© 2018 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved. © 2018 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved.

correspondence

Biodiversity conservation should be a core value of China’s Belt and Road InitiativeTo the Editor — China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI; also known as ‘One Belt One Road’) is potentially the largest infrastructure development in our lifetime. In 2013, President Xi Jinping revealed his vision for BRI, which is expected to be core to China’s development strategy for at least the next decade1. With an estimated cost of over 4 trillion US dollars, BRI will connect roughly half of the world’s population, across more than 65 countries, with land and marine routes2,3. Although much has been discussed about its economic and geopolitical implications, the implications of BRI for biodiversity must also be considered, especially in Asia.

Infrastructure and its impacts are key drivers of biodiversity loss. BRI will cross several terrestrial and marine biodiversity hotspots4,5, wilderness areas6 and other key conservation areas, such as southeast Asia’s Coral Triangle6 (Fig. 1). These disruptions will create obvious threats to biodiversity. Roads, for example, open a Pandora’s box of environmental impacts, such as habitat loss, fragmentation, invasive species, and illegal activities such as poaching and logging7. In the marine environment, increased sea traffic exacerbates the movement of invasive species and pollution8,9. Poorly planned infrastructure has the risk of locking in

undesirable environmental practices for decades to come. BRI could have disastrous consequences for biodiversity.

We challenge decision-makers, infrastructure planners and conservationists to work together not only to mitigate BRI’s negative impacts, but also to think how to transform this juggernaut into an opportunity for biodiversity. If BRI adopts biodiversity conservation as one of its core values, it could, for example, plan and implement a network of protected areas and wildlife corridors across Eurasia. In much of BRI’s region, especially in southeast, central and western Asia, there is a clear

8

7

9

112

6

13

5 4

18

2

11

10

14

19

2016

3

15

17

2,000 km

N

1. Caucasus2. Coastal forests of eastern Africa3. East Melanesian Islands4. Eastern Afromontane5. Guinean forests of West Africa6. Himalaya7. Horn of Africa8. Indo-Burma9. Irano-Anatolian

10. Japan11. Madagascar and the Indian

Ocean Islands12. Mediterranean Basin13. Mountains of central Asia14. Mountains of southwest China15. New Caledonia16. Philippines17. Polynesia-Micronesia18. Sundaland19. Wallacea

20. Western Ghats and Sri Lanka

Biodiversity hotspotsHotspot areaOuter limit

Coral reef triangle

Boundary

Human footprint

High: 50

Low: 0BRI routesTerrestrialMarine

Fig. 1 | Location of BRI’s terrestrial and marine routes21. a,b, Routes shown with respect to Conservation International 2004 biodiversity hotspots22 and the Coral Triangle23 (a), and the 2009 human footprint24 (b).

NatuRe eCoLogy & evoLutIoN | www.nature.com/natecolevol

correspondence

© 2018 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved. © 2018 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved.

correspondence

need for additional protected areas10,11 to meet the Convention on Biological Diversity’s target of 17% of terrestrial and inland water, and 10% of coastal and marine areas12 within protected areas, or even a more ambitious target. BRI could achieve this by learning from, supporting and expanding existing national initiatives in the region such as Bhutan For Life13 or Malaysia’s Central Forest Spine14, and by opportunistically promoting transboundary conservation parks and conservation activities15. Furthermore, developments under BRI need to follow best practice environmental planning such as applying strategic environmental assessments16,17 and early assessment of impacts at the feasibility stage rather than once investments have been made (before an environmental impact assessment)17. BRI should also apply the mitigation hierarchy to ensure at least no net loss of biodiversity and to aim for a net biodiversity gain that yields benefits to conservation that would not have otherwise occurred18.

Many negative environmental impacts are attributable to Chinese activity, both within China and across the globe15,19. But China has recently launched a policy paradigm known as ‘ecological civilization’ that aims to improve environmental regulations, reduce pollution and increase the adoption of green technology20. If China can match its rhetoric with action (see ref. 16) and similarly embrace biodiversity conservation, it could use its geopolitical weight to pursue the

conservation agenda in the BRI landscapes. The vision we propose should be led by Chinese authorities and diplomacy but will require clear involvement from other governments and stakeholders, including intergovernmental organizations such as the United Nations Development Programme, financiers, developers and civil society. Conservationists, planners and decision-makers need to think outside the box about BRI’s biodiversity implications to ensure that biodiversity is at the core of BRI’s values rather than an afterthought. ❐

Alex Mark Lechner1,2*, Faith Ka Shun Chan3,4,5 and Ahimsa Campos-Arceiz1,2

1School of Environmental and Geographical Sciences, University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus, Jalan Broga, 43500 Semenyih, Selangor, Malaysia. 2Mindset Interdisciplinary Centre for Environmental Studies, University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus, Jalan Broga, 43500 Semenyih, Selangor, Malaysia. 3School of Geographical Science, University of Nottingham Ningbo China, Ningbo 315100, China. 4Institute of Asia Pacific Studies (IAPS), Belt and Road Initiative Research Priorities Area, University of Nottingham Ningbo China, Ningbo 315100, China. 5School of Geography, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK. *e-mail: Alex.Lechner@nottingham.edu.my

Published: xx xx xxxx https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0452-8

References 1. Wang, Ye Xie. President Xi’s vision for the future OBOR

strategy. CPC News (8 September 2013); http://cpc.people.com.cn/n/2013/0908/c64094-22843681.html

2. Zhang, J. M. Malaysia says it stands to reap benefits from Belt and Road Initiative. Belt and Road Portal (30 October 2017); https://eng.yidaiyilu.gov.cn/qwyw/rdxw/32071.htm

3. Our bulldozers, our rules. The Economist (2 July 2016); https://www.economist.com/news/china/21701505-chinas-foreign-policy-could-reshape-good-part-world-economy-our-bulldozers-our-rules

4. The Belt and Road Initiative - WWF Recommendations And Spatial Analysis (WWF, 2017).

5. Mittermeier, R. A. et al. Revisited: Earth's Biologically Richest and Most Endangered Ecoregions (CEMEX, Mexico City, 2004).

6. Venter, O. et al. Nat. Commun. 7, 1–11 (2016). 7. Laurance, W. F. et al. Nature 513, 229–232 (2014). 8. Molnar, J. L., Gamboa, R. L., Revenga, C. & Spalding, M. D.

Front. Ecol. Environ. 6, 485–492 (2008). 9. Todd, P. A., Ong, X. & Chou, L. M. Biodivers. Conserv. 19,

1063–1082 (2010). 10. Sodhi, N. S., Koh, L. P., Brook, B. W. & Ng, P. K. L. Trends Ecol.

Evol. 19, 654–660 (2004). 11. López-Pujol, J., Zhang, F. M. & Ge, S. Biodivers. Conserv. 15,

3983–4026 (2006). 12. The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and the Aichi

Biodiversity Targets (UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/X/2, 2010). 13. Bhutan for Life (Government of Bhutan, 2017);

http://www.bfl.org.bt 14. CFS I: Master Plan for Ecological Linkages (Regional Planning

Division, Department of Town and Country Planning, Peninsula Malaysia, 2009).

15. Yang, D. et al. Ecosyst. Health Sustain. 2, 1–6 (2016). 16. Laurance, W. F. & Arrea, I. B. Science 358,

442–444 (2017). 17. Lechner, A. M. et al. Environ. Model. Softw. 93,

268–281 (2017). 18. Maron, M., Gordon, A., Mackey, B. G., Possingham, H. P. &

Watson, J. E. M. Nature 523, 401–403 (2015). 19. Liu, J. & Diamond, J. Nature 435, 1179–1186 (2005). 20. Xiao, L. & Zhao, R. Science 358, 1008–1009 (2017). 21. The Major Routes and the Economic Corridors of BRI (National

Administration of Surveying, Mapping and Geoinformation of China, 2017); http://bzdt.nasg.gov.cn/jsp/browseMap.jsp?picId= %274o28b0625501ad13015501ad2bfc0083%27

22. Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., da Fonseca, G. A. B. & Kent, J. Nature 403, 853–858 (2000).

23. Cros, A. et al. PLoS ONE 9, e96332 (2014). 24. Venter, O. et al. Sci. Data 3, 160067 (2016).

Competing interestsThe authors declare no competing financial interests.

NatuRe eCoLogy & evoLutIoN | www.nature.com/natecolevol