In 2015, more than 200,000 saiga antelopes died in 3 weeks in central Kazakhstan. The proximate cause of death is confirmed as hemorrhagic septicemia caused by the bacterium Pasteurella multocida type B, based on multiple strands of evidence. Statistical modeling suggests that there was unusually high relative humidity and temperature in the days leading up to the mortality event; temperature and humidity anomalies were also observed in two previous similar events in the same region. The modeled influence of environmental covariates is consistent with known drivers of hemorrhagic septicemia. Given the saiga population’s vulnerability to mass mortality and the likely exacerbation of climate-related and environmental stressors in the future, management of risks to population viability such as poaching and viral livestock disease is urgently needed, as well as robust ongoing veterinary surveillance. A multidisciplinary approach is needed to research mass mortality events under rapid environmental change.

The ongoing refugee crisis in Europe has seen many countries rush to construct border security fencing to divert or control the flow of people. This follows a trend of border fence construction across Eurasia during the post-9/11 era. This development has gone largely unnoticed by conservation biologists during an era in which, ironically, transboundary cooperation has emerged as a conservation paradigm. These fences represent a major threat to wildlife because they can cause mortality, obstruct access to seasonally important resources, and reduce effective population size. We summarise the extent of the issue and propose concrete mitigation measures.

Rapid declines in biodiversity necessitate global action and spatial tools that can inform how to set and implement action for new conservation targets. GIScience (the science of geographic information systems, or GIS) has proven useful for conservation decision‐making, driving the development of new data, tools, and mapping solutions. Combined with urgent conservation needs, it is an ideal time to examine additional opportunities to advance a geographic approach to conservation. Here, we outline a hierarchy of needs that should be prioritized to ensure that GIScience and geography can support the new, and growing, wave of global conservation targets. Based on a participatory workshop involving conservation and GIS researchers and practitioners, we recommend six actions organized around three themes: platforms, personnel, and partnerships. Those six actions include: (1) build standard platforms for data sharing and maintenance; (2) design predictive models for decision support; (3) develop open educational materials that stress problem solving; (4) infuse co‐design into courses and learning materials; (5) support a GIS Conservation Corp and culture; and (6) sustain engagement across academia and practice. Implementing this agenda will lead to bridged knowledge systems, greater trust in spatial evidence, new funding pathways, and durable connections between spatial scientists, conservationists, and decision‐makers translating geospatial innovation into measurable biodiversity gains.

Conservation areas are critical for tackling the global environmental crisis¹. These sites are reported as covering 18.5% of the terrestrial realm² and governments have committed through Global Biodiversity Framework Target 3 to increase this to at least 30% by 2030 (ref. ³). There are concerns that this potential near-doubling of conservation area coverage will negatively affect vulnerable people and over-stretch conservation resources⁴. However, nationally available datasets indicate that more conservation areas exist than are reflected in global figures^5,6,7. We evaluated progress towards the area component of Target 3 using a globally representative sample across 25 countries and territories that incorporated these national datasets⁸. Extrapolating from this sample, we show that conservation areas likely already cover 26.81% of the terrestrial realm. We may be much closer to achieving 30% terrestrial coverage than previously thought. However, we also show that the extra land does not substantially address gaps in ecological representativeness, indicating that solely meeting the area component of Target 3 will do little to solve continuing global biodiversity loss. More focus and resources are needed to achieve the other components of the target, using a more strategic and inclusive approach to fill present gaps and produce equitable and effective conservation area networks.