MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4416504671 · doi:10.31223/x5df10

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

2025· article· W4416504671 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alfred DeGemmis, Emily S. Darling, Marie-Céline Piednoir, Victor Brun, Joachim Claudet, Stacy D. Jupiter, Margaux A.A. Monfared, Elizabeth McLeod, Pepe Clarke, Thomas Dallison, Rachel James, Andrew Rylance, Francis Staub, Nicole Trudeau

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCoral and Marine Ecosystems Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoral reefBiodiversityConvention on Biological DiversityReefCoral reef protectionEnvironmental issues with coral reefsCoral reef organizationsClimate changeEcosystem services

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.183

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.220 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCoral and Marine Ecosystems Studies→French-language works237,207→