Biogeosciences, 22, 2425–2460, 2025 https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-2425-2025 © Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. R eview s and synthesesReviews and syntheses: Current perspectives on biosphere research 2024–2025 – eight findings from ecology, sociology, and economics Friedrich J. Bohn1,2, Ana Bastos3, Romina Martin4, Anja Rammig5, Niak Sian Koh6, Giles B. Sioen7,8, Bram Buscher9, Louise Carver10, Fabrice DeClerck11, Moritz Drupp12,13, Robert Fletcher9, Matthew Forrest14, Alexandros Gasparatos15, Alex Godoy-Faúndez16, Gregor Hagedorn17, Martin C. Hänsel18, Jessica Hetzer14, Thomas Hickler14,19, Cornelia B. Krug20, Stasja Koot9,21, Xiuzhen Li22, Amy Luers23, Shelby Matevich9, H. Damon Matthews24, Ina C. Meier34, Mirco Migliavacca25, Awaz Mohamed34, Sungmin O26, David Obura27, Ben Orlove28, Rene Orth29, Laura Pereira30, Markus Reichstein31, Lerato Thakholi9, Peter H. Verburg32, and Yuki Yoshida33 1Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Leipzig, Germany 2BAM Nachhaltigkeit Beratung Medien, Berlin, Germany 3Institute for Earth System Science and Remote Sensing, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany 4Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden 5TUM School of Life Sciences Weihenstephan, Technische Universität München, Freising, Germany 6Department of Biology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK 7Future Earth Global Secretariat, Tokyo, Japan 8Sustainable Society Design Center, Graduate School of Frontier Sciences, The University of Tokyo, Kashiwanoha, Japan 9Sociology of Development and Change, Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands 10Lancaster Institute for the Contemporary Arts, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK 11Alliance of Bioversity and CIAT, Montpellier, France 12Department of Management, Technology, and Economics, ETH Zurich, Switzerland 13Department of Economics, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden 14Senckenberg Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre (SBiK-F), Frankfurt, Germany 15Institute for Future Initiatives, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan 16Sustainability Research Center, Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad del Desarrollo, Santiago, Chile 17Museum für Naturkunde – Leibniz-Institut für Evolutions- und Biodiversitätsforschung (MfN), Berlin, Germany 18Institute for Infrastructure and Resource Management, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany 19Institute of Physical Geography, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt am Main, Germany 20Faculty of Economics and Management Science, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany 21Department of Geography, Environmental Management and Energy Studies, University of Johannesburg, South Africa 22Synthesis and Solutions Labs, Senckenberg Society for Nature Research, Frankfurt am Main, Germany 23Microsoft, Redmond, Washington, USA 24Department of Geography, Planning and Environment, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada 25European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Ispra (VA), Italy 26Department of AI Software, Kangwon National University, Samcheok, South Korea 27CORDIO East Africa, Mombasa, Kenya 28School of International and Public Affairs, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA 29Modelling of Biogeochemical Systems, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany 30Global Change Institute, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa 31Department of Biogeochemical Integration, Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, Jena, Germany 32Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands 33Center for Climate Change Adaptation, National Institute for Environmental Studies, Ibaraki, Japan 34Functional Forest Ecology, Universität Hamburg, Barsbüttel, Germany Published by Copernicus Publications on behalf of the European Geosciences Union. 2426 F. J. Bohn et al.: Current perspectives on biosphere research 2024–2025 Correspondence: Friedrich J. Bohn (friedrich.bohn@ufz.de) Received: 13 August 2024 – Discussion started: 15 August 2024 Revised: 19 March 2025 – Accepted: 21 March 2025 – Published: 30 May 2025 Abstract. This review of recent advances in biosphere re- search aims to provide information on eight selected themes related to changes in biodiversity, ecosystem functioning, social and economic interactions with ecosystems, and the impacts of climate change on the biosphere. An interdisci- plinary panel of experts selected these eight themes from a public survey based on relevance and scientific evidence that have the potential to guide future actions as well as inspire future research questions. Our focus is on the in- teractions between climate, biosphere, and society and on strategies to sustain, restore, or promote ecosystems and their services. The themes focus on innovative opportunities for coastal habitats, forest linkages to droughts, and increas- ing fire risks. We further discuss nature-based carbon diox- ide removal (CDR) implementation risks and the share of (semi-)natural habitats in the landscape. Finally, we high- light the importance of comprehensive international policy packages and the social–economic value of ecosystems in the future and present the idea of convivial conservation. Based on an analysis of these eight topics, we have synthe- sized four overarching insights: (i) improve mechanisms of inclusive decision-making, (ii) establish and strengthen in- centives for sustainable practices, (iii) measure and share re- gional features, and finally (iv) adopt long-lasting holistic landscape management strategies. This review emphasizes that the interlinked challenges for ecosystems, including the socio-economic dimensions, require interdisciplinary and in- tegrative approaches to develop effective and sustainable so- lutions. 1 Introduction The dynamics and diversity of life on Earth as we know it and its role in the Earth system are increasingly under threat as human activities continue to change the planet in unprece- dented ways (IPBES, 2019b; Ripple et al., 2023; Rockström et al., 2023; Crutzen, 2006; Stubbins et al., 2021; Cowie et al., 2022; Friedlingstein et al., 2023). As we enter un- charted territories, it is critical that we use scientific evi- dence as a foundation for decision-making, taking into ac- count the interrelationships within the complex Earth sys- tem. Science has been clear for years on the need to signif- icantly cut greenhouse gas emissions, halt biodiversity loss, reduce chemical pollution, and manage ecosystems sustain- ably to ensure a liveable planet (Hill, 2020; Jaureguiberry et al., 2022; Meinshausen et al., 2022). The intertwined crises of climate change, pollution, and biodiversity loss have their nexus in the biosphere, as all these crises impact natural pro- cesses that support life quality, livelihoods, and economies, thus creating a comprehensive Earth system crisis that threat- ens human well-being (Pörtner et al., 2021b, 2023). There is growing recognition from governments and busi- nesses that our economies need to take full account of the im- pacts on nature and balance our demands of resources (Das- gupta and Treasury, 2022; TNFD, 2023). A whole-of-society perspective is needed, as scholars also highlight that fair and just transformations are crucial to reach the global sustain- ability goals for climate and biodiversity in the areas of food supply, energy, and material systems, thus ensuring human well-being in the long term (Griggs et al., 2013; Leach et al., 2018; Martin et al., 2020; Folke et al., 2021; Pickering et al., 2022; Obura et al., 2023; McDermott et al., 2023; Schle- sier et al., 2024). This first synthesis and future syntheses in the series Current perspectives on biosphere research are intended to support decision-making processes in the coming years by reporting and summarizing selected recent findings from biosphere research, thus supplementing existing reports and bridging the gap until the next comprehensive assess- ment reports are published. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Intergovernmental Science–Policy Platform on Bio- diversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) were established to summarize the state of the science on climate change, bio- diversity, and ecosystem services for policy-makers and thus provide a basis for science-based decision-making. Through regular, comprehensive assessments of the scientific litera- ture, these bodies provide grounded insights into the cur- rent state of knowledge. Their reports comprehensively in- form stakeholders and decision-makers about the scientific understanding of climate change and biodiversity loss, its impacts, risks and solutions, and the progress of climate ac- tion under international pledges and agreements (e.g. IPBES, 2019a; IPCC, 2021, 2022a, 2023). However, given the the- matic breadth and procedural requirements, IPCC and IPBES assessments take several years to complete. For example, more than 8 years elapsed between the publication of the IPCC Assessment Report (AR5) and AR6 Synthesis Report (Pachauri et al., 2014; Lee et al., 2023). The first global IPBES assessment report was published in 2019 (IPBES, 2019a), and the second global assessment report is scheduled to be completed in 2028. In addition, major reports provide scientific insights with a considerable time lag. For example, the AR6 Synthesis Report was published in 2023. Still, the cut-off date for the scientific literature reviewed by the three Biogeosciences, 22, 2425–2460, 2025 https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-2425-2025 F. J. Bohn et al.: Current perspectives on biosphere research 2024–2025 2427 working groups was more than 2 years earlier, excluding re- cent publications even in the year of the report’s publication. This arrangement is a limitation of the assessment’s process. Hence, negotiators and decision-makers would benefit from additional authoritative syntheses and summaries of recent scientific advances relevant to decision-making in the multi- year intervals between these major global reports. The IPCC and IPBES regularly publish reports on specific aspects of climate change, biodiversity, and nature (known as special reports). Such reports summarize scientific knowl- edge related to that aspect from several disciplines, but these reports are not updated after some years and hence have be- come outdated over time. In addition to these special reports, many scientists have published summaries on a wide range of topics under the heading “Scientists’ Warning” (e.g. Cav- icchioli et al., 2019; Pyšek et al., 2020; Ripple et al., 2020). Additionally, there are regular reports like the State of the Global Climate and the Global Carbon Budget (e.g. Le Quéré et al., 2013; IPCC, 2019; Friedlingstein et al., 2023; WMO, 2024) and more recently the State of Wildfires (Jones et al., 2024). Furthermore, FAO publications such as the State of the World’s Forests and the State of Agricultural Commod- ity Markets report on biodiversity loss and ecosystem ser- vices (e.g. FAO, 2022a, b; IPBES, 2023). In addition to these reports at an international level, there is also a plethora of regular national reports on various aspects of the crisis in the Earth system. These well-recognized reports provide updates on key diagnostic indicators and measures relevant to stake- holders engaged in related negotiations. Due to their specific focus on certain topics and indicators, these reports some- times lack the interdisciplinary perspective that can be ob- served in the above-mentioned special reports of IPCC and IPBES. The “10 New Insights in Climate Science” reports address many of the challenges mentioned above, focusing on new findings from recent climate-related research. They are published annually and contain contributions from vari- ous disciplines (e.g. Martin et al., 2022; Bustamante et al., 2023). This series should be complemented by similar re- ports from other research areas related to the Earth system crisis. Given the lack of such an integrative, annually published report focused on issues related to the biosphere, this publi- cation summarizes recent advances in this field of research by addressing biosphere-related challenges and bridging the time between the comprehensive assessment reports of IPCC and IPBES. Here, we define the biosphere as the global eco- logical system that includes all living organisms and their interactions. We have also integrated social and economic links to the biosphere in this summary. In doing so, it bridges the silos of the established sciences to provide an interdisci- plinary view of the biosphere. Furthermore, the intent is not to repeat well-known findings such as drastically reducing fossil fuel emissions from all sectors, the biggest lever in the fight against climate change. Instead, this international col- laboration aims to inform stakeholders and decision-makers about the latest policy-relevant, peer-reviewed, biosphere- related research findings. We hope that it may inspire sci- entists to develop interdisciplinary questions and holistic solutions to pressing problems linking biosphere research, which includes biodiversity issues, to climate change and other anthropogenic stressors on the one hand and social and economic research areas on the other (e.g. Mahecha et al., 2022, 2024). Here, we present eight themes with recent and significant findings from biosphere research, based predominantly from peer-reviewed literature published since January 2022. Our themes present background information as well as challenges and offer strategies for maintaining vivid ecosystems or en- hancing degraded ecosystems and the services they provide to human society. In addition, these themes are gaining trac- tion in the scientific community and stimulate future research questions. For each theme, the key findings are presented along with an emphasis on the links and implications for re- lated themes, which contributes to a comprehensive under- standing of processes in the biosphere and their interactions with human systems. We note that threats to coastal habitats (Sect. 3.1), changes in the hydrological cycle due to changes in forest cover (Sect. 3.2), and shifts in fire regimes (Sect. 3.3) pose sig- nificant societal challenges that require trans-boundary co- operation for efficient and fair resource allocation and dis- tribution. Climate change mitigation is expected to reduce many of these risks and associated costs. The effectiveness and risks of nature-based carbon dioxide removal are dis- cussed in Sect. 3.4. In this context, adequate conservation measures in human-modified landscapes are key to main- taining nature’s contribution to people (Sect. 3.5). At the in- ternational level, interconnected and comprehensive policy packages are needed to address the root causes of environ- mental degradation and revitalize a just human–nature rela- tionship (Sect. 3.6). In the future, the socio-economic value of ecosystems will increase with rising real market incomes and the changing scarcities of ecosystems (Sect. 3.7). For the local and regional levels, we present convivial conservation principles that act as a guiding strategy for coexisting with biodiversity within planetary boundaries (Sect. 3.8). With this study, we hope to raise awareness of the various challenges within the biosphere – emphasizing links across environmental and socio-economic domains – and their in- terlinkages with other crises within the Earth system, to pro- vide synergistic strategies for addressing complex challenges and to stimulate future research questions. 2 Method We followed a similar methodology as used for the “10 New Insights in Climate Change” reports (Martin et al., 2022). First, we set up an editorial board of experts from different fields of ecology, sociology, and economics. We also issued https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-2425-2025 Biogeosciences, 22, 2425–2460, 2025 2428 F. J. Bohn et al.: Current perspectives on biosphere research 2024–2025 an open call inviting the scientific community to submit the- matic proposals for this review based on peer-reviewed pub- lications no older than January 2022. The call for proposals (see Appendix A) was disseminated through social media, mailing lists, and individual invitations. Despite our efforts to achieve global outreach, we anticipate that we may not have reached some important groups or that they may have cho- sen not to respond. Hence, this first synthesis has to be seen as a preliminary effort with caveats that can be improved in the subsequent iterations. We expect that this approach is the first step towards future annual biosphere research synthesis reports that will evolve into more substantial, comprehensive assessments, with a larger pool of contributions from a more diverse and globally distributed group of researchers. We initially received a total of 20 topic proposals. The ed- itorial board, consisting of six professors (see author con- tributions) with experience in ecology, sociology, and eco- nomics, made the final selection based on the following criteria: (i) sufficient evidence from peer-reviewed publica- tions in the last two years, (ii) emerging general consensus, and (iii) relevance to international negotiations and decision- making processes. The editorial board decision process consisted of two steps. First, each member independently rated the proposed topics on a scale of 0 to 10, with 0 being “not recommended” and 10 being “highly recommended”. The issues were then discussed in a virtual meeting of the editorial board, starting with the highest-rated topic. During the discussion, the board members could adjust their previous ratings and finally rec- ommend 10 themes, after merging, extending, and rejecting topics. Following internal discussion of authors and the re- view process, the editorial board’s original recommendation of 10 themes was reduced to 8 by merging and rearranging four of them. Each theme was written by a team of two to five experts. These theme authors were selected by the editorial board based on their scientific expertise, as evidenced by their re- cent scientific publications. Diversity in terms of gender, ge- ography, and scientific discipline was also considered (Fig. 1, Table 1). We emphasize that there are differences between some perspectives and want to be open about the fact; there- fore, not all authors necessarily support all of them, and we emphasize that this collection does not claim to be compre- hensive nor absolute. Figure 1. Origin of the authors from the geopolitical regional groups of member states of the United Nations: African group (AG), Asia and the Pacific group (APG), Latin American and Caribbean group (GRULAC), and western European and others group (WEOG) 3 Themes 3.1 Innovative and inclusive solutions offer opportunities to support coastal habitats under threat 3.1.1 Background Coastal habitats refer mainly to mangroves, salt marshes, seagrass beds, and coral reefs, which are important ecosys- tems that provide resilience services such as fisheries that contribute to human well-being (Costanza et al., 2014; Tré- garot et al., 2024). Coastal habitats are important for ma- rine biodiversity (Trégarot et al., 2024) as they function as breeding grounds for fish (Nodo et al., 2023) and shelter for water birds. They sequester carbon at a much greater rate per area than most terrestrial ecosystems (e.g. mangroves se- quester 174 gC m−2 yr−1 on average, while local measure- ments range from 10 to 920 gC m−2 yr−1; Alongi, 2012). Fi- nally, they prevent coastal erosion, which protects human set- tlements. 3.1.2 Challenges The importance of a healthy coastal habitat is well estab- lished (NOAA, 2024), but coastal ecosystems are under threat at concerning rates due to unsustainable development and climate change (IPCC, 2022b). For example, 35 % of mangroves have been lost due to local drivers, but 50 % of mangrove ecosystems are at risk of collapse due to cli- mate change and local factors (Hagger et al., 2022). The widespread retreat of coastal habitat is likely to occur at warming levels greater than 1.5 °C (Saintilan et al., 2023); Biogeosciences, 22, 2425–2460, 2025 https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-2425-2025 F. J. Bohn et al.: Current perspectives on biosphere research 2024–2025 2429 Table 1. Web of Science research areas represented by the authors. Several research areas could be selected by one author. Research area ∑ Research area ∑ research area ∑ environmental sciences 23 biodiversity conservation 13 ecology 12 social science, interdisciplinary 9 geography 6 meteorology, atmospheric sciences 5 geosciences, multidisciplinary 4 remote sensing 4 agriculture, multidisciplinary 3 forestry 3 agricultural economics & policy 2 anthropology 2 computer science, interdisciplinary applications 2 economics 2 environmental studies 2 plant sciences 2 biology 1 cultural studies 1 engineering, multidisciplinary 1 ethics 1 marine & freshwater biology 1 mathematics, interdisciplinary applications 1 physics, applied 1 planning & development 1 political science 1 social issues 1 urban studies 1 500 million people are projected to experience challenges (e.g. loss of food source) within decades due to the likely loss and degradation of coral reefs that they currently depend on for food and tourism or as coastal barriers (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2017). Global warming of 1.5 to 2.0 °C would dou- ble the area of tidal marsh exposed to 4 mm yr−1 of rising sea level by the end of this century. With 3 °C of warm- ing, nearly all of the world’s mangrove forests and coral reef islands and almost 40 % of mapped tidal marshes are estimated to be affected by this rise in sea level (Saintilan et al., 2023). Yet each coastal habitat responds differently to climate change (Trégarot et al., 2024), making it important to consider local responses. The pressure on coastal habi- tats from climate change accumulates on top of other anthro- pogenic stressors such as overtourism, invasive species (Roy et al., 2024), land reclamation (Yamano et al., 2007), pollu- tion (Wakwella et al., 2023), aquaculture, and development of hard infrastructure, making it a challenge to involve all relevant stakeholders. 3.1.3 Offering solutions Research on nature-based solutions demonstrating co- benefits of biodiversity provides numerous co-benefits lo- cally (e.g. ensuring livelihoods while increasing resilience to coastal hazards such as storms) compared to engineered solutions with hard infrastructure that can be expensive and often can have negative consequences on habitats (Hahn et al., 2023). This means that investing in the space to pre- serve and recover coastal habitats can help restore biodiver- sity and mitigate help to adapt to climate change while also providing leisurely functions or a source of livelihood. Do- ing so improves resilience to a variety of identified hazards (e.g. coastal erosion, storms) and restores a healthy envi- ronment (Hahn et al., 2023). Moreover, many stakeholders already prefer nature-based solutions over grey infrastruc- ture (Apine and Stojanovic, 2024). This was also the case in the Philippines for the Bakhawan Mangrove Eco-Park in the province of Aklan, which is widely considered a success- ful multispecies mangrove reforestation project, led by the local government and the Kalibo Save the Mangroves As- sociation (Marquez et al., 2024). Studies suggest that man- grove reforestation also provides great benefits for mitigation globally. Mangroves provide 60 % more blue carbon benefits than afforestation on marginal tidal flats for the same area (study conducted on 370 restoration sites in various parts of the world) (Song et al., 2023). Utilizing the right mangrove species for the right location may further prevent retreat of the coastal zones, reduce impacts from storms on human set- tlements, and positively contribute to fishing, among other expected co-benefits (Sunkur et al., 2023). Similarly, recent studies point to the potential of coral reef restoration, com- bined with coral adaptation and climate change mitigation, to prevent mass coral deterioration and allow reefs to keep up with sea level rise of low to moderate carbon emission scenarios (Toth et al., 2023; Webb et al., 2023). Various projects have insufficiently considered locally rel- evant species when planning with nature-based solutions. For example, China introduced an invasive species called Spartina alterniflora (salt marsh cordgrass) to reduce soil erosion and provide a number of other ecosystem services in 1979. Although successful in fulfilling its purpose, it oc- cupies the niche of some local plant species (such as Phrag- mites communis and Scirpus mariqueter) and degrades the habitat of some species of water birds (Nie et al., 2023). Man- aging invasive species such as Spartina alterniflora can be costly and complex. Wise use of biomass can contribute to the local economy, prevent coastal erosion, and still benefit wildlife that depends on it. Hence, local species should be prioritized when vegetation re-establishment efforts are be- ing planned to ensure greater co-benefits (e.g. when using mangrove or salt marshes). Mitigation of coastal habitat loss/degradation can be real- ized through management and restoration. In doing so, en- suring sustainable development, it is also important to take on a watershed approach to protect coastal habitats (e.g. pre- venting nutrient enrichment, coastal development, hydrologi- cal disturbances, anchoring, or sedimentation; Trégarot et al., 2024). Trade-offs and synergies between biodiversity conser- vation/restoration and other services such as carbon seques- tration, coastal protection, water purification, aquaculture, and ecotourism should be considered holistically. For exam- https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-2425-2025 Biogeosciences, 22, 2425–2460, 2025 2430 F. J. Bohn et al.: Current perspectives on biosphere research 2024–2025 ple, dedicated locations where coastal habitats serve produc- tive purposes and contribute to biodiversity conservation may hold a solution for socio-ecological balance. Community involvement in coastal habitat restoration can increase willingness to participate in stewardship activities, thus improving biodiversity and climate change outcomes (Dean et al., 2024). As demonstrated by the nascent concept of “blue justice” that protests the marginalization of small- scale fishers (Isaacs, 2019), coastal stakeholders (including communities, Indigenous peoples, and small-scale fishers) have tended to be excluded from marine decision-making (Blythe et al., 2023), yet meaningful community engage- ment in projects can result in equitable and resilient project outcomes (Fox et al., 2023). Integrating stewardship prac- tices of Indigenous peoples and local communities into en- vironmental governance can provide meaningful lessons for societies across borders by ensuring livelihoods and biodi- versity are restored or conserved (e.g. in California, USA; Sanchez et al., 2023, see also Sect. 3.5 and 3.8). New prac- tices of restoring coastal habitats with co-benefits for peo- ple and nature have also been documented (e.g. Zwin Natuur Park, which consists of dunes, marshes, and mudflats along the Belgian and the Netherlands border open to tourists and the Mai Po Wetland in Hong Kong managed for the benefit of migrating birds, aquaculture, and tourism; Cheung, 2011). Institutional mechanisms must be aligned to allow for in- novative or unconventional practices. Institutional barriers to nature-based solutions are currently higher than for grey infrastructure (Jones and Pippin, 2022). Structural recogni- tion of co-benefits of nature-based solutions (Apine and Sto- janovic, 2024) could include project funding schemes that recognize the multiple benefits of restoring coastal habi- tats (e.g. beyond mitigating flood risks), incorporation of feedback from engaged stakeholders into the project design, and robust monitoring beyond the implementation phase (Palinkas et al., 2022). Researchers have also begun explor- ing the role of art in raising awareness around coastal sustain- ability (Matias et al., 2023). Institutional mechanisms also play an important role in jurisdiction. Coastal habitats are inseparable from upstream land-based activities. Integrated watershed management that transcends jurisdictional bound- aries including through financing for long-term action can foster healthy coastal ecosystems (Wakwella et al., 2023, see also Sect. 3.6). 3.2 Forest protection avoids worsening future droughts and keeps regional, seasonal rain patterns stable 3.2.1 Background Climate change is altering rainfall patterns and intensity in the tropics (IPCC, 2012; Robinson et al., 2021; Masson- Delmotte et al., 2022; IPCC, 2023) with significant impli- cations for ecological and human water security. Changes in the seasonal variability in rainfall patterns across the tropics have also been observed (Feng et al., 2013; Fu et al., 2013; Fu, 2015). Tropical forests mitigate climate change not only by absorbing nearly half of fossil fuel emissions (Pan et al., 2024) but also through their key role in the global water cycle (Bonan, 2008). About 40 % of the global land precipitation is estimated to originate from evapotranspiration (Ellison et al., 2017), which is regulated by vegetation cover. The tropical water cycle is essential for the health of ecosystems, supports biodiversity, and maintains regional rainfall (e.g. Makarieva and Gorshkov, 2007; van der Ent et al., 2010; Spracklen et al., 2012). High rates of evapo- transpiration occur across the tropics due to a combination of intense radiation, a large evaporation surface (up to 10 m2 leaves per square metre ground) and high temperatures, sig- nificantly contributing to atmospheric moisture. For exam- ple, about one-third of the moisture in the Amazon basin is recycled regionally with evapotranspiration from the Ama- zon forest specifically contributing to up to 70 % of precipi- tation in certain basins (van der Ent et al., 2010). Likewise, almost half of the moisture in the Congo Basin is recycled regionally (Sorí et al., 2017; Staal et al., 2018; Tuinenburg et al., 2020). Furthermore, in tropical montane forests, inter- ception of water from clouds is estimated to contribute 5 % of total precipitation in wet regions and up to 75 % in dry regions (Bruijnzeel et al., 2011). This contributes to cloud formation and generation of rainfall patterns and other re- gional climatic conditions intricately linked to forest cover (e.g. Poveda and Mesa, 1997; Ellison et al., 2017). In South America, evaporated water is transported further across the continent, contributing to regional rainfall (e.g. Zemp et al., 2014, 2017). In some regions, this rainfall provides a large fraction of the water needed for rainfed agriculture (e.g. Zemp et al., 2014, 2017). In model simulations, deforesta- tion in the tropics was shown to decrease cloud cover not only locally but also over extratropical regions (Luo et al., 2024). 3.2.2 Challenges Despite efforts to curb deforestation, tropical forest loss has accelerated over the last 2 decades (Feng et al., 2022; Bour- goin et al., 2024). Several lines of research suggest that de- forestation reduces regional and downwind rainfall, further highlighting the role of forests in sustaining regional hydro- logical cycles (Spracklen and Garcia-Carreras, 2015; Leite- Filho et al., 2021; Staal et al., 2023). Loss of forest cover disrupts transpiration and reduces precipitation, leading to a drier climate, lower agricultural productivity and increased stream flow in large watersheds (Zhang et al., 2017; Zhang and Wei, 2021). In the Amazon basin, this has led to a measurable decrease in precipitation across South America (Lawrence and Vandecar, 2015). Across the tropics, a 1 % reduction in forest cover is thought to have reduced precip- itation by an average of 0.25± 0.1 mm per month over the past 2 decades (Smith et al., 2023). Deforestation in South Biogeosciences, 22, 2425–2460, 2025 https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-2425-2025 F. J. Bohn et al.: Current perspectives on biosphere research 2024–2025 2431 America might delay the onset of the rainy season by 30 to 40 d compared to historical averages through mid-century (Commar et al., 2023; Bochow and Boers, 2023). Modelling studies indicate that future deforestation in the Congo can re- duce local precipitation by 8 %–10 % in 2100 (Smith et al., 2023). Current Earth system models are known to underes- timate water recycling in the tropical forests, especially in the Amazon (Baker and Spracklen, 2022). In this context, re- cent studies show that the coupling between the water cycle and vegetation is tightening in many regions across the globe such that LAI (leave area index per area ground) affects evap- otranspiration more strongly over time (Forzieri et al., 2020), and LAI gets more sensitive to soil moisture availability (Li et al., 2022). However, such an increase in water–vegetation coupling has not been reported in the tropics so far. Droughts during heat waves appear to be intensified by deforestation and can spread via teleconnections (Miralles et al., 2019; Staal et al., 2020). Droughts have increased in many tropical regions. For example, severe and exceptional droughts occurred in the Amazon region in 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2023 (e.g. Jiménez-Muñoz et al., 2016; Papastefanou et al., 2022). Other tropical rainforests have also been af- fected (Phillips et al., 2009; Lewis et al., 2011; Tao et al., 2022). Droughts can also lead to forest loss and thus cause a positive feedback with decreasing precipitation (Zemp et al., 2017; Bochow and Boers, 2023). Uncertainty in analysing tropical water–vegetation inter- actions results from limited soil data and the challenges in es- timating evapotranspiration using remote sensing techniques, due to dense vegetation. Therefore, hydrological datasets de- rived with machine learning techniques that extrapolate wa- ter variables in space are limited in the tropics (O. and Orth, 2021; Nelson et al., 2024). Due to these uncertainties, it is not yet clear when the tipping point at which the rainforest turns into a dryland or grassland will be reached. The re- duced soil moisture as a result of deforestation would lead to severe dieback due to a drier climate (Lovejoy and Nobre, 2018), with severe consequences for the water and carbon cycle (Lenton et al., 2019). In addition to impacts on natural systems, increasing droughts also result in increasingly heavy socio-economic losses. Globally, droughts are estimated to affect 1.8 mil- lion people and cost more than USD 307 billion each year (Thomas et al., 2024). For example, droughts in Africa are estimated to have affected almost half a billion people and resulted in 700 000 deaths from 1950 to 2021, with associ- ated damages of about USD 6.6 billion (Ayugi et al., 2022). In Europe, economic consequences of drought have been es- timated to cost about EUR 6.2 billion per year on average between 1991 and 2020 and even more for extreme droughts such as 2003 (EUR 8.3 billion) (EEA, 2010). Future impact of drought on critical infrastructure in Europe is expected to increase in the next few years (Forzieri et al., 2018). 3.2.3 Offering solutions Great efforts are needed to halt deforestation, prevent for- est degradation, and accelerate forest restoration by 2030, as pledged in the New York Declaration on Forests and the Glasgow Leaders’ Declaration on Forests and Land Use (Gasser et al., 2022), particularly in areas with high rates of deforestation (Feng et al., 2022; Lapola et al., 2023; Forest Declaration Assessment Partners, 2023). Protecting forests is essential to mitigating future droughts and maintaining stable seasonal rainfall patterns. Evidence indicates that deforesta- tion arises from activities such as speculative land clearing, land tenure conflicts, transient agricultural practices, aban- doned farmland, and agriculture-related fires encroaching on adjacent forests (Pendrill et al., 2022). Effective measures to curb deforestation require sustainable economic alternatives for intact forests (e.g. Griscom et al., 2020, see Sect. 3.8, 3.7), the establishment of protected areas, the enforcement of substantial penalties for illegal logging (e.g. Brancalion et al., 2018, see also Sect. 3.5), and broader improvements in land governance and rural development (e.g. Latawiec et al., 2017; Bastos Lima and Persson, 2020). International sup- ply chain interventions can help reduce tropical deforestation and forest degradation, but they will be most effective when targeting high-risk areas with initiatives that promote sustain- able rural development and strengthen territorial governance (Pendrill et al., 2022). Indigenous peoples are also crucial to forest conservation, as their traditional land management practices have proven exceptionally effective in conserving forest ecosystems (Fa et al., 2020). Empowering indigenous communities and legally securing their land rights are, there- fore, crucial to long-term conservation success. Restoring degraded and deforested areas worldwide can increase precipitation and thus mitigate the reduction caused by forest loss (Hoek van Dijke et al., 2022, see also Sect. 3.6). An increase in forest cover increases evapotranspiration, low-level cloud cover, and precipitation. For instance, Du- veiller et al. (2021) showed that in 67 % of the areas they studied, afforestation would increase low-level cloud cover in most months. These indirect biophysical effects of cloud formation would likely counteract, on average, the darken- ing of the surface following afforestation (see also Caporaso et al., 2024). However, cloud formation is also influenced by the concentration of fine aerosols in the atmosphere, which can be modified by changes in forest cover (e.g. Junkermann et al., 2009). Moreover, in the southern and eastern Amazon, reforestation could increase precipitation, which is critical given the risk of climate change-induced drying and a pos- sible tipping point at which a forest transitions to a dryland or grassland due to decreased moisture (Zhao et al., 2017). Similarly, reforestation in Middle America (Mexico and the islands of the Caribbean) and South East Asia (including southern China) could largely offset projected drying, and Mediterranean Europe would also benefit from regional re- forestation efforts. Furthermore, due to moisture recycling https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-2425-2025 Biogeosciences, 22, 2425–2460, 2025 2432 F. J. Bohn et al.: Current perspectives on biosphere research 2024–2025 of forests, reforestation in the south-eastern Amazon would increase gross primary productivity (Staal et al., 2023). All these biophysical effects give the forests an additional value that goes beyond carbon sequestration and local cooling of the surface through evaporation. However, afforestation for carbon sequestration in savan- nahs and other naturally tree-poor ecosystems can disrupt lo- cal water balances and biodiversity (Veldman et al., 2015; Fernandes et al., 2016). Trees often use more water than grasslands, which can lower the water table and reduce the availability of water for other plants and animals native to these areas. This change can lead to the drying up of wetlands and less water flow in streams and rivers (Farley et al., 2005; Lalonde et al., 2024), impacting species that are adapted to specific water regimes. Moreover, the planting of non-native tree species can alter soil properties and inhibit the growth of native vegetation, which relies on fire and open sunlight conditions to thrive (see Sect. 3.3). These ecological shifts can diminish the natural resilience of these ecosystems, mak- ing them less adaptable to climatic changes and more sus- ceptible to invasive species. Therefore, while afforestation in certain contexts can be beneficial for carbon sequestration and local societies, it requires careful planning and manage- ment to avoid unintended ecological consequences (Farley et al., 2005). More and more accurate data on tropical vegeta- tion and water could be collected through more standardized and regionally distributed ground-based measurements and monitoring, as often a water-related perspective and country- or regional-level analysis are missing to understand region- specific feasibility. More accurate data on tropical vegetation and water could be collected through a standardized and harmonized ap- proach, as water-related perspectives are often lacking in country- or regional-level analysis but are needed to under- stand region-specific feasibility. Furthermore, there is a need for more regionally distributed ground-based measurements and monitoring, covering under-represented biomes and veg- etation types, e.g. the tropics and semi-arid regions, and pro- viding more country or regional detail, which is crucial to understand region-specific feasibility. Further, future satellite missions will collect data using longer wavelengths such as SAR L-band (Lal et al., 2023) or P-band missions (Garrison et al., 2024). However, the latter are restricted by the military in many areas. This can provide a basis for more accurate observation-based analysis and better constrain state-of-the- art models to quantify better the large-scale pan-tropical ef- fect of afforestation or deforestation on the hydrological cy- cle (see also Doelman et al., 2020; Koch and Kaplan, 2022; Yu et al., 2022). Consequently, this can also contribute to a more accurate understanding and estimation of increasing, and often unexpected, trends in tree mortality globally (Hart- mann et al., 2022). 3.3 Delayed climate change mitigation likely to increase fire risks in many regions 3.3.1 Background Fire is a natural phenomenon that has shaped many ecosys- tem types worldwide and contributed to their biodiversity (Bond and Keeley, 2005; Pausas and Keeley, 2009; Bow- man et al., 2011; He et al., 2019). Humans have altered fire regimes by utilizing fire and changing the landscape and also by suppressing fires to avoid its destructive consequences (Bowman et al., 2011). However, unprecedented record wild- fires have recently affected different parts of the world. In 2023, 7.8× 106 ha burned in Canada (MacCarthy et al., 2024), and Greece experienced the largest fire ever recorded in Europe, burning more than 93 000 ha (Jones et al., 2024), raising concerns about future fire dynamics. Many factors affect fire regimes, but recent research sug- gests that two major factors – human activities (includ- ing land use change) and meteorological fire danger – are pulling in opposite directions. On the one hand, human fac- tors, in particular agricultural expansion and intensification in African savannas, grasslands and shrublands biomes, have caused a decrease in burned area of these biomes by 13 % over the last 2 decades (Jones et al., 2024; Andela et al., 2017; Jones et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2023). On the other hand, increasing fire weather severity and decreased snow cover have increased burned area and fire intensity in high- latitude regions; for example, burned area has increased by 58 % since 2002 in the North American boreal forest biome (Jones et al., 2024), albeit with large regional variability (Bedia et al., 2015; Jones et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2023; Cunningham et al., 2024; Hessilt et al., 2024). Across the globe, the two factors may change individually or in conjunc- tion. Against a backdrop of globally decreasing burned area, some areas are experiencing increasing extreme fire seasons (Brown et al., 2023; Cunningham et al., 2024), so-called “ex- treme fires” or “megafires” (San-Miguel-Ayanz et al., 2013; Collins et al., 2021) that are large, intense, difficult to control, and becoming more frequent with a 2.2-fold global increase since 2003 (Cunningham et al., 2024). These megafires exceed natural fire regimes and are ex- tremely detrimental to biodiversity (Leeuwen et al., 2023), human infrastructure, air quality (Xu et al., 2023), and car- bon stocks (Clarke et al., 2022; Copernicus, 2023; Zheng et al., 2023). In 2023–2024, carbon emissions from wild- fires increased globally by 16 % above the long-term average (Jones et al., 2024). While emissions from African savan- nas declined slightly, this reduction was insufficient to coun- terbalance the substantial rise stemming from extreme fires in Canada’s boreal forests (MacCarthy et al., 2024), where carbon emission anomalies reached 9 times above average (Jones et al., 2024). Biogeosciences, 22, 2425–2460, 2025 https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-2425-2025 F. J. Bohn et al.: Current perspectives on biosphere research 2024–2025 2433 3.3.2 Challenges Analyses of fire trends and future projections show strong climate-change-induced increases in fire weather severity across most of the world (Abatzoglou et al., 2019; Jones et al., 2022; Jain et al., 2022). This poses a significant chal- lenge for society, particularly forestry and civil protection. Year 2023 was a year of extensive civil protection efforts. In Canada alone, over 230 000 people were evacuated due to wildfires. However, the scale of these efforts often exceeded capacity with negative consequences for fire suppression, as seen in civil protection efforts in Greece (Jones et al., 2024). Furthermore, millions of civilians were exposed to smoke; during the Canadian fires, around 50 million people suffered from health-threatening air quality (Wang et al., 2024; Yu et al., 2024). However, the problem is highly heterogeneous, with already fire-prone areas experiencing increased risk of extreme weather conditions (Scholten et al., 2021; Brown et al., 2023; Cunningham et al., 2024) but also fire-prone conditions emerging in relatively cooler and wetter areas that have been little affected by fire so far, e.g. boreal and tem- perate zones and mountains (Cunningham et al., 2024; Jones et al., 2022; Hetzer et al., 2024). These challenges are heightened by local factors relating to ignition, vegetation, and land cover, which can play a major role in increasing fire danger. In some regions, land cover is characterized by highly flammable species such as pine, spruce, and eucalyptus and planted in large and ho- mogeneous stands, which can promote fire spread. For one of the largest wildfires in central Europe, where Norway spruce monocultures suffer heavily from bark beetle attacks since the exceptional drought of 2018, it has been shown that burn severity was highest in dead spruce stands (Beetz et al., 2024). For fire risk assessments, both climatic and non- climatic factors need, thus, to be considered (European Envi- ronment Agency, 2024). Changing fire regimes also threaten large carbon reservoirs but with regionally unique consequences. In the humid trop- ics, intact forest and peatlands are threatened by deforesta- tion fires (Andela et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2023) and wildfires exacerbated by climate and land use change (Turetsky et al., 2015; Harrison et al., 2020). High-latitude peatlands in re- mote areas are vulnerable to large, long-lasting fires burning through deep peat layers (Scholten et al., 2021; Nelson et al., 2021), which are not actively controlled and lead to large car- bon losses (Turetsky et al., 2015). Future stocks from poten- tial “nature-based solutions” may also be vulnerable to wild- fires, undermining climate mitigation efforts. However, long- term predictions of fire risk that could be incorporated into planning still include large uncertainties at the local scale (Hantson et al., 2020). See also Sects. 3.2 and 3.4. 3.3.3 Offering solutions Decreasing trends in burned area in regions where the fire weather has become more severe, such as non-Mediterranean Europe (Jones et al., 2022), clearly show that fire risks can be mitigated, albeit at an increasing cost (Bayham et al., 2022). However, the costs of fire mitigation are surpassed by losses, especially for extreme fire seasons (Bayham et al., 2022) and comparable to other climate change mitigation costs (Phillips et al., 2022). Several studies emphasize that the burned area is negatively related to the Human Development Index at both global (Chuvieco et al., 2021; Teixeira et al., 2023) and continental scale (Forrest et al., 2024). This demonstrates that more economically developed societies tend to reduce their burnt area, either due to effective fire prevention mea- sures or because of rapid and successful firefighting (see also Sect. 3.6). Whilst this broad picture is encouraging, it is im- portant that this view is tempered with the knowledge that relying on fire suppression as a sole strategy is risky and po- tentially counterproductive, as it can increase fuel accumu- lation and, therefore, fire severity (Kreider et al., 2024). A clear example of this is the forests of the United States where, despite a high level of economic development, burnt area is increasing (Iglesias et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2023). Whilst climate change plays a important role in this trend (Iglesias et al., 2022; Burton et al., 2024), a very effective strategy of fire suppression over the 20th century (Magerl et al., 2023) without a sufficient fuel reduction strategy has led to cur- rent levels of very high fuel accumulation. These high fuel loads contribute to the current crisis, a phenomenon antici- pated over 50 years ago (Dodge, 1972). Strategies should be developed targeting risks at local, na- tional, and regional levels (Chuvieco et al., 2023). Locally, fire suppression can be aided by introducing fire breaks and access points, particularly roads (Haas et al., 2022). How- ever, this solution should be cautiously applied as land frag- mentation also negatively affects species richness (Willmer et al., 2022). Fuel reduction techniques might also be consid- ered, including mechanical or grazing, but prescribed burn- ing might also provide a more natural solution also useful for maintaining fire-dependent vegetation types and biodiversity (Neidermeier et al., 2023). Moreover, fire suppression should be limited in areas where regular low-intensity fires play a vital role in naturally clearing fuels. There, maintaining fires as a part of the ecosystem can reduce the risk of more se- vere fires from excessive fuel accumulation. National strate- gies should promote biodiversity because this also promotes fire resilience by avoiding monocultures of highly flammable species. Furthermore, studies have shown that cross-border collaborations are necessary and effective for allocating re- sources efficiently and minimizing risk (Bloem et al., 2022). International cooperations can benefit from comprehensive “fire-smart” solutions, such as those recently targeted in the EU Green Deal (Ascoli et al., 2023; Regos et al., 2023). A number of cases document the value of incorporating Indige- https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-2425-2025 Biogeosciences, 22, 2425–2460, 2025 2434 F. J. Bohn et al.: Current perspectives on biosphere research 2024–2025 nous knowledge and governance into fire management strate- gies in Latin America (Oliveira et al., 2022), Africa (Croker et al., 2023), North America (Connor et al., 2022), and Aus- tralia (Legge et al., 2023); see also Sect. 3.6, 3.8. 3.4 Nature-based carbon dioxide removal (CDR) implementation risks 3.4.1 Background A key intersection point between ecology and climate change research is the role of terrestrial ecosystems in exchanging carbon between terrestrial and atmospheric carbon pools. Human activities are affecting these carbon exchanges di- rectly via deforestation and other land use activities, as well as indirectly via the response of terrestrial ecosystems to elevated CO2 and resulting changing climate conditions (Friedlingstein et al., 2023; IPCC, 2021). Direct effects, in- cluding deforestation, forest regrowth, and other land use ac- tivities, currently produce net emissions to the atmosphere of about 4× 109 t of CO2 per year (about 10 % of global fos- sil fuel emissions), which includes an estimated removal flux from reforestation activities of 2× 109 t of CO2 per year. In- direct carbon fluxes, resulting from processes like CO2 fer- tilization and changing growing season length, currently ab- sorb about 12× 109 t of CO2 per year. This indirect carbon sink shows inter-annual variability, as it has consistently rep- resented an absorption of close to one-third of annual fossil fuel CO2 emissions over the past several decades (Friedling- stein et al., 2023; IPCC, 2022a). 3.4.2 Challenges Given the current role of the terrestrial biosphere as a net carbon sink (the net of direct emissions and indirect uptake), there is considerable interest in pursuing strategies to en- hance nature-based carbon dioxide removal (CDR) to con- tribute to climate mitigation efforts. Many studies have high- lighted the potential of nature-based CDR (Griscom et al., 2017; Fuhrman et al., 2023) as a key component of a range of potential CDR options. Reforestation and afforestation are typically seen as the largest potential contributors. However, nature-based CDR also includes strategies such as biochar and other agricul- tural management practices to increase soil carbon seques- tration. Many concerns about nature-based carbon removal have also been raised in recent literature however, including whether a focus on CDR in research and policy discussion could lead to delays in fossil fuel emission reductions (Car- ton et al., 2023), as well as whether nature-based CDR has a large enough potential to be a meaningful contribution to climate change mitigation goals (Roebroek et al., 2023). Parr et al. (2024) also highlight an important concern that refor- estation with non-native tree plantation species could lead to the loss of native ecosystems that may negate any carbon- related gains, supporting previous findings that more biodi- verse forests are better at capturing and storing carbon (Liu et al., 2018b; Wessely et al., 2024). These and other con- cerns highlight a growing understanding that nature-based CDR must be undertaken with attention to local ecosystems and community needs (Seddon, 2022) and that nature-based CDR should in all cases be treated as a complement (and not an alternative) to fossil fuel CO2 emission reductions (Matthews et al., 2022). Nature-based CDR, particularly in the case of its use as an offset for fossil fuel CO2 emissions, faces a number of known and well-understood challenges. These challenges in- clude the following: i. accounting, including accurate measurement of forest carbon accounting, such as removal and storage; ii. additionality, including an assessment of whether the re- moval would have occurred in the absence of offset fi- nancing; iii. leakage, including an analysis that examines whether the intervention displaces land use activities, resulting in emissions elsewhere; iv. durability, including the risk of reversal analysis, which considers the longevity of carbon storage; v. environmental justice, which examines whether the car- bon removal efforts amplify existing inequalities and in- justices; vi. non-climate effects, for instance, changes in albedo or other biophysical effects (Carton et al., 2021; Haya et al., 2023; Groom and Venmans, 2023; Hasler et al., 2024). The durability challenge associated with nature-based car- bon storage has been of particular concern in recent years, owing to increases in natural disturbances (as discussed in Sect. 3.3). Climate-driven changes in wildfire and other nat- ural disturbance regimes have considerable potential to lead to increased the future vulnerability of land-based carbon stocks with continuing climate change (Anderegg et al., 2020). Furthermore, the permanence of land carbon storage can also be compromised by changing human disturbance pressures, including those emerging from potential uses of biomass as an energy source in climate mitigation strategies (Anderegg et al., 2020). The potential for land-based carbon storage to be tempo- rary evokes a particular accounting challenge when used as an offset for fossil fuel CO2 emissions, which represent a permanent transfer of new carbon from a geologic reservoir into the atmosphere–land–ocean carbon system. Concerns of impermanence (or risks of reversal) are a key concern as- sociated with the application of nature-based carbon storage as a contributor to climate mitigation efforts (Zickfeld et al., Biogeosciences, 22, 2425–2460, 2025 https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-2425-2025 F. J. Bohn et al.: Current perspectives on biosphere research 2024–2025 2435 2023). However, even temporary carbon storage does have climate value and, in particular, has been shown to decrease peak warming if coupled with ambitious fossil fuel emission reductions (Matthews et al., 2022). 3.4.3 Offering solutions One solution to the challenge of the durability of land car- bon storage may be to treat all nature-based carbon removal and storage as a temporary quantity and to explicitly account for the amount of time the carbon remains in storage as part of its climate value. Matthews et al. (2023) proposed a new application of tonne-year accounting to measure the time in- tegral of land carbon removal and storage as a way of track- ing the climate benefit of temporary storage. Previous appli- cations of tonne-year accounting have focused on trying to equate temporary and permanent storage, leading to strate- gies such as vertical stacking of offset credits to claim that a given amount of temporary storage is equivalent to a unit of permanent storage (Haya et al., 2023). This previous use of tonne-year accounting has been criticized in the literature given that it is not grounded in any physical climate science relationship and leads to a false equivalency of temporary and permanent storage that could further disconnect carbon off- set calculations from the scientific understanding of carbon stocks and flows in natural systems (Levasseur et al., 2012; Brander and Broekhoff, 2023). However, Matthews et al. (2023) showed that a reimag- ined approach to tonne years could effectively track nature- based carbon storage over time. Furthermore, they showed that tonne years of temporary carbon storage are proportional to degree years of avoided warming (i.e. the time integral of the temperature change caused by temporary storage), pro- viding an approach to measure the climate effect of tempo- rary carbon storage in a way that is coherent with scientific understanding (Matthews et al., 2023). Measuring and quan- tifying the time dimension of nature-based carbon storage and treating carbon offset as a time share rather than a single purchase (e.g. by using horizontal stacking to guard against loss over time) could be an important improvement to current carbon offset protocols (Haya et al., 2023). 3.5 Sustaining nature’s contributions to people in human-modified landscapes requires at least 20 %–25 % (semi-)natural habitat per square kilometre 3.5.1 Background Biodiversity is declining faster than ever with global wildlife populations declining by an average of 73 % over the last 50 years (WWF, 2024). Around 1 million animal and plant species are now threatened with extinction despite decades of increased conservation investment to bend the curve of biodiversity decline (Leclère et al., 2020). This decline is mainly driven by changes in land and sea use, overexploita- tion of resources, pollution, invasion of exotic species, and climate change (IPBES, 2019a). Such decline is also associ- ated with the expansion of global systems of extractivism in recent centuries, which contrasts sharply with earlier patterns of stewardship (Ojeda et al., 2022; Molnár et al., 2024, see also Sect. 3.8). The conversion of natural habitats has provided benefits by creating more space for agriculture, housing, and industry but at a significant cost to biodiversity, reducing the area of natural ecosystems by about half, with agriculture alone oc- cupying 38 % of the Earth’s land surface (FAO, 2023). Cur- rently, only 16.64 % of terrestrial areas and 8 % of marine areas are protected, many of which are not fully ecologically representative or effectively managed, while about 75 % of the terrestrial environment and about 66 % of the marine en- vironment have been significantly altered by human activities (IPBES, 2019a). This habitat conversion jeopardizes valu- able ecosystem functions and beneficial contributions, such as healthy and sustainable food production, clean air and water, and recreational spaces, among others. For example, over 75 % of global food crops rely on animal pollination, but pollinator populations are declining due to habitat loss, pesticides, and climate change (IPBES, 2019a). These con- tributions, known as ecosystem services or nature’s contri- butions to people (NCPs), directly or indirectly contribute to human well-being, economic stability, and overall quality of life (Díaz et al., 2018, see also Sect. 3.1 and 3.2). 3.5.2 Challenges Biodiversity has multiple dimensions, making it challeng- ing to define synthetic policy objectives and metrics or to track progress (Díaz et al., 2020). Most conservation ef- forts focus on halting the conversion of remaining intact natural ecosystems and safeguarding their unique species as articulated in Goal A of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (Watson et al., 2018; Allan et al., 2022). However, human-modified lands and waters, which cover approximately half of the global Earth surface (IPBES, 2019a), including highly managed agricultural fields and ur- ban green spaces in mixed mosaic landscapes where natu- ral functions are limited to small habitat patches, are often overlooked in conservation policies and setting global targets (Pollock et al., 2020), despite their critical roles in maintain- ing and supporting human well being and sustainable food production (Goodness et al., 2016; Díaz et al., 2018). The close proximity and relationship between people and bio- diversity in these areas makes their contributions to human well-being even more important. Identifying metrics to en- sure continuous contributions of such nature to human well- being is challenging due to the highly context-specific condi- tions under which biodiversity supports ecosystem functions (e.g. Sect. 3.2). Yet few proposals for the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) explicitly address human- https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-2425-2025 Biogeosciences, 22, 2425–2460, 2025 2436 F. J. Bohn et al.: Current perspectives on biosphere research 2024–2025 modified lands or the role of functional biodiversity in main- taining a good quality of life for all people (Rounsevell et al., 2020; Maron et al., 2021; Hammoud et al., 2024). NCP provisioning in human-modified landscapes relies on the amount, quality, and spatial arrangement of habitat frag- ments and their accessibility to beneficiaries (Garibaldi et al., 2021; Priyadarshana et al., 2024). These landscape compo- nents serve as proxy measures for the functional integrity of ecosystems (Rockström et al., 2023; Mohamed et al., 2024). Evidence suggests that many NCPs can be maintained by habitat within highly human-modified landscapes as long as a minimum level, quality, and distance to biodiversity are present, and/or the functional integrity is retained or rebuilt (Martin et al., 2019; Eeraerts, 2023; Mohamed et al., 2024). The required habitat levels for NCP provisioning vary de- pending on the context, the NCPs, the demand for it, the land- scape type, and the taxa involved, making it difficult to assess direct relationships (Garibaldi et al., 2011; Cariveau et al., 2020). Nonetheless, below a certain threshold, nature can no longer provide a majority of benefits (Rockström et al., 2023). A recent systematic review of 154 studies found that the capacity of human-modified lands to pollinate crops, regu- late pests and diseases, maintain clear water, limit soil ero- sion, and maintain recreational spaces for people declined significantly and often disappears when habitat area falls be- low 20 % km−2–25 % km−2 and nearly disappeared below 10 % habitat per km2 (Mohamed et al., 2024). Alarmingly, only one-third of global human-modified lands are above the 20 % km−2–25 % km−2 level to sustain NCP provisioning, emphasizing the urgent need for policy interventions to re- store and regenerate ecosystem functions and their benefits in the remaining two-thirds of global human-modified lands (Mohamed et al., 2024). The proposed minimum habitat levels can serve as a gen- eral guide to identify priority locations for conservation and restoration in support of sustainable NCP provisions. How- ever, uncertainties remain about the successful implementa- tion of these minimum habitat levels in practice due to fac- tors such as climate change, habitat loss, unsustainable agri- culture, and human settlement expansion, which complicate the implementation and may create trade-offs. General es- timates and targets for land management are important but often oversimplify the complexity of local conditions and can misrepresent the needs of local communities due to the inherent biases in ecological research that may not account for all biomes or ecosystem functions (Martin et al., 2012; Manning, 2024). Additionally, these metrics often overlook finer-scale NCPs, such as those provided by soil biodiversity, and ignore the important role of complementary agricultural practices such as no-till age farming, cover cropping, and leguminous rotations, which can reduce erosion, reduce nu- trient loss, and maintain biodiversity (Blanco-Canqui et al., 2015; Skaalsveen et al., 2019; Guinet et al., 2020; Rako- tomalala et al., 2023). Current remote-sensing technologies also struggle to detect small and linear habitat elements or to differentiate complex landscape types, likely leading to un- derestimations of the current state of (semi-)natural habitats globally (Lechner et al., 2009; Jurkus et al., 2022). Therefore, allocating 20 %–25 % of each square kilometre to (semi- )natural habitat within human-modified lands using general estimates, without proper management and consideration of local socio-economic priorities and ecological needs, can lead to significant social and economic challenges. These in- clude high restoration costs, land tenure issues, policy con- straints, lack of expertise and knowledge, and potential con- flict with the provisioning of material NCPs, which might compete with food production ambitions and local commu- nity needs (e.g. housing), which negatively affect the well- being of local people relying on those NCPs (Mohamed et al., 2024). 3.5.3 Offering solutions The implementation of such strategies effectively neces- sitates adapting and adopting practices best suited to lo- cal context and conditions, rather than prescribing a single practice to be applied globally. Restoration could, for in- stance, prioritize areas where habitat additions align with community needs and minimize trade-offs with food pro- duction. Countless context-specific strategies exist to en- hance NCP provisioning and can be implemented in ways that create more synergies than trade-offs and support food security, livelihood, and overall human well-being without compromising local resources (Jones et al., 2023; Rako- tomalala et al., 2023). For example, Torchio et al. (2024) show that wild pollination is sustained when semi-natural cover is 20 % km−2. Further, modern agroecological prac- tices and nature-based solutions, including diverse crop ro- tations and mixed cropping systems, maintain habitat het- erogeneity and promote ecosystem resilience (Lichtenberg et al., 2017; Shah et al., 2021; Ewert et al., 2023; Tscharntke et al., 2024). Agroforestry systems enhance soil health, wa- ter retention, and global carbon sequestration (Zomer et al., 2022; Fahad et al., 2022). Strategically incorporating habi- tats such as hedgerows, no-mow zones around field mar- gins, or other practices (M’Gonigle et al., 2015; Marja et al., 2022; Maskell et al., 2023) combined with innovations such as precision agriculture practices can maintain biodiversity (Arroyo-Rodríguez et al., 2020; Knapp et al., 2023) while optimizing agricultural productivity (Balafoutis et al., 2017). Protecting green spaces and parks in cities can enhance phys- ical and mental well-being (Konijnendijk, 2023), and plant- ing vegetation buffers along waterways can capture sediment and pollutants, among many other tools (Luke et al., 2019). To implement this approach, it is essential to enhance tools and methodologies for identifying and quantifying key NCPs at the landscape scale. This includes determining the locally specific quantity (20 % km−2–25 % km−2), composi- tion, and spatial configuration of habitat elements required Biogeosciences, 22, 2425–2460, 2025 https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-2425-2025 F. J. Bohn et al.: Current perspectives on biosphere research 2024–2025 2437 for effective NCP provisioning. To avoid conflicts, partner- ships with diverse stakeholders – such as Indigenous peo- ples, local communities, scientists, and NGOs – should be prioritized in decision-making. These groups offer valuable, practical solutions for halting and reversing the loss of NCPs and promoting sustainable conservation efforts. In addition, resources must be reallocated to promote innovation in agri- culture, production systems, and urban planning that priori- tize biodiversity. The 25 % of high-functioning nature per square kilometre offers a key policy tool, as it is the first widely applicable measurement of the minimum level of human-modified land that needs to be in a (semi-)natural state across several NCPs and a wide range of landscapes. This proposed habitat level is the minimum level, not the optimal level required to meet adequate NCP demand (Mohamed et al., 2024). This habitat threshold reflects an approach that harmonizes human activ- ities with ecosystem integrity, focusing on integration rather than strict separation between human and nature. It serves as a general guideline synergizing with existing policy tar- gets (e.g. UN Decade on Restoration) for prioritizing conser- vation initiatives and formulating adaptive, scalable policies beyond natural areas. See also Sect. 3.6 and 3.8. 3.6 Interconnect and deliver comprehensive policy packages to address the root causes of degradation and revitalized, just human–nature relationships 3.6.1 Background Today’s dominant production and consumption patterns are far from achieving the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) 2050 vision of “living in harmony with nature”. Even under the “most sustainable” climate scenarios (SSP1, RCP 2.6), biodiversity loss continues at an alarming rate, with over 75 % of terrestrial ecosystems significantly altered by human activity and more than 85 % of wetlands lost since the pre-industrial era (Pereira et al., 2020b, 2024). While global efforts focus heavily on achieving climate targets, this emphasis undermines our shared life-support systems and overlooks opportunities to synergize human–nature relation- ships and reverse alarming biodiversity trends while address- ing climate impacts (Obura et al., 2023; Kim et al., 2023). Addressing these challenges requires a paradigm shift to- ward sustainable practices. Restoration efforts have demon- strated substantial ecological and economic benefits, with re- forestation initiatives capable of sequestering up to 200 Gt of CO2 over the next century (Chazdon et al., 2020), while wetland rehabilitation can reduce flood risks by 35 % in vul- nerable coastal regions (Meli et al., 2017). The increasing adoption of “nature-positive” business strategies reflects a shift towards circular economy models, emphasizing waste minimization, resource efficiency, and closed-loop systems. For example, circular economy initiatives have the potential to reduce global resource extraction by up to 28 % by 2050, aligning economic activities with planetary boundaries and fostering resilience against environmental degradation and climate change (Bocken et al., 2019; Korhonen et al., 2018; Lüdeke-Freund et al., 2019). Effective policy integration and international cooperation are critical to mitigating environ- mental degradation and incentivizing sustainable economic growth. Despite ambitious global agreements, biodiversity financing remains insufficient, with a current annual fund- ing gap of approximately USD 700 billion needed to meet global conservation targets (Leal Filho et al., 2019; IPCC, 2023; Rockström et al., 2017; Steffen et al., 2018). Strength- ening governance frameworks that simultaneously address climate, biodiversity, and resource management goals is es- sential to reversing ecosystem decline while maintaining eco- nomic stability (Rockström et al., 2017; Steffen et al., 2018). 3.6.2 Challenge Current global trade structures often exacerbate environmen- tal and social inequalities, disproportionately affecting devel- oping countries with weaker regulations (Newell and Tay- lor, 2022). Industrial agricultural practices and resource ex- traction have a devastating impact on the biosphere that ex- ceeds even the direct effects of climate change. For example, agricultural expansion accounts for approximately 80 % of global deforestation, with the Amazon rainforest alone los- ing over 17 % of its total forest cover since 1970, primarily due to cattle ranching and soybean cultivation (Barlow et al., 2018; Köhler et al., 2019). This environmental degradation is accompanied by social displacement, as an estimated 250 million people, primarily Indigenous and rural communities, are at risk of being forced from their lands due to large-scale land acquisitions and resource extraction projects (Hickel, 2020; Sánchez-Bayo and Wyckhuys, 2019; Jaureguiberry et al., 2022, see also Sect. 3.4, 3.5). This phenomenon, known as “telecoupling”, highlights the interconnectedness of dis- tant economic activities and their environmental impacts (Liu et al., 2018a). Several studies demonstrate this telecoupling: for instance, the global demand for palm oil has driven the loss of 56 % of Borneo’s lowland forests since 1985, leading to a 50 % decline in orangutan populations (Meijaard et al., 2020). Similarly, mining in Africa has led to the contamina- tion of over 20 % of freshwater resources in affected regions, impacting both human health and biodiversity (Northey et al., 2017; Mancini et al., 2021). In this context, while lithium ex- traction raises environmental concerns such as water deple- tion – wherein lithium brine mining in the Atacama Desert consumes up to 65 % of the region’s freshwater – it is gen- erally less harmful than large-scale fossil fuel extraction, which contributes to 73 % of global greenhouse gas emis- sions (Vikström et al., 2013; Krishnan and Gopan, 2024). Moreover, lithium mining’s impact on local water sources is significantly lower than that of coal mining, which is respon- sible for approximately 10 % of global freshwater pollution. Enhancing lithium recycling from spent batteries, which cur- https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-2425-2025 Biogeosciences, 22, 2425–2460, 2025 2438 F. J. Bohn et al.: Current perspectives on biosphere research 2024–2025 rently has an efficiency of only 5 %, could significantly re- duce the need for new mining operations and mitigate envi- ronmental damage (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017). Effective biodiversity governance faces significant chal- lenges, including the lack of platforms to set norms, address injustices, and enforce accountability (Raja et al., 2022). These problems are often rooted in exploitative practices and colonial legacies as seen in cases where biodiversity-rich re- gions are overexploited for global markets without fair com- pensation for local communities. For example, only 1 % of the profits from global biodiversity-derived pharmaceutical products return to the countries of origin, despite the fact that 70 % of these compounds originate in the Global South (Atanasov et al., 2021). Revitalizing the relationship between people and nature and fostering collective action are essential to halting biodiversity loss and restoring ecosystems. Therefore, understanding global trade networks and their impacts is crucial to develop fair and sustainable integrated policies and international cooperation. Current projections suggest that adopting circular economy principles – such as reducing raw material extraction and increasing material reuse – could decrease global resource extraction by 28 % and reduce waste generation by up to 39 % by 2050 (Wied- mann and Lenzen, 2018; Wiedmann et al., 2020; Leal Filho et al., 2019; IPCC, 2023; Meli et al., 2017; Chazdon et al., 2020; Geissdoerfer et al., 2017). 3.6.3 Offering solutions Integrated policy packages should integrate environmental, economic, and social policies to address the root causes of biosphere degradation and pollution and to mitigate climate change while promoting sustainable practices such as the promotion of renewable energy and the enhancement of car- bon sinks and conservation of ecosystems (Litvinenko et al., 2022; Ikram et al., 2022; Tedesco et al., 2022; United Na- tions Environment Programme, 2022; Ostrom, 2009, e.g. see also Sect. 3.5). Measures include stricter regulations on re- source extraction, the adoption of cleaner technologies, and incentives to restore ecosystems. Policies such as the Euro- pean Green Deal are examples of comprehensive frameworks that align climate action with economic and social objectives (Commission, 2019). International cooperation is also cru- cial to harmonize efforts across borders and prevent envi- ronmental damage from being displaced. For example, the Paris Agreement demonstrates the potential of global com- mitments to reduce carbon emissions and promote sustain- ability (UNFCCC, 2018; Steffen et al., 2018). International environmental agreements with improved compliance mechanisms and accountability are crucial for strengthening global environmental agreements. Lessons learnt from international human rights agreements, such as the integration of accountability measures, can improve com- pliance with biodiversity commitments such as the Conven- tion on Biological Diversity (Koh et al., 2022). Sustainable trade policies should be enforced through cer- tification schemes such as the Forest Stewardship Coun- cil (FSC), the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), or Fair Trade International for goods. Control mechanisms such as the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), which aims to re- duce illegal deforestation, are another lever. Incentives such as tax breaks or subsidies should also encourage companies to adopt sustainable practices, minimize waste, conserve re- sources, and reduce emissions (OECD, 2020). Transnational conservation collaborations such as the Amazon Cooperation Treaty Organization (ACTO) and Africa’s Great Green Wall project demonstrate the value of multinational approaches to conservation. These initiatives focus on combating deforestation and wildlife trafficking, restoring degraded lands, and supporting local communi- ties. Such projects show how regional cooperation can pro- tect critical ecosystems and promote sustainable livelihoods (UNCCD, 2016; Fernandes et al., 2024). Although there are several promising policy packages, like those presented above, they have to be developed further and applied from international to local scale. Future poli- cies should adopt frameworks that integrate multiple values of biodiversity, promote cross-sectoral actions, and ensure stakeholder participation. Locally tailored solutions and scal- able approaches are necessary to restore ecosystems and fos- ter positive outcomes for nature and people. Progress should be tracked through innovative biodiversity monitoring and adaptive management that incorporates Indigenous and local knowledge systems. The following framework by Perino et al. (2022) promises to improve future action, reversing current trends of degen- eration of the biosphere: (i) the identification process for lo- cally suitable actions and the promotion of stakeholder own- ership must recognize the multiple values of biodiversity (Pascual et al., 2023; Martin et al., 2024) and account for remote responsibility; (ii) cross-sectoral implementation and mainstreaming of biodiversity considerations need scalable and multifunctional approaches to restoring ecosystems and aim for positive futures for nature and people; (iii) assess- ment of progress and adaptive management needs to be in- formed by novel biodiversity monitoring and modelling ap- proaches that address the multidimensionality of biodiversity change, including the incorporation of Indigenous and local knowledge (e.g. in Gielen et al., 2024). The Nature Futures Framework (NFF) supports collabo- rative decision-making by recognizing diverse values of na- ture and exploring shared pathways toward sustainable fu- tures (Pereira et al., 2020a; Kim et al., 2023; IPBES, 2023). It emphasizes adaptive management and scenario analysis to plan for positive synergies between biodiversity conservation and climate action. Immediate actions include (i) integrating plural values and engaging diverse stakeholders in decision- making processes; (ii) mainstreaming biodiversity conserva- tion into all sectors; (iii) using nexus approaches to address interlinkages, co-benefits, and trade-offs; (iv) improving pol- Biogeosciences, 22, 2425–2460, 2025 https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-2425-2025 F. J. Bohn et al.: Current perspectives on biosphere research 2024–2025 2439 icy coherence and integration; and (v) applying best practices in ecosystem restoration and management (see also Pörtner et al., 2021a). The implementation of global environmental policy pack- ages requires an equity lens and a rights-based approach, as projects that are aligned with local people’s preferences and through inclusive governance are likely to have more effective social and environmental outcomes (Obura et al., 2023; Löfqvist et al., 2023; McDermott et al., 2023). In addi- tion, unpacking elements of social and environmental justice, including procedural, recognitional, and distributive dimen- sions, is needed to support long-term transformation towards sustainability (Leach et al., 2018; Pereira et al., 2023). In- digenous peoples and local communities are leading by ex- ample by managing the biosphere in ways that support eco- logical integrity and thus biodiversity conservation (Garnett et al., 2018; Dawson et al., 2024; Seebens et al., 2024; Mas- sarella et al., 2021); see also Sect. 3.6 and 3.8). Integrating biodiversity into global trade policy ensures that efforts to protect the environment are coordinated and effective across borders. These interlinked actions provide a way to address the twin crises of climate change and bio- diversity loss and promote a healthier planet for people and nature. 3.7 The social–economic value of ecosystems will increase in proportion to rising real market incomes and the changing scarcities of ecosystems 3.7.1 Background Humans derive various benefits from nature, such as through biodiversity, ecosystems, or ecosystem functioning. These benefits can manifest as tangible outputs, such as water and food, but also include cultural, recreational, and spiritual in- teractions that directly or indirectly influence human well- being (e.g. Pascual et al., 2023). Although assigning monetary values to the benefits hu- mans derived from ecosystem services involves numerous philosophical and practical challenges, as emphasized in Sect. 3.7, the alternative is often to consider no value at all in governmental planning processes such as benefit–cost analy- ses, leading to an underinvestment in ecosystems (Dasgupta and Treasury, 2022). Thus, already in 2010, at the 10th Con- ference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Di- versity in Japan, the international community agreed that the values of biodiversity needed to be integrated into planning processes (Aichi Target 2). In the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, this is reflected in Target 14: Inte- grate Biodiversity in Decision-Making at Every Level. One tangible approach to conceptualize these ecosystem service benefits is through the notion of ecosystem services that include both use and non-use values of nature. The val- ues in this category are anthropocentric, encompassing both instrumental and relational values (IPBES, 2019a). The con- tinuous loss of animal and plant species and their respective habitats leads to the loss of the services they provide. Gov- ernments often convert ecosystem services into monetary values to better reflect these ecosystem services in benefit– cost analyses, environmental–economic national accounting, or damage litigation processes (Bishop et al., 2017). 3.7.2 Challenges Governments around the world are currently looking for new approaches to appropriately assess the benefits from scarce ecosystems and their economic value. This is intended to as- sist in making the consequences of the destruction or the ben- efits of the conservation of nature more visible in analyses that underpin political decision-making processes and help with an economically efficient and environmentally effective allocation of tight governmental budgets. For now, calculation methods of nature’s values incor- porate – if at all – solely the monetary value of ecosys- tem services as determined under current conditions (Drupp et al., 2024), which means that nature becomes relatively less valuable over time compared to other goods and services whose value increases with the expected rise in global eco- nomic prosperity. In fact, our appreciation of nature also in- creases over time as we get wealthier and ecosystems become scarcer. Two factors play a key role in this changing value of scarce ecosystems over time. The prosperity of the world’s population is expected to rise – by an estimated inflation- adjusted 2 % per year (Müller et al., 2022) – and as house- hold incomes increase, people will be willing to pay more to conserve nature and enjoy its services in the future. In addi- tion, as the services provided by ecosystems become scarcer, this will further increase their value to society. The fact that scarce goods become more expensive is a fundamental prin- ciple in economics, and it also applies to nature’s values. 3.7.3 Offering solutions Drupp et al. (2024) provide governments with a ready-to- use formula to estimate the future economic values of scarce ecosystem services that can be used in decision-making pro- cesses. The formula scrutinizes up-to-date evidence on the so-called relative price change of non-market environmen- tal goods (e.g. Hoel and Sterner, 2007; Sterner and Persson, 2008; Drupp and Hänsel, 2021) and recommends consider- ing nature’s values to increase proportionally with real mar- ket income. This is in line with what governmental bodies use to value reductions in mortality risk or travel time. As a result, if only the expected increases in income over the next 100 years were taken into account, the value of global ecosystems would have to increase by more than 130 %. This holds for stagnating ecosystems. If ecosystems are projected to decline or degrade further, the value adjustment needs to be higher still. In the case of endangered species, as captured in the prominent Red List Index, for instance, the value ad- https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-2425-2025 Biogeosciences, 22, 2425–2460, 2025 2440 F. J. Bohn et al.: Current perspectives on biosphere research 2024–2025 justment would amount to more than 180 %. Accounting for these effects would thus increase the likelihood of projects that conserve ecosystem services to pass a benefit–cost test. Drupp and Hänsel (2021) apply the formula to the evalu- ation of global climate policy. Economists typically use in- tegrated climate–economy assessment models, such as the DICE model developed by Nobel Laureate William Nord- haus, to evaluate the trade-offs between mitigation costs and avoided damages from climate change and to estimate the required CO2 prices (Nordhaus, 2019). A key criticism lev- elled at these models is that they do not appropriately capture the loss of nature’s services and thus underestimate climate damages. Drupp and Hänsel (2021) disentangle how non- market goods and services, such as environmental amenities, are captured within these models and explicitly account for this based on an empirical analysis of fundamental drivers of the relative price effect of non-market goods. They find that the social costs of climate change increase by more than 50 %, suggesting substantially higher economically optimal CO2 prices (see also Sect. 3.6). The increase in the economi- cally optimal global mean temperature change is accordingly reduced by half a degree Celsius, which highlights the impor- tance of accounting for the scarcity of nature when evaluating climate policy. 3.8 Convivial conservation principles 3.8.1 Background Convivial conservation is a new “vision, a politics and a set of governance principles for the future of conservation” (Büscher and Fletcher, 2019, p. 284). Through its focus on “living with” biodiversity within planetary boundaries, it aligns with transformative action for climate change (Pört- ner et al., 2021b). Grounded in political ecology, it fore- grounds the political economy as a significant constraint to transformative conservation. Political ecology is inherently cross-scalar, charting connections from global to local while emphasizing the importance of history and power relations (Watts, 2017). Furthermore, convivial conservation allies it- self with social and environmental movements (e.g. Indige- nous and decolonial). It proposes a long-term, holistic, “post- capitalist approach to conservation that promotes radical eq- uity, structural transformation, and environmental justice and thus contributes to an overarching movement to create a more equal and sustainable world” (Büscher and Fletcher, 2019, p. 283). 3.8.2 Challenges Convivial conservation responds to two dominant conserva- tion agendas. The first is “new conservation”, which breaks with a long-standing fixation on “pristine wilderness” seen as separate from humans and instead promotes integration into human development (Sullivan, 2006; Buscher and Fletcher, 2020; Kareiva et al., 2011; Marris, 2013), but it does not address the harmful capitalist model of economic develop- ment that underpins biodiversity loss (e.g. tourism or pay- ments for ecosystem services). The second approach, neo- protectionism, tries to completely separate nature from hu- man development, calling for an expansion of conventional “fortress”-style protected areas, and therefore reinforces the dichotomies between nature and culture (Hutton et al., 2005; Wuerthner et al., 2015; Buscher and Fletcher, 2020). Al- though new conservation moves beyond these dualisms, it looks to market mechanisms to fund and save nature (e.g. payments for ecosystem services, ecotourism), creating other social and environmental problems. Convivial conservation proposes that both approaches have limitations, as inherited from the philosophies and global development models that drive the intertwined biodiversity and climate crises. 3.8.3 Offering solutions The specific contribution of long-term convivial conservation is that it aims to produce integrated nature–culture spaces within post-capitalist conservation strategies. At its core, it investigates and challenges dominant global political– economic structures, assumptions, beliefs, and knowledge production systems, “including those that are the foundation of paradigms of economic growth and adaptation without limits” (O’Brien and Barnett, 2013, p. 385). Convivial conservation is gaining traction in research, pol- icy, and practice (Massarella et al., 2023; Ochieng et al., 2023): “There is widespread agreement that our current re- ality of global, human-induced ecosystemic and climatic change presents stark challenges for conservation” (Büscher and Fletcher, 2019, p. 285). At the same time, breaking through the hegemony of protectionist neo-liberal conserva- tion (Fletcher, 2023) is also the greatest challenge for con- vivial conservation. To further address this challenge, a man- ifesto was developed that outlines 10 core principles of con- vivial conservation. We summarize key elements of these principles here; for a complete overview of all 10 principles, we refer to the manifesto website (Centre, 2024). Humans have always shaped the ecosystems in which they live, co-producing diverse landscapes that in turn have shaped and supported people. However, mainstream conser- vation interventions often separate people from their sur- rounding ecosystems based on the unfounded assumption that local communities threaten biodiversity (Brockington et al., 2012). The question is not whether people should live with the rest of nature but how (see Sect. 3.5). International and regional inequality contributes to the de- struction of global commons necessitating equitable steward- ship of ecosystems, centred on those who live within them. Nurturing extra-local commons, institutions and economies based on values of care would help cross-generational and cross-scale conviviality. Convivial conservation challenges dominant top-down forms of political power and advocates Biogeosciences, 22, 2425–2460, 2025 https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-2425-2025 F. J. Bohn et al.: Current perspectives on biosphere research 2024–2025 2441 for inclusive decision-making processes, in particular for those dependent on the ecosystems in question (Lanjouw, 2021). All decisions that can be reached effectively at the local level should be with higher-level processes that sup- port local autonomy and intervene only when necessary (e.g. Gokkon, 2018, see also Sect. 3.6). Emphasizing only the monetary valuation of biodiver- sity can be counterproductive. Instruments such as payments for ecosystem services, REDD+, and carbon credits use the logic of the problem (capitalist accumulation through the use of natural resources as the logic of the solution; Fletcher, 2023). This conflicts with convivial co-existence between humans and non-humans and can undermine other non-monetary ways of valuing nature. It is crucial to support existing livelihoods rather than (further) forcing locals into exploitative external markets. Moreover, mechanisms to re- distribute existing wealth and resources would preclude the need to finance conservation through environmentally harm- ful economic growth (Moranta et al., 2022). Protected areas have usually relied on paradigms based on positivist scientific knowledge at the expense of rich lo- cal and Indigenous philosophies, histories, and practices. However, many different other ways of knowing and prac- tical ways of being in relation to the world such as Ubuntu (Mabele et al., 2022), Buen Vivir, and Eco-Swaraj promote life through mutual care and sharing between humans and non-humans, discouraging individualism and unsustainable extraction (Dickson-Hoyle et al., 2022). This diversity of knowledge must be valued (Orlove et al., 2023). Too often, those who live in or close to conservation areas are expected to change their behaviour the most (Brockington et al., 2012; Merino and Gustafsson, 2021). However, large industrial extractive practices and high- consumption lifestyles drive disproportionate loss of biodi- versity. Nonetheless, these people and organizations are not perceived as causative agents because they are far from con- servation spaces or too powerful to influence (Wiedmann et al., 2020). Conservationists should challenge both the regimes that indulge in human rights violations and displace- ment in the name of biodiversity and the rights of global or national elites to control or hinder conservation efforts (see also Sect. 3.6). Some examples where (core elements of) convivial con- servation are already visible are the broader investigation of a conservation basic income (CBI) (Fletcher and Büscher, 2020; de Lange et al., 2023), early results of which show a promising reduction of logging in the Amazon (Hyolmo, 2025), or human–wildlife cohabitation that is grounded in a strong bottom-up approach. A clear example of the latter, focused on human–bear cohabitation in Bulgaria, was inves- tigated by Toncheva et al. (2022). 4 Synthesis The eight themes introduced above highlight complex inter- relationships within the biosphere and their connections to social and economic systems, and as well as to the Earth system. It is evident that various vicious cycles exist. For example, changes in temperature and precipitation patterns as a result of climate change and deforestation can lead to lower agricultural yields and increased fires. This increases pressure on ecosystems and local people, who depend on nature and face challenges in maintaining their livelihoods and meeting the demand for resources and products in the global market. The provision of various commodities under current trading paradigms and subsidy schemes further fuels climate change, ecosystem degradation, and deforestation. In addition to identifying interdependence between these chal- lenges, our eight themes offer four overarching insights into escape hatches from such cycles. 4.1 Improve mechanisms of inclusive decision-making The involvement of diverse stakeholders, including civil soci- ety, Indigenous peoples, local communities, and private sec- tor actors, enriches decision-making by incorporating a vari- ety of perspectives and fostering support for innovative solu- tions (Sect. 3.6). For example, the concept of “blue justice” advocates for the rights and recognition of small-scale fish- ers, challenging their marginalization and empowering them within the regions they inhabit, fostering ecosystem stew- ardship (Sect. 3.1). Similarly, the integration of indigenous knowledge and governance has proven valuable in improving fire management strategies and promoting biodiversity and fire-resilient ecosystems (Sect. 3.3). Such approaches pro- mote equitable and resilient outcomes that align conserva- tion efforts with sustainable development goals (Sect. 3.6). In addition, decision-makers from adjacent ecosystems should sometimes be involved as, for example, upstream land-based activities have significant impacts on coastal ecosystems (Sect. 3.1). Raising public awareness through education campaigns and fostering collaboration enables a holistic approach to en- vironmental challenges (Sect. 3.1, 3.3, 3.8). Various knowl- edge systems, such as Ubuntu, Buen Vivir, and Eco-Swaraj, emphasize mutual care and sustainable relationships between humans and non-humans. These frameworks discourage in- dividualism and overexploitation while promoting sustain- able living. Incorporating such world views into decision- making processes is essential for sustainable and effective governance (Sect. 3.8). Comprehensive policy packages need to integrate environ- mental, economic, and social dimensions to address the root causes of environmental degradation and to promote sus- tainability (Sect. 3.6). These packages should encourage the adoption of cleaner technologies and provide incentives for the conservation and restoration of ecosystems. Initiatives https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-2425-2025 Biogeosciences, 22, 2425–2460, 2025 2