Red lists provide critical knowledge regarding biodiversity decline, especially in Finland, where broad assessments have been made regularly since the 1980s. They deliver information on the threat status of species and ecosystems, propose actions to guide conservation policy, and have the potential to spur transformative change. We examined whether the transformative potential of the proposals has changed over time. We analyzed the contents qualitatively and quantitatively of seven Finnish Red Lists of Species or Ecosystems from 1986 to 2019. We used a prior analysis of transformative potential of conservation actions in the Conservation Measures Partnership classification (such as outreach or conservation designation and planning), which identified Meadows' sustainability leverage points (i.e., in complex systems, a point at which a small change can lead to large changes) associated with each action category. We also determined the number of proposals that overlapped with sectors beyond conservation. We used a nonparametric Mann-Kendall trend test and linear models to analyze temporal trends in the data. Cross-sectoral proposals increased over time, but there was only a small shift toward actions that influenced the root causes of biodiversity loss (i.e., deep leverage actions). In the qualitative assessment of how the actions were proposed to be implemented, actions became more complex and effectiveness of implementation increased, demonstrating a change within conservation action categories toward deeper leverage points. This increasing transformative potential can be a catalyst and a consequence of broader societal change driven by ongoing biodiversity loss. Red lists could play a role in transformative change, but the engagement of actors across society in devising action proposals must be inclusive and cover expertise from the social sciences and humanities. Our results emphasize the importance of considering complementary dimensions of transformative change simultaneously to achieve a comprehensive understanding of viable paths to societal change.

Systematic conservation planning (SCP) is an operational and scientific framework that assists in deciding where, how, and when to implement conservation intervention. Studies using SCP approaches have proliferated due to their immediate relevance for applied conservation. For example, they can help identify cost-effective opportunities for expanding areas under conservation management to achieve high-level policy goals such as those of the Global Biodiversity Framework. Yet SCP can be conducted in various ways, and results can vary depending on problem formulation, parameterizations, contexts, and prioritization approaches. There is a need to facilitate comparison of SCP studies to understand key criteria and assumptions made in the planning process. Here, we propose a standardized reporting protocol for SCP that is readily applicable across study aims, realms, and spatial scales. The new Overview and Design Protocol for Systematic Conservation Planning (ODPSCP) describes the key steps from the design to the computational stages of SCP. It enables researchers, scientific editors, and decision- and policymakers to assess the scope and comprehensiveness of SCP exercises. To facilitate uptake and ease of reporting, the protocol is openly available through an interactive web interface and which can be further enhanced following methodological advancements in conservation planning. We encourage the conservation community to adopt the reporting protocol to promote transparency and reproducibility, standardized reporting as well as facilitate peer review and independent evaluation.

The Red Lists provide critical knowledge regarding biodiversity decline, especially in Finland where broad assessments have been made regularly since the 1980’s. They deliver information on the threat status of species or ecosystems, but also proposals for action. We analyzed the contents of the proposals for action in seven Finnish Red Lists of Species or Habitats for their transformative potential. Our analysis framework was based on a prior assessment linking the Conservation action classification by the Conservation Measures Partnership to the Meadows’ sustainability leverage points, complemented with cross-sectorality of the proposals. According to statistical analyses, the number of cross-sectoral proposals increased, while action categories proposed did not change toward deeper leverage points. However, qualitative assessment of the way in which the actions where proposed showed a trend toward more complex ensembles of actions and effectiveness of implementation. The following growing transformative potential is likely both a driver and a consequence of a broader societal change, driven by the ongoing biodiversity loss. Yet, recent mainstreaming efforts have often failed to reach the deepest leverage points and the root causes of the crisis. Red Lists clearly have a role to play in transformative change, but the engagement of actors across the society in devising the action proposals could be even broader and include scientific expertise beyond natural sciences to achieve deeper leverage points. Our results also emphasize the importance of considering complementary theories of transformative change simultaneously to achieve an in-depth understanding of viable paths toward societal change.

Global biodiversity loss is showing no signs of slowing down. Two broad studies have attempted to analyse where conservation efforts have failed and succeeded, with seemingly contrasting results.

Amid global environmental crises threatening the survival of many species, including our own, a diverse group of scientists from 15 countries and members of 16 professional and academic societies, concerned with the current global environmental crisis met in February 2024 to address the urgent need to reflect on, and identify, our core values and responsibilities as individual professionals and as academic societies. We invited fellow professionals to join this conversation and we share here the result of this discussion, which was informed by: i) our professional experiences; ii) a scoping review of the mission and vision statements of 73 professional ecological societies from across the globe, including codes of ethics and statements of values for researchers and professionals, and several statements that other professions use to guide their practice; and iii) direct conversations with people facing environmental crises in the vicinity of Conguillío National Park, in Chile, where our meeting was held.

The human impact on nature has now reached a level at which the well-being of future human society is at risk. Therefore, transformative change in society is needed. Environmental assessments contribute to shaping environmental policy, potentially leveraging transformative change. Red Lists are a key information source on the state of biodiversity. Our aim was to study the Red List authors' perceptions of how Red Lists contribute to leveraging sustainability changes. We interviewed 15 of the authors of the forest and peatland sections of the Finnish Red List of Ecosystems 2018. We used the framework of sustainability leverage points to locate sustainability changes that Red Lists have leveraged in the social part of the Finnish social-ecological system. Our results show how the assessors perceived the influence of the Red Lists at most of the leverage points, including the deepest ones, and how these influences simultaneously co-exist in several leverage points. The most prominent sustainability changes were linked with legislation and information flows, whereas current paradigms, system goals and legislation appeared to prevent Red Lists from leveraging sustainability changes in Finland. We conclude that the production and dissemination processes of Red List knowledge can make an important contribution to sustainability changes.

Transformative change can help achieve the 2050 vision of biodiversity, but concrete ways to achieve it are only being discovered. To contribute to the understanding of the practical options for concrete action to foster, accelerate and maintain the transformative change , we assessed the leverage potential of existing conservation actions using the Meadows’ Leverage points framework. We took the actions from the Conservation Actions Classification by the Conservation Measures Partnership. The outcome is a scheme that evaluates at which leverage points, from simple parameters to paradigms, the different conservation actions have potential to make an impact, and thus impact systemic change. We found that all conservation actions have potential to leverage systemic transformative change, with varying coverage of the leverage points. All leverage points were addressed by several actions. The scheme could be used both as an interim tool for evaluating transformative potential in different broad datasets, but also help with planning of new conservation policies, interventions and projects. We hope our work could be a first step toward standardization and broader adoption of assessing leverage in conservation research and practice, achieving broader socio-ecological system leverage with conservation tools.

The main role of flagship species in biodiversity conservation is to raise awareness and funds for conservation. Because of their marketing role, flagship species are often selected based on other than biodiversity related criteria, such as species charisma or aesthetic appeal. Nonetheless, funds raised through flagship species are often used to protect the species itself, making it important to evaluate the effectiveness of flagship species as conservation tools: For example, could superior fundraising ability outweigh the low biodiversity surrogate power of a flagship, justifying this ambivalent role in conservation? To assess flagship effectiveness from this dual perspective, we must synthesize evidence on a) the fundraising potential of flagship species vs. other conservation targets, such as ecosystems or biodiversity, and b) the biodiversity surrogate power of potential flagship taxa. We approached this broad topic through an overview of reviews on both subtopics. We found no evidence that charismatic flagship species were superior fundraisers over other conservation targets. In addition, studies evaluating the biodiversity surrogacy power of different taxa had mainly resulted in mixed findings, contesting the overall usefulness of the concept in conservation. The variability of study setups and methods made comparisons between studies difficult, highlighting the need to standardize future research (e.g., standardizing explanatory variables). Further possible reasons for lack of conclusive evidence on fundraising potential are the dominance of factors other than flagship identity (e.g., scope and conservation status) and differences in donor preferences. We recommend Environmental NGOs to develop and diversify their fundraising strategies based on best available knowledge, and rely less on mere species charisma.

Environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs) appeal to private donors for conservation fundraising, often employing single species flagships as their fundraising strategy. Previous studies suggest that donor preferences vary, and can be divided into segments. Just as preferences towards species can vary, preferences towards different flagship types may also differ. Thus, opportunities may exist to enhance the use of other flagship types such as flagship fleets, ecosystems or biodiversity in fundraising. Although previous studies have found that aesthetic appeal, locality or threat status can explain the decision to donate, it is unclear how these attributes influence choices between flagship types. We conducted a discrete choice experiment on donor preferences towards different flagship types in the United Kingdom (n = 380) and the United States (n = 374), and explored how flagship attributes and socio-demographic variables affect potential donors' choices. Latent class modeling revealed seven donor segments in both countries that varied in their preferences of flagship types and attributes, as well as in their price-sensitivity. Some segments were similar for both countries, but the US segments were more polarized regarding price-sensitivity. Most respondents favored biodiversity targets in their choices, and ecosystems were more popular than species-based flagships. To enhance their fundraising capacity, ENGOs should extend their donation targets beyond flagship species, and develop more targeted marketing strategies for different audiences. Our research also demonstrates the need for further research to examine respondents' characteristics, such as personal values or environmental concern, which would allow more precisely targeted marketing to specific donor segments, e.g. through social media channels.

The concept of National responsibility species (NRS) was developed to coordinate the conservation efforts of species occurring in multiple countries. Calculated as the fraction of the global species' distribution within a country, it measures the contribution of a local population to global survival of the species. However, there may be more co-occurring species in one region than another, making the conservation of a species more cost-efficient in the first than the latter. If cost-efficient resource allocation is the goal, then identifying NRS should also be based on spatial priorities. We propose that a species is considered NRS when a large part of its distribution falls within high priority areas in a country. We identify NRS from spatial conservation prioritization outputs to (1) maximize the overall cost-efficiency of allocation of conservation resources and (2) to provide information about which species the spatial priorities are based on. We analyzed data on vertebrates in the Birds and Habitats directives in the EU28 countries and compared the traditional NRS measure to three alternative strategies. While the majority of species maintained their NRS status in most countries regardless of the approach, differences occurred, with varying numbers and identities of responsibility species in a country, or responsibilities for species shifting between countries. The differences were largest in geographically marginal countries and for species that were distributed across a few countries. Other NRS approaches may also be useful, and the choice of approach should ultimately depend on the purpose and complement information on conservation status in decision-making.

Environmental non‐governmental organizations (ENGOs) largely select flagship species for conservation marketing based on their aesthetic appeal. However, little is known about the fundraising effectiveness of this approach or how it compares to ecosystem conservation campaigns that use habitat types as flagships. By performing a willingness to donate (WTD) survey of potential online donors from Finland, we identified which motivations and donor characteristics influence their preferences for a range of different flagship species and ecosystems. Using the contingent valuation method and the payment card approach, we found the combined funding for eight mammal flagship species was 29% higher funding than for eight bird flagship species. Furthermore, the aesthetically more appealing species, as well as the species and ecosystems that are native to Finland, attracted the most funding. We then used ordinal logistic regression to identify the factors influencing a donor's WTD, finding that knowledge of biodiversity conservation and familiarity with the flagship was associated with an increased WTD to birds and ecosystems, and people with higher education levels had an increased WTD to ecosystems. Surprisingly, species aesthetic appeal was not related to an increased WTD, although “need of conservation” was, suggesting that highlighting the plight of these less appealing threatened species or ecosystems could raise money. Our results suggest that the factors driving donating to mammals, birds or ecosystems differ, and so underline the importance of considering the diverse motivations behind donation behaviour in fundraising campaigns. They also provide new evidence of the motivations of online donors, an under‐studied group who are likely to become an increasingly important source of conservation funding.

The amount of High Nature Value farmland (HNVf) is a commonly used environmental indicator for assessing the performance of the Common Agricultural Policy, to support sustainable agriculture and monitor changes in agricultural land use in Europe. HNVf comprises agricultural areas of semi-natural state, low-intensity farming and fine-scale landscape mosaics of different habitat types. For a successful implementation, the identification of HNVf should correctly reflect the variation in biodiversity values between different agricultural landscapes. We examined how well the Finnish HNVf indicator and the sub-indicators constituting it recalculated for the purposes of this study for five study regions reflect the variation in bird and butterfly species richness and diversity patterns at different spatial scales. We found that butterfly diversity index was positively associated with the HNVf indicator at the finest scale of 0.5 km x 0.5 km squares. Among the HNVf sub-indicators, extensive cultivation of grasslands was most strongly related to the farmland bird diversity and the density of edge to the butterfly diversity. Thus, the HNVf concept reflects well the distribution of butterflies in the Finnish agricultural landscapes but insufficiently the diversity patterns of farmland birds. Importantly, semi-natural vegetation and long-term pastures the backbone of the concept presently occur in small and highly fragmented patches in agricultural landscapes in Finland. The Pan-European concept of HNVf has restricted application to farmland birds of this boreal country and the national HNVf concept may need to be revised.

Recent actions to mitigate biodiversity loss in agricultural environments appear insufficient despite the considerable efforts channeled via the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy. One likely reason for this failure is the limited attention paid to the regional and landscape level ecological characteristics in farmland conservation planning. We demonstrate how to obtain conservation prioritization solutions that would address simultaneously three goals, including two landscape level targets: minimizing local habitat quality loss, maximizing habitat connectivity, and incorporating landscape heterogeneity. As these goals may be contradictory, we investigate the potential trade-offs between them. We used the Zonation prioritization tool to examine how our three goals could be implemented in the agricultural landscapes of southwest Finland. We used measures of (i) biodiversity value of grasslands, (ii) connectivity between grasslands, and (iii) landscape heterogeneity which comprised of (land cover type based) compositional heterogeneity and (field margin based) configurational heterogeneity. Integration of landscape heterogeneity measures and habitat connectivity resulted in some trade-offs with local habitat quality, the most prominent observation being that landscape heterogeneity co-varied with grassland connectivity. Among the two landscape heterogeneity parameters, inclusion of compositional heterogeneity resulted in more clustered prioritization solutions than configurational heterogeneity, which had a spatially more balanced impact. Concordance among landscape scale factors implies high potential for reconstruction of a functioning network of semi-natural grasslands in areas under intensive agricultural use. Broader scale multi-objective planning approaches can thus importantly support targeting biodiversity conservation planning and mediating the implementation of Common Agricultural Policy objectives.