50% Conservation by 2050: A Survival Pact for BRICS and Australia

Few doubt that as a species we are at a crossroads. We can carry on stumbling along capitalism’s blind trajectory as our planet’s precious biodiversity continues to decline, climate change intensifies, wild weather and wildfires increase and human life becomes more marginal, or, we can make changes that can restore life on planet earth and experience an enhanced quality of living. This article speaks to the latter proposal. Blessings to all Beings- Kevin Parker- Site Publisher

The mathematics are stark: protecting 50% of Earth’s land and oceans could save 80% of all species from extinction, while current protection levels—averaging just 16% globally—guarantee a cascade of ecological collapse that would cost the world economy $2.7 trillion annually by 2030.^1 The Nature Needs Half Coalition, building on E.O. Wilson’s groundbreaking species-area relationship research, presents not an idealistic vision but a scientific imperative backed by decades of evidence showing that ecosystems lose critical life-support functions after more than half their area is destroyed.^2 For the BRICS nations—Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—plus Australia, which collectively steward over 40% of Earth’s landmass and much of its remaining wilderness, the choice between protecting half or losing most represents perhaps the most consequential decision of this century.

The coalition’s target emerges from a mathematical relationship as elegant as it is urgent: the species-area curve demonstrates that protecting 10% of habitat saves approximately 50% of species, but protecting 50% saves 80%—a nonlinear benefit that makes half-Earth protection the minimum threshold for preventing mass extinction.^3 With one million species currently threatened, extinction rates running 100 to 1,000 times higher than natural background levels, and wildlife populations having declined 73% since 1970, the scientific consensus is unequivocal: incremental protection targets of 10-30% are insufficient to prevent ecosystem collapse.^4 The BRICS nations and Australia, home to five of the world’s 36 biodiversity hotspots and governing territories from the Amazon rainforest to the Great Barrier Reef, hold the keys to planetary survival.

The Science Makes Clear What’s at Stake

E.O. Wilson’s species-area relationship, expressed as S = cA^z where species number increases predictably with area, provides the mathematical foundation for the 50% target. This isn’t arbitrary—it’s the point where conservation efficiency peaks dramatically.^5 Historical precedent supports this threshold: ecologists Odum and Odum first proposed in 1972 that 50% of regions must remain natural to maintain ecosystem services, a finding repeatedly validated through subsequent research showing that natural landscapes lose critically needed functions after more than half is destroyed.^6 For fragile ecosystems like rainforests, the threshold rises to 75-80% protection needed to maintain ecological integrity.

The current extinction crisis validates these predictions with terrifying precision. Since 1500, we’ve documented over 711 vertebrate extinctions, with 400 of these occurring in just the past century—a rate that would naturally occur over 10,000 years.^7 The Living Planet Report documents a 73% average decline in wildlife populations since 1970, with freshwater species down 83% and Latin American populations crashing by 95%.^8 These aren’t just statistics—they represent the unraveling of ecological networks that took millions of years to evolve and cannot be reconstructed once lost.

What makes the BRICS nations and Australia so critical is their disproportionate share of Earth’s remaining biodiversity. Brazil alone harbors 10% of all species on Earth and contains the Amazon rainforest, which stores enough carbon to trigger catastrophic climate change if released.^9 China supports 10% of plant species and 14% of animal species despite having heavily modified much of its landscape.^10 India’s Western Ghats and Himalayas constitute two global biodiversity hotspots. Russia’s vast taiga, larger than the Amazon, represents the world’s largest intact forest.^11 South Africa ranks as the third-most biodiverse country terrestrially, with marine endemism reaching 33%.^12 Australia’s isolation has produced evolutionary marvels found nowhere else—85% of its flowering plants, 84% of its mammals, and 89% of its inshore fish are endemic.^13

Current Protection Falls Dangerously Short Across Six Nations

The conservation ledger reveals a stark gap between current protection and the 50% threshold across all six nations. Brazil leads with 34% terrestrial protection, bolstered by vast Amazonian reserves, yet even this falls short of the half needed. Russia protects just 11.45% despite containing more wilderness than any other nation.^14 India claims 22% protection but faces intense pressure from 1.4 billion people.^15 China protects approximately 15% while systematic planning identifies 34.3% as priority conservation areas—highlighting the gap between need and reality.^16 South Africa protects merely 8% of its land despite being a biodiversity superpower.^17 Australia achieves 22.57% terrestrial protection, with Indigenous Protected Areas comprising nearly half this total.^18

These percentages mask deeper challenges. Protected areas often exist only on paper, with less than 20% of countries assessing management effectiveness.^19 Connectivity between protected areas—essential for species movement and genetic exchange—remains abysmal, with only 9.7% of Earth’s protected areas structurally connected.^20 The funding gap yawns at $18 billion annually just to manage existing protected areas effectively, while achieving 50% protection would require unprecedented investment and political will.

Yet hidden within these statistics lies tremendous opportunity. Brazil’s Indigenous territories, covering 40 million hectares in the Amazon, show deforestation rates 2-3 times lower than government-protected areas.^21 Russia’s wetlands, covering 1.8 million square kilometers, represent the world’s largest and could anchor continental-scale conservation.^22 India’s sacred groves and community forests demonstrate that conservation can coexist with dense human populations.^23 China’s new national park system, covering an area two-thirds the size of America’s entire park system, shows how quickly protection can scale with political commitment.^24 South Africa’s successful black rhino recovery—from 2,400 to 6,421 individuals since 1995—proves that focused conservation works.^25 Australia’s Indigenous Protected Areas, expanding from 2% to 11% of the landmass in just 20 years, offer a replicable model for rapid conservation expansion.^26

The Economic Case Overwhelms Any Argument for Inaction

The World Bank’s sobering calculation that ecosystem collapse could cost $2.7 trillion annually by 2030 represents just the beginning of economic arguments for conservation.^27 Low-income countries face potential GDP declines of 10% annually, with Sub-Saharan Africa projected to lose 9.7% and South Asia 6.5% of GDP from ecosystem service loss.^28 The six nations examined here would suffer disproportionately—their economies depend heavily on functioning ecosystems for agriculture, tourism, fisheries, and climate regulation.

Consider the positive side of the ledger. Global terrestrial ecosystem services are valued at $147 trillion annually, with Brazil, China, and Russia among the top five countries by ecosystem service value.^29 Australia’s nature-based tourism generates $78.1 billion annually, employing 713,000 people.^30 International visitors spend $2.6 billion on Australian birdwatching alone. China’s protected areas contribute $3,000-20,000 per household through ecotourism.^31 Brazil’s sustainable agriculture potential could add $40 billion to GDP while stronger environmental protections could unlock $72 billion in economic benefits.

The return on conservation investment proves compelling across all metrics. Australia’s Indigenous Protected Areas show a $2.70 return for every dollar invested.^32 Public willingness to pay for indigenous environmental services in Australia ranges from $878 million to $2 billion annually—50 times current government investment.^33 In Brazil, indigenous land protection yields $523-1,165 billion in benefits over 20 years against just 1% of costs for securing land tenure.^34 Carbon sequestration through indigenous land protection costs just $2.04-11.88 per tonne of CO2 compared to $58-85 for industrial carbon capture.^35

Nature-positive transitions could unlock $10 trillion in annual business value globally while creating 395 million jobs by 2030.^36 The BRICS New Development Bank has already mobilized $32 billion for climate and sustainability projects since 2016, with 40% targeting environmental conservation.^37 The world’s first Wildlife Conservation Bond, a $150 million instrument for South African rhino conservation, demonstrates how innovative financing can align profit with protection.^38

Indigenous Stewardship Proves Conservation Works with Communities

Australia’s Indigenous Protected Areas cover 74 million hectares—nearly half the National Reserve System—while achieving equal or superior biodiversity outcomes compared to government-managed parks.^39 This isn’t coincidental: indigenous peoples protect 80% of global biodiversity while comprising just 5% of the human population.^40 Their traditional ecological knowledge, accumulated over millennia, provides management practices that modern science is only beginning to understand and validate.^41

In Brazil’s Amazon, indigenous territories with secure land tenure show deforestation rates consistently 2-3 times lower than other management regimes.^42 These territories store massive amounts of forest carbon essential for climate stability. Traditional practices like controlled burning, agroforestry, and sustainable extraction maintain forest health while supporting livelihoods. Despite comprising a small fraction of Brazil’s population, indigenous communities are the Amazon’s most effective guardians.

The economic efficiency of indigenous management astounds. Land titling costs just $3-11 per hectare, while management costs run significantly lower than conventional protected areas.^43 Health benefits multiply these savings—diabetes, heart disease, and renal failure rates decrease when indigenous peoples engage in land management.^44 In Canada, Indigenous Guardian programs show $2.50 in social returns for every dollar invested.^45 First Nations-led carbon projects now comprise over 50% of the voluntary carbon market, generating sustainable revenue while protecting ecosystems.

Traditional ecological knowledge integration enhances conservation outcomes across all six nations. India’s sacred groves, protected by religious tradition for centuries, preserve biodiversity hotspots within densely populated landscapes.^46 Russia’s indigenous peoples maintain sustainable reindeer herding and forest stewardship practices across vast Arctic territories.^47 China’s Tibetan communities have protected snow leopard habitat for generations through traditional grazing management. South Africa’s indigenous knowledge of fire management and medicinal plants enriches scientific conservation approaches.^48

Climate Stability Depends on Achieving the 50% Target

Forests alone prevent more than 1°C of atmospheric warming—75% through carbon storage and 25% through cooling effects like evapotranspiration and cloud formation.^49 Tropical forests sequester 7.6 billion metric tonnes of CO2 annually, while temperate forests add billions more through biomass accumulation.^50 Wetlands store more carbon per unit area than any other ecosystem, with Canada’s boreal peatlands alone containing 150 billion tonnes—25% of the world’s peatland carbon.^51

The climate mitigation potential of achieving 50% protection would rival or exceed all technological solutions combined. Agriculture, forestry, and land use changes can provide 30% of emissions reductions needed to limit warming to 2°C.^52 Forest protection and restoration offer 7.3 gigatonnes of CO2-equivalent mitigation potential annually.^53 Better soil management through ecosystem protection could offset 5-20% of current global emissions. Protected areas in China already account for 64-66% of the nation’s total carbon sequestration.^54

Yet current climate commitments ignore this potential. Only 56% of global forest area and 13% of wetlands are covered by countries’ climate targets.^55 Brazil could achieve 60% of its climate goals through nature-based solutions alone. Ecuador could meet virtually its entire target through reforestation.^56 The disconnect between climate policy and ecosystem protection represents a massive missed opportunity to address both crises simultaneously.

BRICS nations are beginning to recognize this connection. The New Development Bank’s $40 billion climate portfolio increasingly targets ecosystem conservation.^57 Brazil’s proposed Tropical Forests Forever Facility aims to mobilize $1.3 trillion for forest protection.^58 China’s ecological redline policy protects areas crucial for both biodiversity and climate stability. Russia’s Arctic protection initiatives preserve permafrost that contains twice as much carbon as the atmosphere. These efforts demonstrate growing recognition that climate and biodiversity crises are inseparable.

Success Stories Demonstrate the Possible at Continental Scales

Brazil’s Amazon Region Protected Areas program protects 150 million acres—the world’s largest tropical forest conservation initiative.^59 Through innovative financing that secured $215 million for long-term management, this program created 62 protected areas while reducing deforestation by 80% from peak levels. The transformation from 27,400 square kilometers cleared annually to 4,800 represents one of humanity’s greatest conservation achievements.

Russia’s Land of the Leopard National Park showcases species recovery at its most dramatic. Amur tiger populations tripled from 9-10 to 30 individuals, surpassing global doubling goals.^60 Amur leopards, the world’s rarest big cats, rebounded from 30-40 to over 90 individuals. This 650,000-acre park proves that even critically endangered species can recover with proper protection and management.

India’s Project Tiger demonstrates conservation success at national scale. Tiger populations grew from 1,411 to 2,226—a 58% increase achieved through expanding reserves, community engagement, and intensive protection.^61 The Panna Tiger Reserve’s recovery from local extinction to carrying capacity within a decade shows that ecosystem restoration is possible even after apparent failure.

China’s giant panda recovery represents perhaps the most celebrated conservation success globally. Populations increased from 1,100 in the 1980s to nearly 1,900 today—a 73% rise that moved the species from “endangered” to “vulnerable” status.^62 The new Giant Panda National Park, three times Yellowstone’s size, protects 80% of wild pandas while conserving thousands of other species sharing their habitat.^63

South Africa’s black rhino recovery from 2,400 to 6,421 individuals proves that conservation works even for highly threatened species facing intense poaching pressure.^64 Private and community custodians now protect over 50% of Africa’s rhinos, demonstrating how diverse management approaches strengthen conservation outcomes. The world’s first Wildlife Conservation Bond ties investor returns to rhino population growth, creating market incentives for conservation.^65

Australia’s Great Barrier Reef, despite facing severe climate pressures, shows how massive-scale protection can build resilience. The 344,400-square-kilometer marine park—larger than Italy—protects 400 coral species and 1,500 fish species through sophisticated zoning that balances conservation with sustainable use.^66 The $5 billion Reef 2050 Plan represents one of the world’s largest conservation investments.

BRICS Cooperation Could Transform Global Conservation

The BRICS New Development Bank has already approved $32 billion for 96 projects since 2016, with 40% targeting climate and sustainability.^67 This represents just the beginning of potential BRICS conservation leadership. The bank’s recent expansion to 11 members and its pioneering use of local currency green bonds reduces foreign exchange risks while enabling cross-investment among developing nations.^68

The first-ever BRICS Framework Declaration on Climate Finance signals growing recognition that conservation and development are inseparable.^69 The proposed Tropical Forests Forever Fund could mobilize $1.3 trillion for forest protection—dwarfing all existing conservation financing.^70 With BRICS nations controlling vast wilderness areas and growing economic might, their cooperation could reshape global conservation.

Transboundary initiatives multiply conservation impact. The planned “Land of the Big Cats” park between Russia and China would protect critical habitat for Amur tigers and leopards across borders.^71 Technology transfer agreements enable countries to share satellite monitoring, camera trap networks, and genetic analysis techniques. The BRICS environmental ministerial declaration prioritizing ecosystem conservation, plastic pollution, and desertification shows expanding cooperation beyond climate alone.^72

Success breeds success through knowledge sharing. India’s community-based conservation model influences policy across the Global South.^73 Brazil’s satellite monitoring systems help other tropical nations track deforestation. South Africa’s rhino recovery techniques support conservation efforts across Africa. Australia’s Indigenous Protected Area model inspires indigenous-led conservation globally. When BRICS nations and Australia share what works, conservation scales exponentially.

The Choice Becomes Clear When All Evidence Aligns

The science is unequivocal: protecting 50% of Earth is the minimum threshold for preventing mass extinction and maintaining the ecosystem services upon which civilization depends. The economics are compelling: ecosystem service benefits far exceed conservation costs, while failure to act guarantees trillion-dollar losses. The precedents are proven: from Brazil’s Amazon protection to Russia’s tiger recovery, from India’s community conservation to Australia’s indigenous management, success stories demonstrate that rapid, large-scale conservation is achievable.

For BRICS nations and Australia, which collectively govern territories containing much of Earth’s remaining wilderness and biodiversity, the responsibility is proportional to the opportunity. These six nations could lead a global transformation that makes conservation profitable, sustainable, and socially just. With innovative financing mechanisms emerging, indigenous management models proven effective, and international cooperation frameworks strengthening, the tools for achieving the 50% target exist today.

The mathematics that opened this argument close it with equal force: protect half, save 80% of species and maintain ecosystem services worth $147 trillion annually. Protect less, guarantee accelerating extinction, ecosystem collapse, and economic catastrophe.^74 For the billion people directly dependent on wild ecosystems across these six nations, for the endemic species found nowhere else, for the climate stability that intact ecosystems provide, and for future generations who will inherit either a flourishing or failing planet, the choice could not be clearer. The Nature Needs Half Coalition offers not just a conservation target but a blueprint for planetary survival—one that BRICS nations and Australia are uniquely positioned to lead.^75

Notes

World Bank, “Protecting Nature Could Avert Global Economy Losses of $2.7 Trillion Per Year,” Press Release, July 1, 2021, accessed August 9, 2025.
Nature Needs Half, “Why 50%,” accessed August 9, 2025, https://natureneedshalf.org/why-50/.
Edward O. Wilson, Half-Earth: Our Planet’s Fight for Life (New York: Liveright, 2016), 45-47.
World Wildlife Fund, “Catastrophic 73% Decline in the Average Size of Global Wildlife Populations in Just 50 Years,” Living Planet Report 2024 (Gland: WWF, 2024), 12-15.
Wilson, Half-Earth, 52-55.
Eugene P. Odum and Howard T. Odum, “Natural Areas as Necessary Components of Man’s Total Environment,” Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 37 (1972): 178-189.
Gerardo Ceballos et al., “Accelerated Modern Human-Induced Species Losses: Entering the Sixth Mass Extinction,” Science Advances 1, no. 5 (2015): e1400253.
WWF, Living Planet Report 2024, 23-28.
Carlos A. Nobre et al., “Amazon Tipping Point: Last Chance for Action,” Science Advances 5, no. 12 (2019): eaba2949.
Keping Ma, “China’s Biodiversity Conservation Research in Progress,” Biological Conservation 262 (2021): 109342.
Dmitry G. Zamolodchikov, “Forest Resources and Forest Carbon Stock in Russia,” Silva Fennica 46, no. 4 (2012): 597-616.
Thomas B. Smith et al., “Biodiversity Hotspots and Beyond: The Need for Preserving Environmental Transitions,” Trends in Ecology & Evolution 16, no. 8 (2001): 431.
Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, “Australia’s Biodiversity,” State of the Environment Report 2021 (Canberra: DCCEEW, 2021), 45-48.
IndexMundi, “Russia – Terrestrial Protected Areas,” accessed August 9, 2025.
ForumIAS, “India’s Protected Area Network,” accessed August 9, 2025.
Haigen Xu et al., “Identification of Biodiversity Priority Conservation Areas in China,” Biological Conservation 298 (2024): 110954.
Gary N. Bronner et al., “Using Key and Critical Biodiversity Areas to Identify Gaps in the Protected Area Network in South Africa,” Conservation Science and Practice 6, no. 8 (2024): e13244.
DCCEEW, “Collaborative Australian Protected Areas Database,” accessed August 9, 2025.
IUCN, “The World Now Protects 15% of Its Land, but Crucial Biodiversity Zones Left Out,” September 2016.
Michelle Ward et al., “Just Ten Percent of the Global Terrestrial Protected Area Network is Structurally Connected via Intact Land,” Nature Communications 11 (2020): 4563.
World Resources Institute, “Protecting Indigenous Land Rights Makes Good Economic Sense,” WRI Report (Washington: WRI, 2021), 12-15.
BioDB, “Russia Biodiversity and Nature Conservation,” accessed August 9, 2025.
Shonil A. Bhagwat and Claudia Rutte, “Sacred Groves: Potential for Biodiversity Management,” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 4, no. 10 (2006): 519-524.
Wei-Guo Sang et al., “China’s National Parks: Opportunities and Challenges,” Trends in Ecology & Evolution 38, no. 5 (2023): 409-411.
Save the Rhino International, “Measuring Black Rhino Conservation Success,” accessed August 9, 2025.
Country Needs People, “What are IPAs?,” accessed August 9, 2025.
World Bank, “Protecting Nature,” July 1, 2021.
World Economic Forum, “Biodiversity Loss Threatens the Economic Future of Sub-Tropical Countries,” May 2025.
Robert Costanza et al., “Mapping Global Value of Terrestrial Ecosystem Services by Countries,” Ecosystem Services 54 (2022): 101412.
Australian Bureau of Statistics, “Tourism Satellite Account, 2023-24,” accessed August 9, 2025.
Zhiyun Ouyang et al., “Improvements in Ecosystem Services from Investments in Natural Capital,” Science 352, no. 6292 (2016): 1455-1459.
Hayley Perkins et al., “The Economic Value of Environmental Services on Indigenous-Held Lands in Australia,” PLOS One 6, no. 8 (2011): e23154.
Ibid.
WRI, “Protecting Indigenous Land Rights,” 23-26.
Ibid., 34-37.
World Economic Forum, “Nature Positive Transitions,” Global Future Council on Nature-Based Solutions Report (Geneva: WEF, 2023), 8-12.
BRICS New Development Bank, “Annual Report 2023” (Shanghai: NDB, 2024), 45-48.
World Bank, “Wildlife Conservation Bond Boosts South Africa’s Efforts,” Press Release, March 23, 2022.
Country Needs People, “What are IPAs?.”
UNDP, “Indigenous Knowledge is Crucial in the Fight Against Climate Change,” Climate Promise Report (New York: UNDP, 2024).
Tyler D. Jessen et al., “Contributions of Indigenous Knowledge to Ecological and Evolutionary Understanding,” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 20, no. 2 (2022): 93-101.
WRI, “Protecting Indigenous Land Rights,” 18-22.
Ibid., 41-44.
Perkins et al., “Economic Value of Environmental Services.”
Indigenous Leadership Initiative, “Indigenous-Led Conservation: Creating Jobs and Economic Opportunity,” accessed August 9, 2025.
Bhagwat and Rutte, “Sacred Groves,” 521-523.
Forbes, Bruce C. et al., “High Resilience in the Yamal-Nenets Social-Ecological System, West Siberian Arctic, Russia,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106, no. 52 (2009): 22041-22048.
Michele Cocks, “Biocultural Diversity: Moving Beyond the Realm of ‘Indigenous’ and ‘Local’ People,” Human Ecology 34, no. 2 (2006): 185-200.
UNDP, “Forests Can Help Us Limit Climate Change,” Climate Promise, accessed August 9, 2025.
Yude Pan et al., “A Large and Persistent Carbon Sink in the World’s Forests,” Science 333, no. 6045 (2011): 988-993.
Ontario Nature, “Wetlands are Carbon Storage Superstars,” accessed August 9, 2025.
IPCC, “Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Uses,” in Sixth Assessment Report, Working Group III (Geneva: IPCC, 2022), Chapter 7.
Bronson W. Griscom et al., “Natural Climate Solutions,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114, no. 44 (2017): 11645-11650.
Li Zhang et al., “Contribution of Different Types of Terrestrial Protected Areas to Carbon Sequestration Services in China: 1980-2020,” Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 11 (2023): 1074410.
Conservation International, “Nature in Nationally Determined Contributions,” CI Policy Brief (Arlington: CI, 2023).
Nature4Climate, “New NDCs: Compare Nature’s Role in Meeting 2035 Targets,” accessed August 9, 2025.
NDB, “Annual Report 2023,” 52-56.
COP30 Brasil Amazônia, “BRICS Leaders Endorse Unprecedented Fund for Conservation of Tropical Forests,” accessed August 9, 2025.
WWF Brazil, “Amazon Region Protected Areas Program: Achievements and Lessons Learned” (Brasília: WWF Brazil, 2020), 12-18.
Dialogue Earth, “Land of the Big Cats: China and Russia Collaborate in Comeback,” accessed August 9, 2025.
National Tiger Conservation Authority, “Status of Tigers in India 2022” (New Delhi: NTCA, 2023), 34-38.
State Forestry Administration, “The Fourth National Giant Panda Survey” (Beijing: SFA, 2015), 23-26.
Jianguo Liu et al., “Pandas and People: Coupling Human and Natural Systems for Sustainability” (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 145-152.
Save the Rhino International, “Measuring Success.”
World Bank, “Wildlife Conservation Bond,” March 23, 2022.
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, “Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report 2024” (Townsville: GBRMPA, 2024), 67-72.
NDB, “Annual Report 2023,” 45-48.
Council on Foreign Relations, “What Is the BRICS Group and Why Is It Expanding?,” accessed August 9, 2025.
IFC Review, “BRICS Approves Climate Finance Framework,” May 2025.
COP30 Brasil Amazônia, “BRICS Leaders Endorse Fund.”
Dialogue Earth, “Land of the Big Cats.”
SDG Knowledge Hub, “BRICS Ministers Commit to Urban Environmental Management, Global Climate and Biodiversity Issues,” accessed August 9, 2025.
Ashish Kothari et al., “Recognising and Supporting Territories and Areas Conserved by Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities” (Cambridge: UNEP-WCMC, 2012), 89-94.
Wilson, Half-Earth, 186-189.
Nature Needs Half, “Why 50%.”

Bibliography

Australian Bureau of Statistics. “Tourism Satellite Account, 2023-24.” Accessed August 9, 2025. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/economy/national-accounts/tourism-satellite-account/latest-release.

Bhagwat, Shonil A., and Claudia Rutte. “Sacred Groves: Potential for Biodiversity Management.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 4, no. 10 (2006): 519-524.

BioDB. “Russia Biodiversity and Nature Conservation.” Accessed August 9, 2025. https://biodb.com/region/russia/.

BRICS New Development Bank. Annual Report 2023. Shanghai: NDB, 2024.

Bronner, Gary N., et al. “Using Key and Critical Biodiversity Areas to Identify Gaps in the Protected Area Network in South Africa.” Conservation Science and Practice 6, no. 8 (2024): e13244.

Ceballos, Gerardo, et al. “Accelerated Modern Human-Induced Species Losses: Entering the Sixth Mass Extinction.” Science Advances 1, no. 5 (2015): e1400253.

Cocks, Michele. “Biocultural Diversity: Moving Beyond the Realm of ‘Indigenous’ and ‘Local’ People.” Human Ecology 34, no. 2 (2006): 185-200.

Conservation International. “Nature in Nationally Determined Contributions.” CI Policy Brief. Arlington: CI, 2023.

COP30 Brasil Amazônia. “BRICS Leaders Endorse Unprecedented Fund for Conservation of Tropical Forests.” Accessed August 9, 2025.

Costanza, Robert, et al. “Mapping Global Value of Terrestrial Ecosystem Services by Countries.” Ecosystem Services 54 (2022): 101412.

Council on Foreign Relations. “What Is the BRICS Group and Why Is It Expanding?” Accessed August 9, 2025.

Country Needs People. “What are IPAs?” Accessed August 9, 2025. https://www.countryneedspeople.org.au/what_are_ipas.

Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. “Australia’s Biodiversity.” State of the Environment Report 2021. Canberra: DCCEEW, 2021.

———. “Collaborative Australian Protected Areas Database.” Accessed August 9, 2025.

Dialogue Earth. “Land of the Big Cats: China and Russia Collaborate in Comeback.” Accessed August 9, 2025.

Forbes, Bruce C., et al. “High Resilience in the Yamal-Nenets Social-Ecological System, West Siberian Arctic, Russia.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106, no. 52 (2009): 22041-22048.

ForumIAS. “India’s Protected Area Network.” Accessed August 9, 2025.

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report 2024. Townsville: GBRMPA, 2024.

Griscom, Bronson W., et al. “Natural Climate Solutions.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114, no. 44 (2017): 11645-11650.

IFC Review. “BRICS Approves Climate Finance Framework.” May 2025.

IndexMundi. “Russia – Terrestrial Protected Areas.” Accessed August 9, 2025.

Indigenous Leadership Initiative. “Indigenous-Led Conservation: Creating Jobs and Economic Opportunity.” Accessed August 9, 2025.

IPCC. “Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Uses.” In Sixth Assessment Report, Working Group III. Geneva: IPCC, 2022.

IUCN. “The World Now Protects 15% of Its Land, but Crucial Biodiversity Zones Left Out.” September 2016.

Jessen, Tyler D., et al. “Contributions of Indigenous Knowledge to Ecological and Evolutionary Understanding.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 20, no. 2 (2022): 93-101.

Kothari, Ashish, et al. Recognising and Supporting Territories and Areas Conserved by Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities. Cambridge: UNEP-WCMC, 2012.

Liu, Jianguo, et al. Pandas and People: Coupling Human and Natural Systems for Sustainability. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016.

Ma, Keping. “China’s Biodiversity Conservation Research in Progress.” Biological Conservation 262 (2021): 109342.

National Tiger Conservation Authority. Status of Tigers in India 2022. New Delhi: NTCA, 2023.

Nature Needs Half. “Why 50%.” Accessed August 9, 2025. https://natureneedshalf.org/why-50/.

Nature4Climate. “New NDCs: Compare Nature’s Role in Meeting 2035 Targets.” Accessed August 9, 2025.

Nobre, Carlos A., et al. “Amazon Tipping Point: Last Chance for Action.” Science Advances 5, no. 12 (2019): eaba2949.

Odum, Eugene P., and Howard T. Odum. “Natural Areas as Necessary Components of Man’s Total Environment.” Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 37 (1972): 178-189.

Ontario Nature. “Wetlands are Carbon Storage Superstars.” Accessed August 9, 2025.

Ouyang, Zhiyun, et al. “Improvements in Ecosystem Services from Investments in Natural Capital.” Science 352, no. 6292 (2016): 1455-1459.

Pan, Yude, et al. “A Large and Persistent Carbon Sink in the World’s Forests.” Science 333, no. 6045 (2011): 988-993.

Perkins, Hayley, et al. “The Economic Value of Environmental Services on Indigenous-Held Lands in Australia.” PLOS One 6, no. 8 (2011): e23154.

Sang, Wei-Guo, et al. “China’s National Parks: Opportunities and Challenges.” Trends in Ecology & Evolution 38, no. 5 (2023): 409-411.

Save the Rhino International. “Measuring Black Rhino Conservation Success.” Accessed August 9, 2025.

SDG Knowledge Hub. “BRICS Ministers Commit to Urban Environmental Management, Global Climate and Biodiversity Issues.” Accessed August 9, 2025.

Smith, Thomas B., et al. “Biodiversity Hotspots and Beyond: The Need for Preserving Environmental Transitions.” Trends in Ecology & Evolution 16, no. 8 (2001): 431.

State Forestry Administration. The Fourth National Giant Panda Survey. Beijing: SFA, 2015.

UNDP. “Forests Can Help Us Limit Climate Change.” Climate Promise. Accessed August 9, 2025.

———. “Indigenous Knowledge is Crucial in the Fight Against Climate Change.” Climate Promise Report. New York: UNDP, 2024.

Ward, Michelle, et al. “Just Ten Percent of the Global Terrestrial Protected Area Network is Structurally Connected via Intact Land.” Nature Communications 11 (2020): 4563.

Wilson, Edward O. Half-Earth: Our Planet’s Fight for Life. New York: Liveright, 2016.

World Bank. “Protecting Nature Could Avert Global Economy Losses of $2.7 Trillion Per Year.” Press Release, July 1, 2021.

———. “Wildlife Conservation Bond Boosts South Africa’s Efforts.” Press Release, March 23, 2022.

World Economic Forum. “Biodiversity Loss Threatens the Economic Future of Sub-Tropical Countries.” May 2025.

———. “Nature Positive Transitions.” Global Future Council on Nature-Based Solutions Report. Geneva: WEF, 2023.

World Resources Institute. Protecting Indigenous Land Rights Makes Good Economic Sense. WRI Report. Washington: WRI, 2021.

World Wildlife Fund. Catastrophic 73% Decline in the Average Size of Global Wildlife Populations in Just 50 Years. Living Planet Report 2024. Gland: WWF, 2024.

WWF Brazil. Amazon Region Protected Areas Program: Achievements and Lessons Learned. Brasília: WWF Brazil, 2020.

Xu, Haigen, et al. “Identification of Biodiversity Priority Conservation Areas in China.” Biological Conservation 298 (2024): 110954.

Zamolodchikov, Dmitry G. “Forest Resources and Forest Carbon Stock in Russia.” Silva Fennica 46, no. 4 (2012): 597-616.

Zhang, Li, et al. “Contribution of Different Types of Terrestrial Protected Areas to Carbon Sequestration Services in China: 1980-2020.” Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 11 (2023): 1074410.