Skip to main content
Coral reef commitments are largely absent from national biodiversity and climate frameworks

Coral reef commitments are largely absent from national biodiversity and climate frameworks

This is a Preprint and has not been peer reviewed. This is version 1 of this Preprint.

Add a Comment

You must log in to post a comment.


Comments

There are no comments or no comments have been made public for this article.

Downloads

Download Preprint

Authors

Alfred DeGemmis, Emily Darling, Marie-Céline Piednoir, Victor Brun, Joachim Claudet, Stacy D Jupiter , Margaux Monfared, Elizabeth McLeod, Pepe Clarke, Thomas Dallison, Rachel S. James, Andrew Rylance, Francis Staub, Nicole Trudeau

Abstract


Global agreements under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) call for integrated action on biodiversity loss and climate change. Yet national implementation remains poorly understood, even for ecosystems highly vulnerable to warming, such as tropical coral reefs. Bleaching-level heat stress has affected over 85% of global reefs and likely impacted at least 97 of 101 reef-holding countries (Spady et al., 2025a), jeopardizing the benefits reefs provide for people and nature. We assessed how the 25 countries with the largest reef areas (“high-coral countries”) are translating global commitments into national strategies by analyzing National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) and targets aligned with the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KM-GBF), as well as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) under the Paris Agreement. As of August 2025, 71% of high-coral countries had submitted KM-GBF-aligned biodiversity targets, but none included measurable commitments for coral reefs. Only one country linked climate threats to quantitative Target 3 commitments, and just 8 of 25 referenced marine ecosystem action under Target 8. Under the Paris Agreement, fewer than half (48%) mentioned coral reefs in NDCs, and only three included measurable reef-related commitments; seven countries referenced reefs in NAPs, none with quantitative targets. These findings reveal a major disconnect between global ambition and national action, with coral reefs largely absent from operational planning. We propose three priorities to close this gap: (i) co-develop dedicated national coral reef strategies; (ii) elevate coral reefs within NBSAPs as biodiversity and climate-resilience priorities; and (iii) include measurable coral reef commitments within future NDCs and NAPs. Strengthening policy coherence across biodiversity and climate frameworks is essential to secure climate-resilient coral reefs and the communities that depend on them.

DOI

https://doi.org/10.31223/X5DF10

Subjects

Biodiversity, Climate, Environmental Health and Protection, Environmental Indicators and Impact Assessment, Environmental Monitoring, Environmental Sciences, Marine Biology, Natural Resource Economics, Natural Resources and Conservation, Natural Resources Management and Policy, Oceanography, Other Oceanography and Atmospheric Sciences and Meteorology, Sustainability

Keywords

Coral reefs, national commitments, biodiversity frameworks, climate frameworks, policy coherence, climate-resilient conservation, climate change, biodiversity policy, Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs), Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KM-GBF), Paris Agreement, area-based conservation, climate adaptation, Marine conservation, climate refugia, Nature-based solutions, Ecosystem resilience, International environmental governance, conservation targets, climate-resilient coral reefs

Dates

Published: 2025-11-21 10:03

Last Updated: 2025-11-21 10:03

License

CC BY Attribution 4.0 International

Metrics

Views: 304

Downloads: 60