell GJ, Gittleman JL, Brooks TM. 1995. The future of
biodiversity. \emph{Science} 269: 347-350.

Pimm SL,~Jenkins CN,~Abell R,~Brooks TM,~Gittleman JL,~Joppa LN,~Raven
PH,~Roberts CM,~Sexton JO. 2014.~The biodiversity of species and their
rates of extinction, distribution, and protection.~\emph{Science}~344:
1246752.

Preston-Allen RGG, Hakkinen H, Canellas-Dols L, Ameca y Juarez EI, Orme
CDL, Pettorelli N. 2024. Geography, taxonomy, extinction risk and
exposure of fully migratory birds to droughts and cyclones \emph{Global
Ecology and Biogeography} 33: 63-73.

Purvis A et al. 2019. Chapter 2.2. Status and Trends -- Nature. Pages
209-308 in Brondizio ES., Settele J, Diaz S, Ngo HT, eds. \emph{Global
assessment report of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services}. IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany.

Raimondo,~D et al. 2022 Using red list indices to monitor extinction
risk at national scales. \emph{Conservation Science and Practice} 5:
e12854.

Raven PH, Ceballos G, Ehrlich PR, Lovejoy TE (2020) RE: Quantitative
targets for biodiversity preservation. e-letter in response to
Rounsevell et al. 2020 Available at
\url{https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aba6592}.

Redford~ KH et al. 2011.~ What does it mean to conserve a (vertebrate)
species? \emph{BioScience}~61: 39 -- 48.

Roberts DL, Hinsley A, Fiennes S, Verissimo D. 2023. Understanding the
drivers of expert opinion when classifying species as extinct.
\emph{Conservation Biology} 37: e13968.

Rounsevell MD, Harfoot M,~Harrison PA,~Newbold T,~Gregory RD, Mace, GM.
2020. A biodiversity target based on species extinctions. \emph{Science}
368, 1193--1195.~

Scott~JM, Goble~DD. Haines~AM, Wiens~JA, Neel MC.~2010.
Conservation-reliant species and the future of conservation.
\emph{Conservation Letters} 3: 91-97.

Smith FDM, May RM, Pellew R, Johnson TH, Walter K. (1993) Estimating
extinction rates

\emph{Nature} 364: 494-496.

Smith D. 2023.~Extinct in the wild: The precarious state of Earth's most
threatened group of species.~\emph{Science}~379: eadd2889.

Stuart SN, Wilson, EO McNeely, JA Mittermeier RA, Rodriguez JP (2010)
Barometer of life. \emph{Science}~328: 177.

Tripathy~KP, Mukherjee~S, Mishra~AK,~Mann~ME, Williams AP. 2023. Climate
change will accelerate the high-end risk of compound drought and
heatwave events. \emph{Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
of the USA}~120: e2219825120

UN. 1992. \emph{Convention on Biological Diversity.} Available at
https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/1992/06/19920605\%2008-44\%20PM/Ch\_XXVII\_08p.pdf.
Accessed on 3 November 2023.

Visconti P et al.~2016.~Projecting global biodiversity indicators under
future development scenarios.~\emph{Conservation Letters},~9: 5--13.

Wilson EO.~1999.~\emph{The Diversity of Life}. Belknap Press of Harvard
University Press,~Cambridge.

WWF. 2022. \emph{Living Planet Report 2022 -- Building a nature-
positive society}. WWF, Gland, Switzerland.

\par\null

\textbf{Hosted file}

\verb`Supplementary Material 1.docx`  available at \url{https://authorea.com/users/760271/articles/735684-understanding-and-achieving-species-elements-in-the-kunming-montreal-global-biodiversity-framework}



\textbf{Hosted file}

\verb`Supplementary Material 2.docx`  available at \url{https://authorea.com/users/760271/articles/735684-understanding-and-achieving-species-elements-in-the-kunming-montreal-global-biodiversity-framework}

\selectlanguage{english}
\FloatBarrier
\end{document}

