www.nature.

com/npjoceansustain

ARTICLE OPEN

Targeting ocean conservation outcomes through threat

reduction
Joseph A. Turner1 ✉, Malcolm Starkey1, Nicholas K. Dulvy2, Frank Hawkins3, Louise Mair4, Adeline Serckx1, Thomas Brooks3,5,6,
Beth Polidoro7, Stuart H. M. Butchart8,9, Kent Carpenter10, Minna Epps3, Rima W. Jabado11, Nicholas B. W. Macfarlane12 and
Leon Bennun1

Nations have committed to reductions in the global rate of species extinctions through the Sustainable Development Goals 14 and
15, for ocean and terrestrial species, respectively. Biodiversity loss is worsening despite rapid growth in the number and extent of
protected areas, both at sea and on land. Resolving this requires targeting the locations and actions that will deliver positive
conservation outcomes for biodiversity. The Species Threat Abatement and Restoration (STAR) metric, developed by a consortium
of experts, quantifies the contributions that abating threats and restoring habitats in specific places offer towards reducing
extinction risk based on the IUCN Red List of Threatened SpeciesTM. STAR is now recommended as an appropriate metric by recent
disclosure frameworks for companies to report their impacts on nature and STAR has seen widespread uptake within the private
sector. However, it is currently only available for the terrestrial realm. We extend the coverage of the threat abatement component
of the STAR metric (START), used to identify locations where positive interventions could make a large contribution to reducing
1234567890():,;

global species extinction risk and where developments that increase threats to species should be mitigated, to the marine realm for
1646 marine species. Reducing unsustainable fishing provides the greatest opportunity to lower species extinction risk, comprising
43% of the marine START score. Three-quarters (75%) of the global marine START score falls entirely outside the boundaries of
protected areas and only 2.7% falls within no-take protected areas. The STAR metric can be used both to guide protected area
expansion and to target other actions, such as establishment and enforcement of fishing limits, to recover biodiversity.
npj Ocean Sustainability (2024)3:4 ; https://doi.org/10.1038/s44183-023-00040-8

INTRODUCTION magnitude greater than the baseline rate of extinction seen in the
While there has been recent growth in the fraction of the ocean fossil record and are now comparable to that of terrestrial
within Marine Protected Areas, mirroring that on land, biodiversity vertebrates11. These marine extinction estimates caution that
loss continues to rise1–3. Part of the explanation for this is that global political targets and commitments will not be met without
designation often favours ease of establishment, through mini- a fundamental transformation of ocean conservation12. Threats
mizing potential costs and conflicts, over the benefit to species can impact species in different ways13 and identifying which
and ecosystems and appropriate effective management prac- threats, and their subsequent stressors, are important in specific
tices4,5. If current trends continue, there is a real risk that recently areas is a prerequisite for applying effective conservation
adopted targets to increase the coverage of protected areas to measures to prevent species extinctions and reduce biodiversity
30% of the marine environment6 may be met but without the loss.
necessary reduction in threat needed to halt declines, avoid Biodiversity is often seen as challenging to measure by
extinctions, and recover species7,8. Effectively halting biodiversity governments and non-state actors due to its inherent complex-
loss requires quantifying how protected areas contribute to ities. Major gaps remain in our knowledge, particularly in the
biodiversity conservation and targeting the specific actions which marine environment11. While mentioned in policy goals, marine
would deliver genuine benefits for biodiversity2. environments are often neglected due to low data availability and
This challenge is particularly acute in the oceans. Marine
a lack of globally relevant metrics to measure impacts or progress
ecosystems are heavily affected by human activities4 and climate
towards targets14. This hinders efforts to improve accountability in
change impacts are accelerating and compounding the long-
standing and poorly-managed consequences of overfishing, marine environments and prevents the mainstreaming of
habitat loss, and pollution. Many megadiverse marine regions responsibilities for mitigating and compensating for impacts to
are under threat9 and iconic marine megafauna, such as sharks marine biodiversity throughout sectors and institutions. The
and rays, marine mammals, albatrosses, and turtles are amongst production of appropriate marine biodiversity metrics and tools
the world’s most threatened species groups10,11. The first is therefore crucial to engage with and guide decision-makers,
estimates of marine extinction rates are at least one order of businesses, and civil society.

1
The Biodiversity Consultancy, 3E King’s Parade, Cambridge CB2 1SJ, UK. 2Earth to Ocean Research Group, Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby,
BC V5A 1S6, Canada. 3International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), Gland, Switzerland. 4School of Natural and Environmental Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle
upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK. 5World Agroforestry Center (ICRAF), University of the Philippines Los Baños, Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines. 6Institute for Marine & Antarctic Studies,
University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia. 7School of Mathematical and Natural Sciences, Arizona State University, Glendale, AZ 85306, USA. 8BirdLife International, David
Attenborough Building, Pembroke St, Cambridge CB2 3QZ, UK. 9Department of Zoology, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK. 10IUCN Marine Biodiversity Unit, Biological
Sciences, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA 23455, USA. 11Elasmo Project, P.O. Box 29588, Dubai, UAE. 12International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), Washington,
DC, USA. ✉email: [email protected]
 J.A. Turner et al.
2
The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) has RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
built momentum around a net positive outcomes goal to “bend We included a total of 1646 species, assessed on the IUCN Red List
back the curve” of biodiversity loss6,15. Goal A of the GBF commits of Threatened Species TM as Near Threatened (n = 498) or
countries to halt human-induced extinctions of known threatened threatened (Critically Endangered CR n = 171, Endangered EN
species (including marine)6. The Sustainable Development Goals n = 293, and Vulnerable VU, n = 684). These species span 11
(SDGs) 14 and 15 have related targets, such as preventing the classes, 62 orders, 192 families, and 552 genera and all trophic
extinction of threatened species (target 15.5) and reducing threats levels, ranging from functionally important foundation species
to biodiversity by effectively regulating fisheries (target 14.4). such as corals and predatory megafaunal fishes to air-breathing
Measuring progress towards these targets requires appropriate turtles, mammals, and seabirds which disperse nutrients and
metrics. To mainstream biodiversity conservation across sectors connect multiple habitats and ecosystems. Most species (78%,
and institutions, it is essential to be able to disaggregate n = 1277) were strictly marine, while 11% (n = 184) occur in
responsibilities and add up contributions to meeting GBF and marine and terrestrial realms, 4% (n = 74) in marine and
SDG targets at national and sub-national levels16. Cooperation freshwater realms, and 7% (n = 111) in all three realms. The
across and beyond international borders is equally important for groups with the greatest numbers of species in the analysis
other global policy processes, such as the Biodiversity Beyond included sharks and rays (n = 490), reef-building corals (n = 401),
National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) treaty, to ensure the conservation and bony-fishes (n = 282), birds (n = 252), and mammals (n = 62). See
sustainable use of marine resources17. The Species Threat methods for the full list of taxa.
Abatement and Restoration (STAR)18 metric, developed by the STAR threat-abatement scores (START), generated by summing
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and a the proportion of the Area of Habitat of each species, weighted by
consortium of biodiversity experts from a range of academic, Red List category, in a grid cell, are presented for the entire surface
conservation, and private sector organizations, provides a spatially of the planet at a resolution of 5 km × 5 km (Fig. 1). This score can
explicit metric to quantify the relative importance of mitigating be disaggregated by each threat in the IUCN Threat Classification
different threats in different locations to reducing global extinc- Scheme23, based upon the level to which a species is expected to
tion risk. This enables governments and other actors to prioritize be impacted (see Table 1), to quantify the contribution that
actions, set targets, and measure progress towards species
1234567890():,;

abating threats in specific places offer towards reducing extinction

extinction risk goals. risk (see Table 2). Marine START scores ranged from 9.67–08 to
The STAR metric uses integrated peer-reviewed data on species 820.4 (per 5 km × 5 km grid cell) and are comparable with the
extinction risk as defined by the IUCN Red List Criteria19, Area of range of terrestrial START scores (1.26–07 to 836.2)18. For context, if
Habitat (AOH) maps20, and threats faced by species to quantify the the entirety of the range of a Critically Endangered species fell
relative contribution that threat-abatement actions taken in a within a single 5 km × 5 km pixel, then a score of 400 would be
particular place could make towards reducing species global assigned for that species alone.
extinction risk. The STAR metric is comprised of a threat The marine START layer is comparable and complementary to
abatement component (START), to identify areas where mitigating the terrestrial version, using the same data sources and
or removing threats could make a large contribution to reducing methodology to enable users of the metric to account for marine
species extinction risk, and a restoration component (STARR), to areas as well as terrestrial in their reporting and target-setting. As
identify areas where restoration activities could make a large on land, most (95%) marine START cells were classified in the “Very
contribution to reducing species extinction risk18. In principle, the Low” START category (START 0–0.1 per 5 km × 5 km grid cell; Fig.
global START score represents the global threat abatement effort 1), accounting collectively for only 20% of the global marine
needed for all species to become Least Concern. START scores can
be disaggregated by threat, using data on the relative contribu-
tion of different threats to species extinction risk. It can also be
disaggregated spatially, based on the current AOH of each
species18. Quantifying how actions to reduce or remove threats
from specific locations can benefit threatened species is required
to set—and measure progress towards—science-based targets18.
This will enable measurement of the degree to which goals in the
post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework are met, and to engage
diverse actors in marine species conservation.
To date, the STAR metric has only been available for the
terrestrial realm18. This paper presents the development of a
threat abatement component of the Species Threat Abatement
and Restoration (STAR) metric (START) for marine biodiversity to
address this gap. The STAR metric has seen significant uptake by
the private sector, where it is recommended as a suitable metric
by disclosure frameworks such as the Science Based Targets
Network (SBTN)21 and the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial
Disclosures (TNFD)22. As such, STAR is now a recognizable metric
and used widely by corporates and financial institutions. It can be
used to inform planning and action at multiple levels by
identifying areas where the abatement of threats can contribute
to reducing species extinctions and areas of biodiversity
significance. A common and consistent STAR metric across
terrestrial and marine environments will help businesses and Fig. 1 Map of global START scores. a A global marine START layer;
governments consider, report and disclose on marine environ- b a planet-wide23 START layer. Grid cell resolution is 5 km × 5 km.
ments when they may have otherwise been omitted. We present Gray areas have values of zero / no data. Categories24: Very Low
and discuss the potential applications of marine START and (>0–0.1), Low (0.1–1), Medium (1–10), High (10–100), and Very High
explore limitations and future research priorities. (>100).

npj Ocean Sustainability (2024) 4

 J.A. Turner et al.
3
Table 1. Expected percentage population decline over 10 years or three generations (from ref. 18
., based on work in ref. 60
) in relation to species
scope and severity scores which are assigned during Red List assessments.

Severity
Very Rapid Rapid Slow, Significant Causing/Could Cause Negligible No
Declines Declines Declines Fluctuations Declines Decline

Scope Whole (>90%) 63 24 10 10 1 0

Majority (50–90%) 52 18 9 9 0 0
Minority (<50%) 24 7 5 5 0 0

Table 2. Schematic of how START scores are calculated for an area of interest (AoI) based upon the species present, their IUCN Red List category, the
proportion of their range in the AoI, and their potential impact from threats.

Total
START
Species 1 Species 2 Species 3 Species 4
Score
(by threat)
IUCN Red List Category EN VU CR NT
IUCN Red List Category Weighting 300 200 400 100
Proportion of range in AoI 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05
Total START Score for species in AoI 60 30 40 5 135
Threat A Expected percentage population decline (%) 63 18 63 24
Proportion of species START score attributed to Threat A in the AoI 0.75 0.29 0.51 0.16
START Score for threat A in the AoI 45.0 8.7 20.3 0.8 74.8
Threat B Expected percentage population decline (%) 10 24 9 63
Proportion of species START score attributed to Threat B in the AoI 0.12 0.39 0.07 0.42
START Score for threat B in the AoI 7.1 11.6 2.9 2.1 23.8
Threat C Expected percentage population decline (%) 10 10 52 63
Proportion of species START score attributed to Threat C in the AoI 0.12 0.16 0.42 0.42
START Score for threat C in the AoI 7.1 4.8 16.8 2.1 30.9
Threat D Expected percentage population decline (%) 1 10 0 0
Proportion of species START score attributed to Threat D in the AoI 0.01 0.16 0.00 0.00
START Score for threat D in the AoI 0.7 4.8 0.0 0.0 5.6
Sum of expected percentage population decline (%) across all threats 84 62 124 150

For each threat the expected population decline is identified based upon scope and severity scores (see Table 1 based on Mair et al.18 and Garnett et al.60).
For example, the total START score for the hypothetical AoI below is 135 and is due to the presence of four species. Species 1 has a START score of 60, which is
the product of the IUCN Red List Category weighting for being Endangered (300) and the proportion of range within the AoI (0.2). For Threat A, Species 1 has
an expected population decline of 63%, based on looking up the combination of Severity (very rapid declines) and Scope (across the whole (>90%) of the
population in Table 1. For Threat B and C, Species 1 has an expected population decline of 10%, based on Severity (Slow, Significant Declines) and Scope
(across the whole (>90%) of the population) in Table 1. Finally, For Threat D, Species 1 has an expected population decline of 1%, based on Severity (Negligible
Declines) and Scope (across the whole (>90%) of the population) in Table 1. The START score is then split proportionally across threats based on the sum of
percentage population declines from all threats to that species. For species 1, the total summed population decline is 84 (63 for Threat A, 10 for Threat B, 10 for
Threat C, and 1 for Threat D). Therefore the proportion of the START score attributed to Threat A for Species 1 is 75% (63/84) of the total score, which would
give a START score for that specific threat of 45 (0.75 × 60). This can then be repeated for each species present within the AoI. We see here that the START scores
assigned to Threat A for the other three species are 8.7, 20.3, and 0.8 which gives a total START score of 74.8 for this threat, which is 55% (74.8/135) of the START
score for the AoI.

conservation need and opportunity. Threat mitigation focused on greatest percentage of the global marine START score (11.5%)
a small fraction of the planet would have a disproportionate effect within its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), followed by Australia
on reducing marine species extinction risk globally, with 0.001% of (6.9%), Mexico (4.1%), the Philippines (3.6%), Brazil (3.5%), and
cells classified in the “Very High” category (START > 100 per 5 km China (3.1%). The “high seas” or Areas Beyond National Jurisdic-
× 5 km grid cell; 24 cells covering an area of 600 km2) accounting tion (ABNJ) held a further 5.7% of the global marine START score,
for almost 2% of global START scores. This pattern is typically however, this is spread across 42% of the global oceanic area. This
driven by the presence of species with restricted ranges and / or is primarily due to higher species richness in more diverse coastal
where many threatened species ranges overlap23. areas24, as well as the relative size of the coastlines and EEZs of
Almost half (43%) of the total global marine START score falls these countries. This is a similar pattern to that of terrestrial START
within the jurisdiction of ten countries (Fig. 2a). Indonesia has the scores, where five countries contributed to 31.3% of the global

npj Ocean Sustainability (2024) 4

 J.A. Turner et al.
4

Fig. 2 Countries that contribute most to overall START score and that have the highest START densities. Top ten countries (and Areas
Beyond National Jurisdiction) in terms of (a) total marine START score, which include some of the largest countries and (b) marine START score
per km2 of Exclusive Economic Zone area, where the highest STAR densities are found in smaller countries. Percentage of global scores within
each country is also displayed.

START score (Indonesia, Colombia, Mexico, Madagascar, and Currently, one-quarter (24.9%) of the global marine START score
Brazil)18. It should also be noted that the ranges of many marine occurs within the boundaries of areas recorded in the World
species span multiple jurisdictions and that threats in one Database on Protected Areas (WDPA, 10.2% of the area covered by
jurisdiction may be dependent on the actions within others, so marine STAR)26. However, only 2.8% of the global marine START
international cooperation to implement conservation actions to score was within protected areas coded as no-take (or partially no-
remove threats is particularly important in the marine take). The establishment of effectively managed no-take marine
environment. protected areas is critical for meeting global goals to reduce
It may also be informative to consider START density to identify extinction risk27, especially given the contribution of fishing
countries with smaller EEZs with particularly high START scores per activities to the total marine START score (Table 3). Cells with
km2 of EEZ (Fig. 2b). Singapore had a particularly high START score “High” (START 10–100 per 5 km × 5 km grid cell) and “Very High”
per km2, followed by Belize and Gibraltar. Singapore (710 km2) and (START > 100 per 5 km × 5 km grid cell) START scores that fall
Gibraltar (390 km2) have particularly small EEZs and are in outside of protected areas included areas in Taiwan (Fig. 3b) and
biogeographical crossroads where marine biodiversity is high Cabo Verde (Fig. 3c).
(see Large Marine Ecosystems (LME) below). Belize has a larger EEZ In addition to protected areas, there are other areas designated
(34,300 km2) but higher START scores were driven by the presence for biodiversity importance, 10.8% of the total marine START score
of several Endangered and Critically Endangered taxa, including was in marine Key Biodiversity Areas28 (KBAs, 4.2% of the area
the restricted range Belizean Blue Hamlet (Hypoplectrus maya, EN), covered by marine START), 30.8% in Ecologically or Biologically
Significant Marine Areas29 (EBSAs, 21.2% of the area covered by
the endemic Social Wrasse (Halichoeres socialis, EN), and the
marine START), and 17.1% in Important Marine Mammal Areas30
Smalltooth Sawfish (Pristis pectinata, CR). The top 10 countries in
(IMMAs, 4.0% of the area covered by marine START). As sites
terms of highest START score per km2 contributed only 3.7% of the
considered important by specialists for whales, dolphins, seals and
global START score. sea cows, IMMAs account for a higher percentage (26.1%) of the
Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs) define broad areas of oceans global START score for mammals specifically (n = 42). These results
based upon a range of ecological and oceanographic character- illustrate how the START metric can complement other informa-
istics25. The Indonesian Sea LME (Fig. 3a) had the highest START tion sources for conservation planning.
score (6% of the global total, 2,277,110 km2) while the Canadian Other threats included those relating to invasive species,
High Arctic - North Greenland LME had the lowest (0.0004% of the climate change and severe weather, and pollution. The contribu-
global score, 594,533 km2). The highest START scores per km2 were tion of multiple threats within these classes to substantial
in the Gulf of California LME (0.015 START per km2) followed by the proportions of the global START score highlights that meeting
East China Sea LME (0.011 START per km2). Arctic and Antarctic global goals for marine biodiversity will require other manage-
systems had the lowest START scores in terms of both total and ment strategies, beyond a reliance on (no-take) protected areas
per unit area. This is likely due to the relatively low species alone. Studies have shown that climate change is a much larger
richness and prevalence of human impacts (so few species are threat to marine species than STAR scores suggest (13% of the
classed as threatened), as well as the relatively large geographic global marine START)31–33. This is partly because the IUCN Red List
ranges of the species present. Only 25 threatened and Near- identifies threats over the next ten years or three generations
Threatened species occurred within Antarctica’s waters, all of (whichever is longer). For some species, climate change will likely
which had large ranges (mean: 100,579,448 km2), which included have substantial impacts, but over a longer time-frame. Hence,
19 birds, five mammals, and the Porbeagle Shark (Lamna nasus). IUCN Red List assessments are likely to be a lagging indicator for

npj Ocean Sustainability (2024) 4

 J.A. Turner et al.
5

Fig. 3 Example areas of high STAR significance. STAR threat abatement (START) scores at 5 km × 5 km grid resolution for the marine
environment in (a) the Indonesia Sea Large Marine Ecosystem, (b) Taiwan, and (c) Cabo Verde. Shading as per Fig. 1 for START score categories.
In (b) and (c) marine protected areas and Key Biodiversity Areas are shown using a black grid. Areas where marine START scores are zero
(mainly land, or no data) are presented in gray.

climate change impacts and so the use of STAR alone to assess many metrics, STAR relies on global datasets with varying sources
these may not be appropriate as it may not capture the medium- of uncertainty (see Supplementary Table S1) that need in situ data
and long-term severity of the accelerating impacts of climate and local knowledge to calibrate results on the ground. This START
change on species. layer can be used as a first step to identify potential priorities,
STAR on its own cannot meet every user’s needs, but it does alongside other appropriate metrics, in the marine environment
allow users to quickly identify which threats should be prioritized where data and relevant metrics are sparse.
for ‘ground truthing’ and in which locations. Taking the example in While the STAR metric can be disaggregated by threat, the spatial
Table 2, where four species are identified as potentially present at footprint of each threat is derived from the geographic range of the
the site and are assessed to be impacted to differing degrees by species; in other words, we make the assumption that each relevant
each threat. In this example, Species 1 contributes most to the threat is uniformly distributed across the species range. At present,
START score due to a relatively high proportion of its range being variation in threat magnitude is currently not incorporated in the
within the area of interest and its EN status. When the START score methodology and this is a key area for future development18.
is split out by threats, we see that 75% of the area’s START score is Efforts are ongoing to understand the footprint of major
attributed to Threat A. If Threat A is “Fishing & harvesting aquatic threatening processes in the oceans, particularly fisheries, habitat
resources” then appropriate actions could focus on ‘ground- loss and climate change13,34,35. Data from 2013 showed that threats
truthing’ and understanding fishing activities in the area with a overlap with substantial portions of the ranges of marine species,
view to managing them to reduce extinction risk. However, if where this overlap had increased by 37% when compared to
Threat A is “Agricultural & forestry effluents” a ground-truthing 200813. A decade on, if similar trends are followed, threats are likely
approach to identify the source (upstream and in adjacent to have intensified further across the ranges of species and
terrestrial areas) in order to reduce fertilizer usage may be more potentially shifted in their distribution. These estimates of the
appropriate. If ground-truthing indicates that Threat A doesn’t distribution of threats, mainly based on models of industrial activity,
occur at the site, e.g., there are strict fisheries management plans such as fisheries catch36,37 are now quite old, and efforts to update
and supporting data on fisheries catch / bycatch, then actions to and improve these estimates will be required, particularly on the
address Threat C or Threat B can be considered next. The same duration, frequency, and intensity of major threatening processes
applies to whether species are confirmed as present or not to such as fishing. However, we caution that the spatial footprint of
identify potential priorities for that specific area of interest. Like fishing and shipping activity is biased toward offshore industrial

npj Ocean Sustainability (2024) 4

 J.A. Turner et al.
6
Table 3. Percentage of global marine START score for the ten threats in the IUCN Red List threat classification scheme23,53 contributing most to the
global START score. A full list of threats can be found in the supplementary information.

Threat Threat class Threat Description Percentage of global

Code marine START score (%)

5.4 Biological resource use: Fishing & harvesting Harvesting aquatic wild animals or plants for commercial, 43.0%
aquatic resources recreation, subsistence, research, or cultural purposes, or for
control/persecution reasons; includes accidental mortality/bycatch.
8.1 Invasive & other problematic species, genes Harmful plants, animals, pathogens and other microbes not 5.4%
& diseases: Invasive non-native/alien species/ originally found within the ecosystem(s) in question and directly or
diseases indirectly introduced and spread into it by human activities.
11.1 Climate change & severe weather: Habitat Major changes in habitat composition and location: sea-level rise, 4.7%
shifting & alteration desertification, tundra thawing, coral bleaching,etc.
11.3 Climate change & severe weather: Periods in which temperatures exceed or go below the normal 4.6%
Temperature extremes range of variation: heat waves, cold spells, oceanic temperature
changes, disappearance of glaciers/sea ice, etc.
1.2 Residential & commercial development: Factories and other commercial centers: military bases, factories, 4.5%
Commercial & industrial areas stand-alone shopping centres, office parks, power plants, train
yards, ship yards, airports, landfills, etc.
1.1 Residential & commercial development: Human cities, towns, and settlements including non-housing 4.4%
Housing & urban areas development typically integrated with housing: urban areas,
suburbs, villages, ranchettes, vacation homes, shopping areas,
offices, schools, hospitals, birds flying into windows, land
reclamation or expanding human habitation that causes habitat
degradation in riverine, estuary and coastal areas, etc.
9.2 Pollution: Industrial & military effluents Water-borne pollutants from industrial and military sources 4.3%
including mining, energy production, and other resource extraction
industries that include nutrients, toxic chemicals and/or sediments.
9.1 Pollution: Domestic & urban waste water Water-borne sewage and non-point runoff from housing and urban 3.2%
areas that include nutrients, toxic chemicals and/or sediments.
1.3 Residential & commercial development: Tourism and recreation sites with a substantial footprint: ski areas, 2.9%
Tourism & recreation areas golf courses, resorts, cricket fields, county parks, afghan goat polo
fields, campgrounds, coastal and estuarine tourist resorts, etc.
9.3 Pollution: Agricultural & forestry effluents Water-borne pollutants from agricultural, silivicultural, and 2.8%
aquaculture systems that include nutrients, toxic chemicals and/or
sediments including the effects of these pollutants on the site
where they are applied.
Total 79.8%
START can be disaggregated by threat type, using information on the scope and severity of each threat documented in IUCN Red List assessments. Ten threats
accounted for 80% of the global marine START score (Table 3). Almost half (43.0%) of the global marine START score is attributed to “Fishing & harvesting
aquatic resources” which includes targeted fisheries and incidental captures (Table 3). This is consistent with other studies13,71 and highlights the importance
of appropriate fisheries management to prevent species extinctions.

vessels, overlooking the scale and impact of artisanal and be done using locally relevant data and may include integrating
subsistence fisheries36,37. Furthermore, threat information relating spatial datasets with local knowledge. The estimated STAR scores
to fishing is primarily based on either catch or activity, which is only for the area of interest are then updated to give calibrated STAR
one component of risk and may give a biased assessment when scores based on the species and species-threat combinations
used in isolation38; hence, we still need to develop spatial estimates present.
of fishing mortality by species or size class. While areas could be Once calibrated, STAR can play a significant role in both
prioritized by intersecting these imperfect human activity layers Environmental Impact Assessments and Strategic Environmental
with species biodiversity or activity maps, this will ignore the threat Assessments, both of which are important for sectors such as
status of a species and the degree to which taxa are susceptible to energy and renewables41,42. Incorporating STAR into screening
those threats38. Combining the STAR methodology with updated activities can aid companies in identifying suitable locations for
datasets to assess threats could fill an important gap in the future. infrastructure developments and appropriate mitigation mea-
Use of existing data on threats (such as Global Fishing Watch39) or sures, based on species-level threat information. Appropriate,
existing studies that assess the footprint of threats13,40 can offer national-level measures targeting potential threats from coastal
options to mitigate and manage threats associated with larger-scale and offshore developments, discharge of waste (including but not
commercial activities, particularly on the high seas. restricted to plastics), biosecurity to reduce the risk of invasive
The STAR metric offers a first step in identifying the potentially species spread, as well as global action against climate change, are
important threats in an area where further information to required to reduce the impacts on marine species.
“ground-truth” and “calibrate” the metric in terms of the threats The STAR metric does not currently incorporate variation in
and species that are actually present can be used to finalize species population densities or probability of occurrence. Clearly, a
conservation actions in an area. The calibration process for STAR, next stage is to develop more detailed AOH maps, ideally based
for a given area of interest, involves confirming the presence of on species distribution models which ideally would show
species and the presence and impact of each threat. This should important areas for particular species, such as breeding or nursery

npj Ocean Sustainability (2024) 4

 J.A. Turner et al.
7
grounds and aggregation sites. The KBA assessment process43 commitments including the Sustainable Development Goals 14
does identify such sites and KBA information can be used to and 15, the BBNJ Agreement, and the post-2020 Global
provide additional context to the STAR layer. This does not Biodiversity Framework. The development of this easy-to-use
preclude the need for more local data to be collected to inform metric will help ensure that marine environments are not simply
decisions44. STAR can be “calibrated” by incorporating site-specific ignored during reporting or disclosures due to a lack of easily
information on the species and threats that are present in an area accessible information. Our finding that such a low percentage of
to adjust START scores45. Moreover, neither scientific processes to the global marine START falls within marine protected areas
identify important sites for biodiversity in the marine realm (KBAs highlights the need to effectively place and design marine
using quantitative data, and IMMAs largely using expert opinion), protected areas to halt the ongoing decline of ocean biodiversity.
nor policy processes to describe them (EBSAs), have yet been Disaggregation of START scores by threat and geography can
comprehensively applied across regions and taxonomic groups, assist governments, the private sector, conservation organizations
likely explaining the rather low total START scores for such sites and other actors to identify and quantify where opportunities to
identified to date. This contrasts with KBAs on land, which have change management practices and policy can deliver species
been more comprehensively identified, and account for nearly half extinction risk reduction. STAR scores can be calibrated through
of terrestrial STAR18. the verification of the presence of species, and the presence and
Our study analyzed data from a wide taxonomic diversity severity of threats at the local level, in order to make the most
spanning 11 classes, 62 orders, 192 families, and 552 genera as appropriate decisions. Addressing the threats of overfishing and
well as a wide ecological diversity across all trophic levels from the climate change will yield the greatest reduction in species
top predators (sharks, rays, crocodiles, toothed whales) down to
extinction risk, so focus should rightly be placed on managing
the habitat-forming foundation species (corals, mangroves),
and mitigating these threats, which requires working both within
including invertebrates and air-breathing species that connect
and across national boundaries13,52.
across realms. A total of 78% of species were strictly marine, while
12% also occur in terrestrial realms. However, the taxonomic
coverage should be expanded in the future. Knowledge of marine METHODS
species and their intrinsic sensitivity and exposure to threats will
The marine STAR Threat Abatement (START)18 layer was created
increase as further IUCN Red List assessments are completed and
additional taxa are incorporated into STAR. The limited assess- following a comparable procedure to that of the terrestrial START
ments of marine species are particularly pronounced for the deep to enable for them to be used in tandem. Deviations from this
sea and in ABNJ, due to their expanse and inaccessibility46,47, and methodology, due to challenges of working in the marine
the impact of threats on many species remains unquantified and environment, are documented. The main steps include: (1) the
unassessed48. Even well-studied marine taxa such as bony-fishes selection of species for inclusion; (2) refinement of species ranges
have only around 60% of species assessed10,49, and thus we were based upon Area of Habitat (AOH), and (3) calculation of START
not able to include several fish families in the analysis. The STAR scores and disaggregation by threat. A summary of the data
methodology does enable recalculation of the metric to sources and potential uncertainties is provided in Supplementary
incorporate additional groups when IUCN Red List assessments Table S1. Throughout this paper the term “threat” is used as
have been completed to help address these gaps in the future. opposed to “stressor”, the results of the threat, to align with
Ongoing updates to the marine and terrestrial START metric will Salafsky et al.53. and the IUCN Threat Classification Scheme23
be important. Some species span different realms, including terminology.
marine, terrestrial, and freshwater. The calculation of START scores
should be harmonized across terrestrial, marine, and freshwater Selection of species
realms. While the methods used here considered only the marine The marine START metric is calculated using the IUCN Red List of
proportion of the AOH of each species, the harmonization of Threatened SpeciesTM database and range maps for each
methods will allow us to better assess the proportion of a species species10,54. All species assessed as Near Threatened (NT) or
AOH in each grid cell and prevent any double counting of species threatened (Vulnerable, Endangered, or Critically Endangered) in
between realms. For the creation of the combined START layer the IUCN Red List in October 2022 were downloaded (51,467 spe-
presented in this paper, the START scores for species that were
cies). Least Concern (LC) species are not included, as they are
incorporated in the terrestrial START layer were removed from all
ultimately assigned a weighting of zero in the equation below and
cells of the marine START layer that overlapped between the two
threats are not coded for the majority of these species. Data
layers.
We did not consider the restoration component of the marine Deficient (DD) species were also excluded, as per the terrestrial
STAR metric (STARR) in this study to prioritize the creation of the methodology. While they may be threatened, DD species are too
START layer to make it available for widespread usage. Time-series poorly understood to accurately classify their extinction risk as
of remote sensing data are not available for marine habitats, they often lack data on threats, habitats, and/or distribution10,18.
meaning historical habitat extent, an essential requirement in the This, however, may lead to some geographic biases in START
terrestrial STAR restoration calculation, cannot yet be determined. scores to regions that are better studied. This species list was then
Restoration is less common in marine habitats compared with filtered to extract those coded by IUCN as occurring in marine
terrestrial, however, our knowledge of principles that can habitats (2097 species, where the field “biome_marine” has the
contribute to successful outcomes of restoration projects is value of “TRUE”) although they may also occur in other realms
increasing50. Marine biodiversity offsets or credits will likely play (terrestrial and/or freshwater).
an important role in the future51 and the development of a marine All threatened and NT marine species within comprehensively
STAR restoration layer should be identified as a priority next step assessed taxonomic groups (i.e., families or orders with at least
to help target areas where habitat restoration has the greatest 80% of species assessed in the IUCN Red List) were included (see
potential to reduce species extinction risk. Supplementary Table S3). This included all groups of species
We undertook an initial assessment of opportunities for specifically named in the IUCN summary statistics tables49
reducing species extinction risk across the entirety of our planet. alongside the groups identified as comprehensively assessed
As such, STAR can act as a suitable metric by providing from the Red List Application Programming Interface (API) to
quantitative scores to guide and track actions towards goals to ensure all appropriate groups were included. This produced a list
reduce marine species extinctions set out by political of 1698 species.

npj Ocean Sustainability (2024) 4

 J.A. Turner et al.
8
Version 2022.1 of the IUCN Red List range polygons was used the AOH). The AOH layer was then cropped to areas that
for this study10,54. The IUCN Red List range dataset was filtered for corresponded to the Global Ecosystem Typology level three
the appropriate presence and origin codes, as per IUCN mapping biomes that are classified as marine to avoid significant overlap
standards guidance55. Polygons with the presence code of with the terrestrial STAR layer. This ensured that only the relevant
“Extant” (meaning the species is known or thought very likely to proportion of a species’ AOH was considered, particularly for
currently occur in the area) and “Possibly Extinct” (meaning the species that (primarily) inhabit terrestrial and freshwater habitats.
species is thought to have occurred in an area, but may now be
extirpated from the area because of habitat loss and/or other Calculation of STAR threat-abatement (START) scores
threats) were selected alongside the origin codes of “Native”, The STAR threat abatement score (START) for a particular location
“Reintroduced”, and “Assisted Colonization”. This follows the same (i) and threat (t) were calculated as per the terrestrial methodology
process applied in the terrestrial STAR paper18. Range polygons to enable comparisons18:
were available for 1694 species in the comprehensively assessed
groups, meaning the four species lacking appropriate range X
Ns

polygon data were excluded. T t;i ¼ Ps;i W s C s;t

s

Calculation of species Area of Habitat (AOH) Where Ps,i is the extent of current AOH of each species s within
location i (expressed as a proportion of the global species’ current
The AOH for each species was determined by creating a crosswalk AOH), Ws is the IUCN Red List category weight of species s (Near
between the habitat preferences documented against the IUCN Threatened = 100; Vulnerable = 200; Endangered = 300; Critically
Red List habitat classification scheme56 with the Level 3 biomes of Endangered = 400)18. C is the relative contribution of threat t to the
the IUCN Global Ecosystem Typology 2.057 as global raster layers extinction risk of species s, and Ns is the total number of species at
are available for these habitats58 (see Supplementary Data for location i. The scope (proportion of the total population affected)
details). All major and minor occurrences (coded within the Global and severity (overall declines caused by the threat) of each threat to
Ecosystem Typology raster layers) of each biome were included a species are documented during the Red List assessment process.
for the purpose of producing the AOH layers. The crosswalk The contribution of each threat (C) was determined based upon the
between the two typologies meant that separate rasters for each expected percentage of population decline from these scope and
habitat, as per the Red list classification scheme, were created. This severity scores. Each scope and severity category represents an
meant that if multiple habitats were marked as suitable in the Red estimated range (e.g., scope: Majority of population affected =
List, then the rasters for those habitat types could be combined to 50–90%; severity: Rapid population declines = 20–30% over 10
produce the AOH area. years or three generations whichever is the longer; all scope and
IUCN Red List range polygons10,54 for the included species were severity categories are presented in Table 1). Similarly to terrestrial
converted to 5 km x 5 km resolution raster layers to match the STAR18, there were differences in the numbers of species within
resolution of the terrestrial STAR layer18. The values in each cell each taxonomic class that had scope and severity scores coded
represented the proportion of the cell covered by the range. These (Supplementary Table 1). When scope and severity scores were
values could then be divided by the total area of the range to known, the same procedure as terrestrial STAR18, which was based
derive the proportion of the total range in each cell. These species on a detailed sensitivity analysis, was taken. Any “unknown” scores
range rasters were overlain with the IUCN Level 3 Global were assigned with the median of possible scores (median scope =
Ecosystem Typology rasters58. Any portions of the range that fell “Majority (50–90%)”; median severity = “Slow, Significant Declines”).
outside of the extent of the habitats (identified through a This covered 1234 species (75%). The percentage population
crosswalk by aligning the habitat codes in the IUCN Red List with decline scores used in ref. 18, (Table 1), from ref. 60, were assigned
the Global Ecosystem Typology) marked as suitable habitat for to species for each threat based upon the scope and severity scores.
that species in the IUCN Red List database were removed from the The values were calculated based upon birds and weighted to
range. If the resulting species AOH was ≤5% of the species’ account for the impact of continuing threats based on their extent
original range polygon, then AOH was not used and the original (i.e., the proportion of the total population affected) and their
range polygon was maintained. This was to ensure species were severity (i.e., the rate of population decline caused by the threat
still included in the analysis, but that the START scores of affected within its extent). Overall expected percentage population declines
cells were not inflated by significantly reducing the range size. for each combination of scope and severity are presented in Table 1.
This occurred for 83 species (5%): 47 bony fish, 10 birds, 17 Scope and severity scores are recommended but are not
flowering plants, eight gastropods, and one cartilaginous fish. For mandatory for each Red List assessment. This meant that some
20 of these species (13 bony fish, six birds, and one gastropod) the groups were missing this information, however, relevant ongoing
AOH procedure reduced the range to zero. This could be linked to threats for these species were often coded as an overall threat score
inaccuracies in the documentation of a species’ habitat associa- of three (Supplementary Table 1). As a result, for groups where the
tion, limitations in the crosswalk between habitats and the Global known scope and severity scores were 0% (Anthozoa, Hydrozoa,
Ecosystem Typology, inaccuracies in mapping the habitats, or Liliopsida, Magnoliopsida, and Myxini) “unknown” scores were
inaccuracies in the species’ range. assigned with the median of possible scores (median scope =
When the information on the depth range of a species was “Majority (50–90%)”; median severity = “Slow, Significant Declines”).
available (20% of species), it was used to further refine the AOH for This enabled these taxa to be included as relevant threats have
each species. Bathymetry data were obtained from the National been identified (albeit to a lesser level of detail) which then allowed
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)59. Any areas that for the percentage population decline scores to be identified as per
fell outside of the minimum and maximum depth range of each ref. 18, (Table 1). This procedure was carried out for 430 species.
species were excluded from species AOH. The shallowest maximum No threat information was available for 30 of the species that
depth permitted was set at 100 m to ensure that ranges around had spatial information so they were removed from the analysis. A
oceanic islands were not substantially restricted given the resolution further 18 species had negligible severity values across all threats,
of the global depth layer and also account for potential inaccuracies resulting in total population decline scores of zero, and so were
in depth range information due to different sampling methodologies. also excluded. This left 1646 species, which was the final number
The proportion of the species’ AOH was calculated for each grid of species included. Habitat preferences and threat information for
cell by dividing the value of each grid cell by the total area of the each species was obtained from the IUCN Red List database using
AOH (calculated as 5 km × 5 km × proportion of cell covered by the “rredlist” R package61.

npj Ocean Sustainability (2024) 4

 J.A. Turner et al.
9
Analysis of the STAR layer 12. Rounsevell, M. D. A. et al. A biodiversity target based on species extinctions.
The marine START values formed a raster layer at 5 × 5 km Science 368, 1193–1195 (2020).
13. O’Hara, C. C., Frazier, M. & Halpern, B. S. At-risk marine biodiversity faces exten-
resolution. The START values were also disaggregated by each
sive, expanding, and intensifying human impacts. Science 372, 84–87 (2021).
threat in the IUCN threat classification scheme23. Global statistics 14. Lammerant, J. et al. Assessment of Biodiversity Measurement Approaches for Busi-
were then extracted for countries using a combination of the nesses and Financial Institutions, Update Report 3. https://ec.europa.eu/
Natural Earth country boundaries (1:50 m scale)62 and the Maritime environment/biodiversity/business/assets/pdf/EU%20B@B%20Platform%
Boundaries Geodatabase63. STAR values were also extracted for 20Update%20Report%203_FINAL_1March2021.pdf (2021).
protected areas26, Key Biodiversity Areas28, Important Marine 15. Bull, J. W. et al. Net positive outcomes for nature. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 4–7 (2020).
Mammal Areas (IMMAs)30, and Large Marine Ecosystems25. Geos- 16. Milner-Gulland, E. J. et al. Four steps for the Earth: mainstreaming the post-2020
patial analyses were carried out in R Studio64 using the packages global biodiversity framework. One Earth 4, 75–87 (2021).
“terra”65, “exactextractr”66, “tidyverse”67, and “sf”68. 17. Harden-Davies, H. et al. Rights of nature: perspectives for global ocean stew-
ardship. Mar. Policy 122, 104059 (2020).
18. Mair, L. et al. A metric for spatially explicit contributions to science-based species
Generation of START map targets. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1–8 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01432-0.
As START scores span several orders of magnitude, to enable the 19. IUCN Red List. IUCN Red List Categories & Criteria (version 3.1). http://
effective visualization of the START layers values were classified www.iucnredlist.org/static/categories_criteria_3_1 (2012).
20. Brooks, T. M. et al. Measuring Terrestrial Area of Habitat (AOH) and Its Utility for
from “very low” (START 0–0.1 per 5 km grid cell) to “very high”
the IUCN Red List. Trends Ecol. Evol. 34, 977–986 (2019).
(START 100–1000 per 5 km grid cell) as per the categories applied 21. SBTN. SBTN Technical Guidance Step 1 and 2. (2023).
in the IBAT business user guidance45. Global maps and maps of 22. TNFD. Guidance on the identification and assessment of nature-related issues: the
key regions were generated in R Studio64 using the packages LEAP approach Version 1.1. https://tnfd.global/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/
“terra”65, “tidyterra”69, “rnaturalearth”62, and “maptiles”70. For the Guidance_on_the_identification_and_assessment_of_nature-
creation of the combined START layer, the START scores for all related_Issues_The_TNFD_LEAP_approach_V1.1_October2023.pdf?
species that were present in the terrestrial START layer were v=1698403116 (2023).
removed from all cells of the marine START layer that overlapped 23. IUCN. IUCN threat classification scheme (Version 3.2). https://www.iucnredlist.org/
between the two layers. resources/threat-classification-scheme (2022).
24. Baird, A. H. et al. Coral reef biodiversity and conservation. Science 296, 1026–1028
(2002).
25. Large Marine Ecosystem Program NOAA. The 66 Large Marine Ecosystems of the
DATA AVAILABILITY
World. http://geo.vliz.be/geoserver/MarineRegions/wms.
Species extinction risk categories, threat data, elevation limitations, habitat 26. UNEP-WCMC and IUCN. The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) Sep-
associations, and distribution polygons are publicly available under specified terms tember 2022. www.protectedplanet.net (2022).
and conditions of use from the IUCN Red List website10. Key Biodiversity Area 27. Grorud-Colvert, K. et al. The MPA Guide: A framework to achieve global goals for
boundaries are available from the World Database of Key Biodiversity Areas28 and the ocean. Science 373, eabf0861.
Protected Area boundaries are available from the World Database of Protected 28. BirdLife International. Digital boundaries of key biodiversity areas from the
Areas26, again under specified terms and conditions of use. Natural Earth country world database of key biodiversity areas. Developed by the KBA Partnership:
boundaries (1:50 m scale)62 are available online at www.naturalearthdata.com and BirdLife International, International Union for the Conservation of Nature,
EEZ shapefiles are available from the Maritime Boundaries Geodatabase63 at American Bird Conservancy, Amphibian Survival Alliance, Conservation
www.marineregions.org. Spatial data are also available online for Large Marine International, Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund, Global Environment
Ecosystems25 (https://www.lmehub.net/) and IMMAs30 (https:// Facility, Global Wildlife Conservation, NatureServe, Rainforest Trust, Royal
www.marinemammalhabitat.org/immas/imma-spatial-layer-download/). Depth data Society for the Protection of Birds, Wildlife Conservation Society and World
is available at www.ncei.noaa.gov. Global START scores at a grid cell resolution of Wildlife Fund. April 2022 Version. Available at http://
50 × 50 km are available in TIFF file format as Supplementary Data. The 5 km × 5 km www.keybiodiversityareas.org/kba-data/request. http://
layer will be made available in the Integrated Biodiversity Assessment Tool (IBAT). www.keybiodiversityareas.org/site/requestgis (2022).
29. CBD. Ecologically or Biologically Significant Areas (EBSAs), Gizilagach Bay Com-
Received: 12 August 2023; Accepted: 18 December 2023; plex. (2019).
30. IUCN-MMPATF. Global Dataset of Important Marine Mammal Areas (IUCN-IMMA).
Made available under agreement on terms of use by the IUCN Joint SSC/WCPA
Marine Mammal Protected Areas Task Force www.marinemammalhabitat.org/
imma-eatlas (2021).
REFERENCES 31. Boyce, D. G. et al. A climate risk index for marine life. Nat. Clim. Chang. 12,
1. Maxwell, S. L. et al. Area-based conservation in the twenty-first century. Nature 854–862 (2022).
586, 217–227 (2020). 32. Reddin, C. J., Aberhan, M., Raja, N. B. & Kocsis, Á. T. Global warming generates
2. Pressey, R. L. et al. The mismeasure of conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 36, 808–821 predictable extinctions of warm‐ and cold‐water marine benthic invertebrates via
(2021). thermal habitat loss. Glob. Change Biol. 28, 5793–5807 (2022).
3. Visconti, P. et al. Protected area targets post-2020. Science eaav6886. https:// 33. Penn, J. L. & Deutsch, C. Avoiding ocean mass extinction from climate warming.
doi.org/10.1126/science.aav6886 (2019) Science 376, 524–526 (2022).
4. Devillers, R. et al. Reinventing residual reserves in the sea: are we favouring ease 34. Bowler, D. E. et al. Mapping human pressures on biodiversity across the planet
of establishment over need for protection? Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. uncovers anthropogenic threat complexes. People Nat. 2, 380–394 (2020).
(2014). 35. Ridley, F. A., Hickinbotham, E. J., Suggitt, A. J., McGowan, P. J. K. & Mair, L. The
5. Edgar, G. J. et al. Global conservation outcomes depend on marine protected scope and extent of literature that maps threats to species globally: a systematic
areas with five key features. Nature (2014). map. Environ. Evid. 11, 26 (2022).
6. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity 36. Halpern, B. S. et al. A global map of human impact on marine ecosystems. Science
Framework. (2022). 319, 948–952 (2008).
7. Venter, O. et al. Targeting global protected area expansion for imperiled biodi- 37. Halpern, B. S. et al. Spatial and temporal changes in cumulative human impacts
versity. PLoS Biol. 12, e1001891–e1001891 (2014). on the world’s ocean. Nat. Commun. 6, 7615 (2015).
8. Watson, J. E. M. et al. Bolder science needed now for protected areas. Conserv. 38. Murua, H. et al. Shark mortality cannot be assessed by fishery overlap alone.
Biol. 30, 243–248 (2016). Nature 595, E4–E7 (2021).
9. Obura, D. et al. Vulnerability to collapse of coral reef ecosystems in the Western 39. Global Fishing Watch. Global Fishing Watch Interactive Map. Global Fishing Watch
Indian Ocean. Nat. Sustain. 5, 104–113 (2022). | Sustainability through Transparency https://globalfishingwatch.org/?locale=en.
10. IUCN. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species Version 2022.1. https:// 40. Griffiths, S. P., Kesner-Reyes, K., Garilao, C., Duffy, L. M. & Román, M. H. Ecological
www.iucnredlist.org/ (2022). Assessment of the Sustainable Impacts of Fisheries (EASI-Fish): a flexible vul-
11. Dulvy, N. K. et al. Overfishing drives over one-third of all sharks and rays toward a nerability assessment approach to quantify the cumulative impacts of fishing in
global extinction crisis. Curr. Biol. 31, 4773–4787.e8 (2021). data-limited settings. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 625, 89–113 (2019).

npj Ocean Sustainability (2024) 4

 J.A. Turner et al.
10
41. Wright, G. Strengthening the role of science in marine governance through their biodiversity targets and strategy. We confirm that TotalEnergies had no influence
environmental impact assessment: a case study of the marine renewable energy on the methodological approach taken in this paper to benefit themselves or
industry. Ocean Coast. Manag. 99, 23–30 (2014). disadvantage others. The authors of this paper, nor their organizations, do not
42. Maclean, I. M. D. et al. Resolving issues with environmental impact assessment of automatically endorse any usage of these results by TotalEnergies. In addition, the views
marine renewable energy installations. Fronti. Mar. Sci. 1 https:// expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of IUCN. We thank Steven
www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2014.00075/full (2014). Dickinson, Thomas Merzi, and TotalEnergies for providing funding for prototype
43. IUCN. A global standard for the identification of key biodiversity areas, Version development of the layer. We also thank Hollie Booth for her comments. IUCN receives
1.0. https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/47982 (2016). core funding from the following Framework Partners: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
44. Harry, A. V. & Braccini, J. M. Caution over the use of ecological big data for Denmark; Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland; Government of France and the French
conservation. Nature 595, E17–E19 (2021). Development Agency (AFD); the Ministry of Environment, Republic of Korea; the
45. IBAT. STAR Business User Guidance. 21 https://www.ibat-alliance.org/pdf/ Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Norad); the Swedish International
star_business_user_guidance.pdf (2021). Development Cooperation Agency (Sida); the Swiss Agency for Development and
46. Tittensor, D. P. et al. Global patterns and predictors of marine biodiversity across Cooperation (SDC) and the United States Department of State. The initial development of
taxa. Nature 466, 1098–1101 (2010). the STAR metric was funded by the Luc Hoffmann Institute, Vulcan Inc, Synchronicity
47. Cuyvers, Luc, Berry, Witney, Gjerde, Kristina, Thiele, Torsten, & Wilhem, Caroline. Earth, and Global Environment Facility, supported by the Conservation International GEF
Deep seabed mining: a rising environmental challenge. https://doi.org/10.2305/ Project Agency, and advanced through discussion among the co-authors of Mair et al.18
IUCN.CH.2018.16.en (2018). hosted by the IUCN SSC Post-2020 Taskforce at the University of Newcastle in February
48. Thoma, J. N., Pante, E., Brugler, M. R. & France, S. C. Deep-sea octocorals and 2019. N.K.D. was supported by the Discovery and Accelerator grants from Natural Science
antipatharians show no evidence of seamount-scale endemism in the NW and Engineering Research Council and the Canada Research Chair program. Finally, we
Atlantic. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 397, 25–35 (2009). thank all of the experts who have conducted the IUCN Red List assessments, without
49. IUCN. IUCN Summary Statistics Tables (Version 2022.1). https:// which this work would not have been possible.
www.iucnredlist.org/resources/summary-statistics (2022).
50. Bayraktarov, E. et al. The cost and feasibility of marine coastal restoration. Ecol.
Appl. 26, 1055–1074 (2016). AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
51. Jacob, C., Buffard, A., Pioch, S. & Thorin, S. Marine ecosystem restoration and The study was conceptualized by J.A.T., A.S., M.S., L.B., L.M., T.B., N.K.D., F.H., and N.M.
biodiversity offset. Ecol. Eng. 120, 585–594 (2018). The STAR methodology was adapted by J.A.T. for this work. Data curation and formal
52. Dulvy, N. K. et al. Challenges and priorities in shark and ray conservation. Curr. analysis were carried out by J.A.T. with specific guidance from N.K.D., T.B., M.S., L.M.,
Biol. 27, R565–R572 (2017). L.B., F.H., and A.S. Project administration was led by A.S. and supervised by M.S., L.B.,
53. Salafsky, N. et al. A standard lexicon for biodiversity conservation: unified clas- T.B., and N.K.D. Visualization was led by J.A.T. with significant input from N.K.D. and
sifications of threats and actions. Conserv. Biol. 22, 897–911 (2008). F.H. Writing of the draft was led by J.A.T. with A.S., M.S., L.M., and L.B. Review and
54. BirdLife International and Handbook of the Birds of the World. Bird species dis- editing was led by N.K.D., T.B., and F.H. with significant input from B.P., S.B., K.C.,
tribution maps of the world. Version 2022.1. Available at http:// R.W.J., M.E., and N.M.
datazone.birdlife.org/species/requestdis (2022).
55. IUCN. Mapping Standards and Data Quality for the IUCN Red List Categories and
Criteria. https://nc.iucnredlist.org/redlist/resources/files/1539098236-
COMPETING INTERESTS
Mapping_Standards_Version_1.16_2018.pdf (2018).
56. IUCN. IUCN Habitat Classification Scheme (Version 3.1). https:// All authors declare no competing interests.
www.iucnredlist.org/resources/habitat-classification-scheme (2022).
57. IUCN Global Ecosystem Typology 2.0: descriptive profiles for biomes and ecosystem
functional groups. (IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature, 2020). ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2020.13.en. Supplementary information The online version contains supplementary material
58. Keith, D. A. et al. Indicative distribution maps for Ecological Functional Groups - available at https://doi.org/10.1038/s44183-023-00040-8.
Level 3 of IUCN Global Ecosystem Typology. https://doi.org/10.5281/
zenodo.3958934 (2020) Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to Joseph A. Turner
59. NOAA. ETOPO1 1 Arc-Minute Global Relief Model. NOAA National Centers for .
Environmental Information. https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/metadata/
landing-page/bin/iso?id=gov.noaa.ngdc.mgg.dem:316 (2009). Reprints and permission information is available at http://www.nature.com/
60. Garnett, S. T. et al. Metrics of progress in the understanding and management of reprints
threats to Australian birds. Conserv. Biol. 33, 456–468 (2019).
61. Chamberlain, S. rredlist: IUCN Red List Client. (2020). Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims
62. South, A. rnaturalearth: World Map Data from Natural Earth. (2017). in published maps and institutional affiliations.
63. Flanders Marine Institute. Maritime Boundaries Geodatabase: Maritime Bound-
aries and Exclusive Economic Zones (200NM), version 11. https://doi.org/
10.14284/382 (2019).
64. R Studio Team. RStudio: Integrated Development Environment for R. (2022). Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons
65. Hijmans, R. J. terra: Spatial Data Analysis. (2022). Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing,
66. Daniel Baston. exactextractr: Fast Extraction from Raster Datasets using Polygons. adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give
(2022). appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative
67. Wickham, H. tidyverse: Easily Install and Load the Tidyverse. (2021). Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party
68. Pebesma, E. sf: Simple Features for R. (2022). material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless
69. Hernangómez, D. tidyterra: tidyverse Methods and ggplot2 Utils for terra Objects. indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the
(2022). article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory
70. Giraud, T. maptiles: Download and Display Map Tiles. (2021). regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly
71. Pacoureau, N. et al. Half a century of global decline in oceanic sharks and rays. from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://
Nature 589, 567–571 (2021). creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS © The Author(s) 2024

Funding to support this work was received by authors affiliated with The Biodiversity
Consultancy (J.T., M.S., A.S., L.B.) from TotalEnergies and results may be used to inform

npj Ocean Sustainability (2024) 4