Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 Outlook 3 Outlook Biodiversity Global

Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity World Trade Centre · 413 St. Jacques Street, Suite 800 Montreal, Quebec, Canada H2Y 1N9 Phone: 1(514) 288 2220 · Fax: 1 (514) 288 6588 E-mail: [email protected] · Website: http://www.cbd.int Table of Contents

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 2 Foreword ...... 4 Foreword by the United Nations Secretary-General ...... 5 Message from the Executive Director of UNEP...... 6 Preface by the Executive Secretary of the CBD...... 7 Executive Summary ...... 8 Introduction ...... 14 Biodiversity in 2010 ...... 16 Species populations and extinction risks ...... 24 Terrestrial ecosystems...... 32 Inland waters ecosystems...... 42 Marine and coastal ecosystems...... 46 Genetic diversity...... 51 Current pressures on biodiversity and responses...... 55 Biodiversity Futures for the 21st Century...... 70 Terrestrial ecosystems...... 74 Inland water ecosystems...... 78 Coastal and marine ecosystems...... 80 Towards a Strategy for Reducing Biodiversity Loss...... 82 Acknowledgements ...... 88 Photo Credits ...... 91 List of Boxes, Tables and Figures...... 93

© Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. For further information, please contact: Secretariat of the Convention on Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 (ISBN-92-9225-220-8) is an open access publication, Biological Diversity subject to the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License World Trade Centre (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). 413 St. Jacques Street, Suite 800 Montreal, Quebec, Canada H2Y 1N9 Copyright is retained by the Secretariat. Phone: 1(514) 288 2220 Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 is freely available online: www.cbd.int/GBO3. An annotated Fax: 1 (514) 288 6588 version of the publication with complete references is also available from the website. E-mail: [email protected] Users may download, reuse, reprint, modify, distribute, and/or copy text, figures, graphs Website: http://www.cbd.int and photos from Global Biodiversity Outlook 3, so long as the original source is credited.

Layout and design: Phoenix Design Aid A/S, The designations employed and the presentation of material in Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 ISO 9001/ ISO 14001certified and approved CO2 do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the neutral company. www.phoenixdesignaid.com. Convention on Biological Diversity concerning the legal status of any country, territory, Graphics: In-folio city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Printed by Progress Press Ltd., Malta, a FSC certified company. Printed on chlorine-free paper Citation: made of pulp from sustainably managed forests Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2010) Global Biodiversity Outlook 3. Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 3 and using vegetable-based inks and water-based Montréal, 94 pages. coatings. Foreword

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 4 Foreword by the United Nations Secretary-General

In 2002, the world’s leaders agreed to achieve a significant reduction in the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010. Having reviewed all available evidence, including national reports submitted by Parties, this third edition of the Global Biodiversity Outlook concludes that the target has not been met. Moreover, the Out- look warns, the principal pressures leading to biodiversity loss are not just constant but are, in some cases, intensifying.

The consequences of this collective failure, if it is not quickly corrected, will be severe for us all. Biodiver- sity underpins the functioning of the ecosystems on which we depend for food and fresh water, health and recreation, and protection from natural disasters. Its loss also affects us culturally and spiritually. This may be more difficult to quantify, but is none- theless integral to our well-being.

Current trends are bringing us closer to a number In several important areas, national and interna- of potential tipping points that would catastrophi- tional action to support biodiversity is moving in a cally reduce the capacity of ecosystems to provide positive direction. More land and sea areas are being these essential services. The poor, who tend to be protected, more countries are fighting the serious most immediately dependent on them, would suf- threat of invasive alien species, and more money is fer first and most severely. At stake are the princi- being set aside for implementing the Convention on pal objectives outlined in the Millennium Develop- Biological Diversity. ment Goals: food security, poverty eradication and a healthier population. However, these efforts are too often undermined by conflicting policies. To tackle the root causes of bio- The conservation of biodiversity makes a critical diversity loss, we must give it higher priority in all contribution to moderating the scale of climate areas of decision-making and in all economic sec- change and reducing its negative impacts by mak- tors. As this third Global Biodiversity Outlook makes ing ecosystems -- and therefore human societies -- clear, conserving biodiversity cannot be an after- more resilient. It is therefore essential that the chal- thought once other objectives are addressed – it is lenges related to biodiversity and climate change the foundation on which many of these objectives are tackled in a coordinated manner and given are built. We need a new vision for biological diver- equal priority. sity for a healthy planet and a sustainable future for humankind.

Ban Ki-moon Secretary‑General United Nations

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 5 Message from the Executive Director of UNEP

A new and more intelligent compact between humanity and the Earth’s life-support systems is urgently needed in 2010—the UN’s International Year of Biodiversity. This was the year when governments had agreed to substantially reduce the rate of biodiversity loss: this has not happened. Instead of reflecting, governments, business and society as a whole need to urgently renew and recommit to this enterprise if sustainability is to be realized in the 21st century.

The Global Biodiversity Outlook-3 contains the so- bering facts and figures while pin pointing several key reasons as to why the challenge of conserving and indeed enhancing biodiversity remains un- met. One key area is economics: many economies Other ‘litmus tests’ include bridging the gap be- remain blind to the huge value of the diversity of tween science and policy-makers by perhaps the animals, plants and other life-forms and their role establishment of an Intergovernmental Panel on in healthy and functioning ecosystems from forests Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Public aware- and freshwaters to soils, oceans and even the at- ness will also be key: de-mystifying terms such as mosphere. biodiversity and ecosystems is one challenge. The other is to make the link between biodiversity and The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity, livelihoods and the important role of biodiversity hosted by UNEP, is a major exercise aimed at bridg- and natural systems in meeting other sustainability ing understanding and driving action in this area. challenges such as climate change, water scarcity It will complement the GBO-3 in advance of the and agriculture. Convention on Biological Diversity meeting in Nagoya later in the year. Already some compelling Governments also need to rise to the challenge of and catalyzing facts are emerging. Alien Invasive Species. By some estimates, they may be costing the global economy US$1.4 tril- ✤ Annual losses as a result of deforestation and lion or more. In sub-Saharan Africa, the invasive forest degradation alone may equate to losses of witchweed is responsible for annual maize losses US$2 trillion to over US$4.5 trillion alone. These amounting to US$7 billion: overall losses to aliens could be secured by an annual investment of just may amount to over US$12 billion in respect to Af- US$45 billion: a 100 to 1 return. rica's eight principal crops.

Many countries are beginning to factor natural Last but not least, a successful conclusion to nego- capital into some areas of economic and social life tiations on an international regime on access and with important returns, but this needs rapid and benefit sharing of genetic resources is needed. This sustained scaling-up. is the missing pillar of the CBD and perhaps its financial mechanism: a successful conclusion would ✤ In Venezuela, investment in the national protect- indeed make 2010 a year to applaud. ed area system is preventing sedimentation that otherwise could reduce farm earnings by around The arrogance of humanity is that somehow we US$3.5 million a year. imagine we can get by without biodiversity or that it is somehow peripheral: the truth is we need it more ✤ Planting and protecting nearly 12,000 hectares than ever on a planet of six billion heading to over of mangroves in Vietnam costs just over US$1 nine billion people by 2050. million but saved annual expenditures on dyke maintenance of well over US$7 million.

Mainstreaming the economics of biodiversity and the multi-trillion dollar services of the ecosystems Achim Steiner which it supports into development, decision-making can make 2010 a success. United Nations Under-Secretary General and Executive Director, United Nations Environment Programme

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 6 Message from the Executive Director of UNEP Preface by the Executive Secretary of the CBD

The third edition of Global Biodiversity Outlook (GBO-3) comes at a critical period in the history of the Convention on Biological Diversity. It coincides with the deadline agreed in Johannesburg by world leaders to substantially reduce the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010 as a contribution to poverty alleviation and to the benefit of all life on Earth. To this end the United Nations has designated 2010 as the International Year of Biodiversity. For the first time in its history, the United Nations General As- sembly, during its 65th session, will convene a high level meeting on biodiversity with the participation of Heads of State and Government. Further during the tenth meeting of the Conference of Parties to the Convention, to be held in Nagoya, Aichi Prefec- ture, Japan, Parties will develop a new strategic plan At the same time, the fourth national reports give for the coming decades including a 2050 vision and us a clear picture of the obstacles that need to be 2020 mission for biodiversity as well as means for overcome to better implement the objectives of the implementation and mechanism to monitor and Convention. These include limited capacity in both evaluate our progress towards our shared global developed and developing nations, including finan- objectives. cial, human and technical issues; the absence of, or difficulties in, accessing scientific information; lim- More than fifteen years after the Convention came ited awareness of biodiversity issues amongst the into force, and when the international community general public and decision makers; limited biodi- is actively preparing for the Rio+20 summit, this is versity mainstreaming; fragmented decision mak- a time of reckoning for decision-makers commit- ing and limited communication between different ted to the global effort to safeguard the variety life ministries or sectors; and the absence of economic on Earth and its contribution to human well-being. valuation of biodiversity. GBO-3 is a vital tool to inform decision-makers and the wider public, about the state of biodiversity in As this Outlook makes clear, it is essential that these 2010, the implications of current trends, and our op- obstacles are removed if we are to make progress in tions for the future. tackling biodiversity loss. It is increasingly urgent that we make such progress, as the consequences Drawing extensively from the approximately 120 of current trends have implications that jeopard- national reports submitted by Parties to the Con- ize many of the objectives shared by the wider UN vention, GBO-3 makes it clear that we have much family to change the world for the better. We have work to do over the months and years to come. No an opportunity, equipped with the knowledge and country has reported that it will completely meet analysis contained in this document and its under- the 2010 target, and a few Parties have unequivo- lying sources, to move biodiversity into the main- cally stated they will not meet it. Moreover, most stream of decision-making. Let us, individually and Parties have reported that at least one, but in most collectively, seize this opportunity, for the sake of cases several species and habitats within their na- current and future generations as indeed biodiver- tional territories, were in a state of decline. sity is life, biodiversity is our life.

Most Parties have confirmed that five main pressures continue to affect biodiversity within their borders: habitat loss, the unsustainable use and overexploitation of resources, climate change, invasive alien species, and pollution. Many positive steps have been taken by the Parties to help address these issues. These include the development of new biodiversity- related legislation; the establishment of mechanisms for environmental impact assessment; participation Ahmed Djoghlaf in transboundary management or cooperation initi- Assistant Secretary-General atives; and fostering community involvement in the management of biological resources. and Executive Secretary Convention on Biological Diversity

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 7 Executive Summary

The Bali Starling (Leucopsar rothschildi) is a critically endangered species endemic to the island of Bali, Indonesia. It suffered a drastic decline in population and range during the 20th century, due mainly to illegal poaching. In 1990 only around 15 birds were thought to survive in the wild. Conservation efforts coupled with the release of some captive-bred birds brought the estimated population to more than 100 individuals by 2008, but numbers continue to fluctuate from year to year.

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 8 The target agreed by the world’s Govern- has major implications for current and future ments in 2002, “to achieve by 2010 a sig- human well-being. The provision of food, fibre, nificant reduction of the current rate of bi- medicines and fresh water, pollination of crops, odiversity loss at the global, regional and filtration of pollutants, and protection from national level as a contribution to poverty natural disasters are among those ecosystem alleviation and to the benefit of all life on services potentially threatened by declines and Earth”, has not been met. changes in biodiversity. Cultural services such as spiritual and religious values, opportunities There are multiple indications of continuing decline for knowledge and education, as well as recrea- in biodiversity in all three of its main components — tional and aesthetic values, are also declining. genes, species and ecosystems — including: The existence of the 2010 biodiversity target ✤ Species which have been assessed for extinc- has helped to stimulate important action to tion risk are on average moving closer to ex- safeguard biodiversity, such as creating more tinction. Amphibians face the greatest risk and protected areas (both on land and in coastal wa- coral species are deteriorating most rapidly in ters), the conservation of particular species, and status. Nearly a quarter of plant species are es- initiatives to tackle some of the direct causes of timated to be threatened with extinction. ecosystem damage, such as pollution and alien species invasions. Some 170 countries now ✤ The abundance of vertebrate species, based on have national biodiversity strategies and ac- assessed populations, fell by nearly a third on tion plans. At the international level, financial average between 1970 and 2006, and continues resources have been mobilized and progress to fall globally, with especially severe declines has been made in developing mechanisms for in the tropics and among freshwater species. research, monitoring and scientific assessment of biodiversity. ✤ Natural habitats in most parts of the world continue to decline in extent and integrity, Many actions in support of biodiversity have although there has been significant progress had significant and measurable results in in slowing the rate of loss for tropical forests particular areas and amongst targeted spe- and mangroves, in some regions. Freshwater cies and ecosystems. This suggests that with wetlands, sea ice habitats, salt marshes, coral adequate resources and political will, the reefs, seagrass beds and shellfish reefs are all tools exist for loss of biodiversity to be re- showing serious declines. duced at wider scales. For example, recent government policies to curb deforestation have ✤ Extensive fragmentation and degradation of been followed by declining rates of forest loss forests, rivers and other ecosystems have also in some tropical countries. Measures to control led to loss of biodiversity and ecosystem serv- alien invasive species have helped a number ices. of species to move to a lower extinction risk category. It has been estimated that at least 31 ✤ Crop and livestock genetic diversity continues bird species (out of 9,800) would have become to decline in agricultural systems. extinct in the past century, in the absence of conservation measures. ✤ The five principal pressures directly driving biodiversity loss (habitat change, overexploita- However, action to implement the Convention tion, pollution, invasive alien species and cli- on Biological Diversity has not been taken mate change) are either constant or increasing on a sufficient scale to address the pressures in intensity. on biodiversity in most places. There has been insufficient integration of biodiversity ✤ The ecological footprint of humanity exceeds issues into broader policies, strategies and the biological capacity of the Earth by a wider programmes, and the underlying drivers of margin than at the time the 2010 target was biodiversity loss have not been addressed agreed. significantly.Actions to promote the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity receive The loss of biodiversity is an issue of pro- a tiny fraction of funding compared to activi- found concern for its own sake. Biodiversity ties aimed at promoting infrastructure and in- also underpins the functioning of ecosystems dustrial developments. Moreover, biodiversity which provide a wide range of services to hu- considerations are often ignored when such man societies. Its continued loss, therefore, developments are designed, and opportunities

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 9 to plan in ways that minimize unnecessary pacts on fisheries, wood harvests, recreation op- negative impacts on biodiversity are missed. portunities and other services. Actions to address the underlying drivers of biodiversity loss, including demographic, eco- There is a high risk of dramatic biodiversity loss nomic, technological, socio-political and cul- and accompanying degradation of a broad range tural pressures, in meaningful ways, have also of ecosystem services if ecosystems are pushed been limited. beyond certain thresholds or tipping points. The poor would face the earliest and most severe im- Most future scenarios project continuing pacts of such changes, but ultimately all socie- high levels of extinctions and loss of habitats ties and communities would suffer. throughout this century, with associated decline of some ecosystem services important to Examples include: human well-being. ✤ The Amazon forest, due to the interaction of For example: deforestation, fire and climate change, could undergo a widespread dieback, with parts ✤ Tropical forests would continue to be cleared of the forest moving into a self-perpetuat- in favour of crops and pastures, and poten- ing cycle of more frequent fires and intense tially for biofuel production. droughts leading to a shift to savanna-like vegetation. While there are large uncertainties ✤ Climate change, the introduction of invasive associated with these scenarios, it is known alien species, pollution and dam construction that such dieback becomes much more likely would put further pressure on freshwater bi- to occur if deforestation exceeds 20 – 30% (it odiversity and the services it underpins. is currently above 17% in the Brazilian Ama- zon). It would lead to regional rainfall reduc- ✤ Overfishing would continue to damage ma- tions, compromising agricultural production. rine ecosystems and cause the collapse of fish There would also be global impacts through populations, leading to the failure of fisheries. increased carbon emissions, and massive loss of biodiversity. Changes in the abundance and distribution of species may have serious consequences ✤ The build-up of phosphates and nitrates from for human societies. The geographical distri- agricultural fertilizers and sewage effluent bution of species and vegetation types is pro- can shift freshwater lakes and other inland jected to shift radically due to climate change, water ecosystems into a long-term, algae- with ranges moving from hundreds to thou- dominated (eutrophic) state. This could lead sands of kilometres towards the poles by the to declining fish availability with implications end of the 21st century. Migration of marine for food security in many developing coun- species to cooler waters could make tropical tries. There will also be loss of recreation op- oceans less diverse, while both boreal and tem- portunities and tourism income, and in some perate forests face widespread dieback at the cases health risks for people and livestock southern end of their existing ranges, with im- from toxic algal blooms. Similar, nitrogen–in-

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 10 duced eutrophication phenomena in coastal “business as usual” will jeopardize the future of environments lead to more oxygen-starved all human societies, and none more so than the dead zones, with major economic losses re- poorest who depend directly on biodiversity for a sulting from reduced productivity of fisheries particularly high proportion of their basic needs. and decreased tourism revenues. The loss of biodiversity is frequently linked to the loss of cultural diversity, and has an especially high ✤ The combined impacts of ocean acidification, negative impact on indigenous communities. warmer sea temperatures and other human- induced stresses make tropical coral reef eco- The linked challenges of biodiversity loss and systems vulnerable to collapse. More acidic climate change must be addressed by policy- water — brought about by higher carbon di- makers with equal priority and in close co-ordi- oxide concentrations in the atmosphere — de- nation, if the most severe impacts of each are to creases the availability of the carbonate ions be avoided. Reducing the further loss of carbon- required to build coral skeletons. Together with storing ecosystems such as tropical forests, salt the bleaching impact of warmer water, elevat- marshes and peatlands will be a crucial step in ed nutrient levels from pollution, overfishing, limiting the build-up of greenhouse gases in the sediment deposition arising from inland defor- atmosphere. At the same time, reducing other estation, and other pressures, reefs worldwide pressures on ecosystems can increase their re- increasingly become algae-dominated with silience, make them less vulnerable to those im- catastrophic loss of biodiversity and ecosystem pacts of climate change which are already una- functioning, threatening the livelihoods and voidable, and allow them to continue to provide food security of hundreds of millions of people. services to support people’s livelihoods and help them adapt to climate change. There are greater opportunities than previously recognized to address the biodiversity Better protection of biodiversity should be seen crisis while contributing to other social objec- as a prudent and cost-effective investment in tives. For example, analyses conducted for this risk-avoidance for the global community. The Outlook identified scenarios in which climate consequences of abrupt ecosystem changes on change is mitigated while maintaining and even a large scale affect human security to such an expanding the current extent of forests and extent, that it is rational to minimize the risk of other natural ecosystems (avoiding additional triggering them - even if we are not clear about habitat loss from the widespread deployment of the precise probability that they will occur. Eco- biofuels). Other opportunities include “rewild- system degradation, and the consequent loss ing” abandoned farmland in some regions, and of ecosystem services, has been identified as the restoration of river basins and other wet- one of the main sources of disaster risk. Invest- land ecosystems to enhance water supply, flood ment in resilient and diverse ecosystems, able control and the removal of pollutants. to withstand the multiple pressures they are subjected to, may be the best-value insurance Well-targeted policies focusing on critical ar- policy yet devised. eas, species and ecosystem services are essential to avoid the most dangerous impacts Scientific uncertainty surrounding the precise on people and societies. Preventing further connections between biodiversity and human human-induced biodiversity loss for the near- well-being, and the functioning of ecosystems, term future will be extremely challenging, but should not be used as an excuse for inaction. biodiversity loss may be halted and in some No one can predict with accuracy how close we aspects reversed in the longer term, if urgent, are to ecosystem tipping points, and how much concerted and effective action is initiated now additional pressure might bring them about. in support of an agreed long-term vision. What is known from past examples, however, is Such action to conserve biodiversity and use its that once an ecosystem shifts to another state, components sustainably will reap rich rewards - it can be difficult or impossible to return it to through better health, greater food security, less the former conditions on which economies and poverty and a greater capacity to cope with, and patterns of settlement have been built for gen- adapt to, environmental change. erations.

Placing greater priority on biodiversity is central Effective action to address biodiversity loss de- to the success of development and poverty-alle- pends on addressing the underlying causes or viation measures. It is clear that continuing with indirect drivers of that decline.

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 11 This will mean: lation and other measures, markets can and must be harnessed to create incentives to safe- ✤ Much greater efficiency in the use of land, en- guard and strengthen, rather than to deplete, ergy, fresh water and materials to meet grow- our natural infrastructure. The re-structuring ing demand. of economies and financial systems following the global recession provides an opportunity for ✤ Use of market incentives, and avoidance of such changes to be made. Early action will be perverse subsidies to minimize unsustain- both more effective and less costly than inac- able resource use and wasteful consumption. tion or delayed action.

✤ Strategic planning in the use of land, inland Urgent action is needed to reduce the direct waters and marine resources to reconcile drivers of biodiversity loss. The application of development with conservation of biodiver- best practices in agriculture, sustainable forest sity and the maintenance of multiple ecosys- management and sustainable fisheries should tem services. While some actions may entail become standard practice, and approaches moderate costs or tradeoffs, the gains for bio- aimed at optimizing multiple ecosystem serv- diversity can be large in comparison. ices instead of maximizing a single one should be promoted. In many cases, multiple drivers ✤ Ensuring that the benefits arising from use are combining to cause biodiversity loss and of and access to genetic resources and as- degradation of ecosystems. Sometimes, it may sociated traditional knowledge, for example be more effective to concentrate urgent action through the development of drugs and cos- on reducing those drivers most responsive to metics, are equitably shared with the coun- policy changes. This will reduce the pressures tries and cultures from which they are ob- on biodiversity and protect its value for human tained. societies in the short to medium-term, while the more intractable drivers are addressed over ✤ Communication, education and awareness- a longer time-scale. For example the resilience raising to ensure that as far as possible, eve- of coral reefs – and their ability to withstand ryone understands the value of biodiversity and adapt to coral bleaching and ocean acidifi- and what steps they can take to protect it, cation – can be enhanced by reducing overfish- including through changes in personal con- ing, land-based pollution and physical damage. sumption and behaviour. Direct action to conserve biodiversity must The real benefits of biodiversity, and the costs be continued, targeting vulnerable as well of its loss, need to be reflected within econom- as culturally-valued species and ecosystems, ic systems and markets. Perverse subsidies and combined with steps to safeguard key ecosys- the lack of economic value attached to the huge tem services, particularly those of importance benefits provided by ecosystems have contrib- to the poor. Activities could focus on the con- uted to the loss of biodiversity. Through regu- servation of species threatened with extinction,

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 12 those harvested for commercial purposes, or We can no longer see the continued loss of species of cultural significance. They should and changes to biodiversity as an issue sepa- also ensure the protection of functional eco- rate from the core concerns of society: to tackle logical groups – that is, groups of species that poverty, to improve the health, prosperity and collectively perform particular, essential roles security of our populations, and to deal with within ecosystems, such as pollination, control climate change. Each of those objectives is un- of herbivore numbers by top predators, cycling dermined by current trends in the state of our of nutrients and soil formation. ecosystems, and each will be greatly strengthened if we correctly value the role of biodiver- Increasingly, restoration of terrestrial, inland sity in supporting the shared priorities of the water and marine ecosystems will be needed international community. Achieving this will to re-establish ecosystem functioning and the involve placing biodiversity in the mainstream provision of valuable services. Economic analy- of decision-making in government, the private sis shows that ecosystem restoration can give sector, and other institutions from the local to good economic rates of return. However the international scales. biodiversity and associated services of restored ecosystems usually remain below the levels of The action taken over the next decade or two, natural ecosystems. This reinforces the argu- and the direction charted under the Conven- ment that, where possible, avoiding degradation tion on Biological Diversity, will determine through conservation is preferable (and even whether the relatively stable environmental more cost-effective) than restoration after the conditions on which human civilization has event. depended for the past 10,000 years will continue beyond this century. If we fail to use this Better decisions for biodiversity must be made opportunity, many ecosystems on the planet at all levels and in all sectors, in particular will move into new, unprecedented states in the major economic sectors, and government which the capacity to provide for the needs of has a key enabling role to play. National pro- present and future generations is highly un- grammes or legislation can be crucial in creat- certain. ing a favourable environment to support effective “bottom-up” initiatives led by communities, local authorities, or businesses. This also includes empowering indigenous peoples and local communities to take responsibility for biodiversity management and decision-making; and developing systems to ensure that the benefits arising from access to genetic resources are equitably shared.

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 13 Introduction

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 14 This Outlook presents some stark choices for Taking actions to ensure the maintenance and human societies. On one hand it warns that restoration of well-functioning ecosystems, un- the diversity of living things on the planet derpinned by biodiversity and providing natural continues to be eroded as a result of human infrastructure for human societies, can provide activities. The pressures driving the loss of economic gains worth trillions of dollars a year. biodiversity show few signs of easing, and in The latest science suggests ever more strongly some cases are escalating. The consequences that better management, conservation and sus- of current trends are much worse than pre- tainable use of biodiversity is a prudent and viously thought, and place in doubt the con- cost-effective investment in social and economic tinued provision of vital ecosystem services. security, and in risk reduction for the global com- The poor stand to suffer disproportionately munity. from potentially catastrophic changes to ecosystems in coming decades, but ultimately all This Outlook shows that efforts to date have not societies stand to lose. been sufficient to reduce significantly the rate of biodiversity loss and analyses why; it assesses On the other hand, the Outlook offers a mes- the potential for long-lasting or irreversible eco- sage of hope. The options for addressing the cri- system changes to result from current trends sis are wider than was apparent in earlier stud- and practices; and it concludes that concerted ies. Determined action to conserve biodiversity and targeted responses, with action applied at and use it sustainably will reap rich rewards. appropriate levels to address both direct pres- It will benefit people in many ways - through sures on biodiversity and their underlying caus- better health, greater food security and less es, can in the long term stop or even reverse the poverty. It will safeguard the variety of nature, continued decline in the variety of life on Earth. an objective justified in its own right according to a range of belief systems and moral codes. The action taken over the next two decades will It will help to slow climate change by enabling determine whether the relatively stable environ- ecosystems to absorb and store more carbon; mental conditions on which human civilization has and it will help people adapt to climate change depended for the past 10,000 years will continue by adding resilience to ecosystems and making beyond this century. If we fail to use this opportu- them less vulnerable. nity, many ecosystems on the planet will move into new, unprecedented states in which the capacity to provide for the needs of present and future generations is highly uncertain.

BOX 1 Biodiversity, the CBD and the 2010 target

The word biodiversity, a contraction of the synonymous phrase ‘biological diversity’, is defined by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) as ‘the variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems’. This is the definition used throughout this document.

The CBD is one of the three “Rio Conventions”, emerging from the UN Conference on Environment and Development, also known as the Earth Summit, held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. It came into force at the end of 1993, with the following objectives:

“The conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources, including by appropriate access to genetic resources and by appropriate transfer of relevant technologies, taking into account all rights over those resources and to technologies, and by appropriate funding.”

There are currently 193 Parties to the Convention (192 countries and the European Union). In April 2002, the Parties to the Convention committed themselves to achieve by 2010 a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss at the global, regional and national level as a contribution to poverty alleviation and to the benefit of all life on Earth. This target was subsequently endorsed by the World Summit on Sustainable Development (the “Rio + 10” summit) in Johannesburg, 2002, and by the United Nations General Assembly. It was also incorporated as a new target under one of the Millennium Development Goals – Ensure Environmental Sustainability. The 2010 biodiversity target is therefore a commitment from all governments, including those not party to the CBD.

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 15 Biodiversity in 2010

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 16 Overview

The 2010 biodiversity target has not been While none of the sub-targets can be said de- met at the global level. None of the twenty- finitively to have been met, some have been one sub-targets accompanying the overall achieved partially or at regional or national target of significantly reducing the rate of bi- scales [See Table 1]. In fact, the 2010 biodiversity odiversity loss by 2010 can be said definitive- target has inspired action at many levels. Some ly to have been achieved globally, although 170 countries now have national biodiversity some have been partially or locally achieved. strategies and action plans [See Box 2 and Fig- Despite an increase in conservation efforts, ure 1]. Protected areas have been expanded in the state of biodiversity continues to decline, number and extent, on both land and in coastal according to most indicators, largely because waters. Environmental impact assessment is the pressures on biodiversity continue to in- more widely applied with most countries report- crease. There is no indication of a significant ing that they have some measures in place for reduction in the rate of decline in biodiversi- its use. ty, nor of a significant reduction in pressures upon it. However, negative trends have been Most countries are also undertaking activities slowed or reversed in some ecosystems. There related to communication, education and public are several indications that responses to bio- awareness as well biodiversity monitoring, re- diversity loss are increasing and improving, search and the development of databases. At the although not yet on a scale sufficient to affect international level, financial resources have been overall negative trends in the state of biodi- mobilized and progress has been made in devel- versity or the pressures upon it. oping mechanisms for research, monitoring and scientific assessment of biodiversity. When governments agreed to the 2010 target for significantly reducing the rate of biodiversity loss [See Box 1], a number of tools were put in place within the Convention on Biological Di- versity and other conventions to help focus action towards achieving the target, to monitor progress towards it, and eventually to determine whether it had in fact been achieved. Twenty- one sub-targets were defined, to be reached by 2010 towards eleven principal goals related to biodiversity.

The Torngat Mountains National Park of Canada, which is co-managed with the Labrador and Nunavik Inuit, is the 42nd national park to be established in the country. The park is located at the northern tip of Labrador and covers approximately 9,700 Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 17 square kilometres of arctic ecosystems. Table 1 Status of agreed subsidiary targets to 2010 biodiversity target Table 1: Status of agreed subsidiary targets to 2010 biodiversity target Table 1: Status of agreed subsidiary targets to 2010 biodiversity target

Goal 1. Promote the conservation of the biological diversity of ecosystems, habitats and biomes Goal 7. Address challenges to biodiversity from climate change, and pollution 1.1: At least 10% of each of Not achieved globally, but more than half of terrestrial eco-regions meet the 10% target. However, manage- 7.1: Maintain and enhance resilience Not achieved globally, as limited action has been taken to reduce other pressures and thus enhance the the world's ecological regions ment effectiveness is low for some protected areas. Marine and inland water systems lack protection, though of the components of biodiversity to resilience of biodiversity in the face of climate change. However, the establishment of biodiversity effectively conserved. this is increasing. adapt to climate change. corridors in some regions may help species to migrate and adapt to new climatic conditions.

1.2: Areas of particular Not achieved globally, but an increasing proportion of the sites of importance for conserving birds, and those 7.2: Reduce pollution and its Not achieved globally but mixed results. Measures to reduce the impacts of pollution on biodiversity have importance to biodiversity holding the last remaining populations of threatened species, are being protected. impacts on biodiversity. been taken, resulting in the recovery of some previously heavily degraded ecosystems. However, many protected. previously pristine areas are being degraded. Nitrogen deposition continues to be major threat to biodiversity in many regions. Goal 2. Promote the conservation of species diversity Goal 8. Maintain capacity of ecosystems to deliver goods and services and support livelihoods 2.1: Restore, maintain, or reduce the Not achieved globally as many species continue to decline in abundance and distribution. However, some efforts decline of populations of species of have resulted in the recovery of targeted species. 8.1: Capacity of ecosystems to Not achieved globally, given the continuing and in some cases escalating pressures on ecosystems. selected taxonomic groups. deliver goods and services However, there have been some actions taken, to ensure the continued provision of ecosystem services. maintained. 2.2: Status of Not achieved globally, as species are on average at increasing risk of extinction. However some species have threatened species moved to lower risk categories as a result of actions taken. 8.2: Biological resources that support Not achieved globally, as many of the biological resources which sustain livelihoods, such as fish improved. sustainable livelihoods, local food security mammals, birds, amphibians and medicinal plants, are in decline, with the world’s poor being particularly and health care, especially of poor people. affected. Goal 3. Promote the conservation of genetic diversity Goal 9. Maintain socio-cultural diversity of indigenous and local communities 3.1: Genetic diversity of crops, livestock, Not achieved globally. Information on genetic diversity is fragmentary. Progress has been made towards and of harvested species of trees, fish and conserving genetic diversity of crops through ex situ actions, however agricultural systems continue to be 9.1: Protect traditional knowledge, Not achieved globally, as long-term declines in traditional knowledge and rights continue, despite the wildlife and other valuable species simplified. While the genetic diversity of wild species is more difficult to ascertain, the overall decline of biodiver- innovations and practices. actions taken to protect them in some areas. conserved, and associated indigenous and sity presented in this report strongly suggests that genetic diversity is not being maintained. Genetic resources local knowledge maintained. in situ and traditional knowledge are protected through some projects, but continue to decline overall. 9.2: Protect the rights of indigenous and Not achieved globally but an increasing number of co-management systems and community-based Goal 4. Promote sustainable use and consumption local communities over their traditional protected areas have been established, with the greater protection of the rights of indigenous and local knowledge, innovations and practices, communities. 4.1: Biodiversity-based products Not achieved globally but progress for some components of biodiversity such as forests and some fisheries. including their rights to benefit sharing. derived from sources that are Globally sustainable use does not account for a large share of total products and production areas. sustainably managed, and production Goal 10. Ensure the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising out of the use of genetic resources areas managed consistent with the conservation of biodiversity. 10.1: All transfers of genetic resources are in Not achieved globally but increasing number of material transfer agreements have been developed under line with the Convention on Biological the Treaty. 4.2: Unsustainable consumption, of Not achieved globally. Unsustainable consumption has increased and continues to be a major cause of biodiver- Diversity, the International Treaty on Plant biological resources, or that impacts sity loss. Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture upon biodiversity, reduced. and other applicable agreements.

4.3: No species of wild flora Not achieved globally. Wild flora and fauna continue to decline as a result of international trade, but successes 10.2: Benefits arising from the commercial Not achieved globally. There are few examples of the benefit arising from the commercial and other or fauna endangered by achieved particularly through implementation of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species and other utilization of genetic resources utilization of genetic resources being shared with the countries providing such resources. This can be partially international trade. of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). shared with the countries providing such attributed to the fact that the Access and Benefit Sharing Regime was being developed from 2002, when the resources. biodiversity target was adopted, until 2010, the deadline set by the CBD for final agreement on this issue. Goal 5. Pressures from habitat loss, land use change and degradation, and unsustainable water use, reduced Goal 11. Parties have improved financial, human, scientific, technical and technological capacity to implement the Convention 5.1: Rate of loss and Not achieved globally as many biodiversity-sensitive regions continue to decline, but some progress in reducing degradation of natural the rate of loss in some areas. 11.1: New and additional financial resources Not achieved globally. While resources continue to be lacking there have been modest increases in official habitats decreased. are transferred to developing country Parties, development assistance related to biodiversity. to allow for the effective implementation of Goal 6. Control threats from invasive alien species their commitments under the Convention, in accordance with Article 20. 6.1: Pathways for major Not achieved globally as the introduction of invasive alien species continues to increase as a result of greater potential alien invasive transport, trade, and tourism. However, national action related to global agreements on plant protection and 11.2: Technology is transferred to Not achieved globally. From country reports it is clear that some developing countries have mechanisms species controlled. ballast water promises to reduce the risk of new invasions in some countries and ecosystems. developing country Parties, to allow for the and programmes in place for technology transfer. However, it is also clear that the limited access to effective implementation of their commit- technology is an obstacle to implementation of the Convention and reaching the 2010 biodiversity target 6.2: Management plans in place for Not achieved globally, though some management plans are in place. Most countries lack effective management ments under the Convention, in accordance in many developing countries. major alien species that threaten programmes. with its Article 20, paragraph 4. ecosystems, habitats or species. Not achieved globally Not achieved globally Not achieved globally but some progress but significant progress

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 18 Table 1: Status of agreed subsidiary targets to 2010 biodiversity target Table 1: Status of agreed subsidiary targets to 2010 biodiversity target

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 19 BOX 2 National action on biodiversity

Over 170 countries (87% of the Parties to the Convention) have developed national biodiversity strategies and action plans (NBSAPs). A further 14 Parties are preparing them, and 9 have either not started to draw up a strategy or had not announced their intention to do so by the time this Outlook went to press.

An overwhelming majority of governments, in other words, have been through the process of codifying their approach to protecting the biodiversity within their own territory. In many countries, the preparation of strategies has stimulated the development of additional laws and programmes, and spurred action on a broad range of issues, including: the eradication or control of alien invasive species; using biodiversity sustainably; the protection of traditional knowledge and rules to ensure local communities share benefits from bio-prospecting which might result in patents or sales of new drugs, foods or cosmetics; the safe use of biotechnology; and maintaining the diversity of plants and animals used in agriculture.

Relatively few Parties have fully integrated the 2010 biodiversity target into their national strategies. Moreover, few countries are using NBSAPs as effective tools for integrating biodiversity into broader national strategies, policies and planning processes. More than 80% of Parties, in their latest national reports to the CBD, concede that limited biodiversity mainstreaming, fragmented decision making and/or limited communication among government ministries or sectors is a challenge to meeting the goals of the Convention.

However, recently developed and updated national biodiversity strategies tend to be more strategic than the first generation of NBSAPs, they have a stronger emphasis on mainstreaming, and give greater recognition to broader national development objectives.

NBSAPs should catalyze a number of strategic actions in countries, including:

✤ Mainstreaming – biodiversity will be best protected if it is a significant factor in decisions made across a wide range of sectors, departments and economic activities, systems for planning the use of land, freshwater and sea areas (spatial planning), and policies to reduce poverty and adapt to climate change.

✤ Communication and involvement – strategies will only be effective if they genuinely involve the people closest to the resources they are designed to protect. Often the best solutions will be driven by local demand, using legal and institutional frameworks set at a higher level.

✤ Tools for implementation – particular approaches, such as making integrated decisions based on maintaining and improving the overall health of ecosystems, or introducing policies on payments for the use of hitherto “free” ecosystem services, can aid in the protection of biodiversity.

✤ Knowledge – for good decisions to be made, the best available information about the biodiversity of a country or region must be accessible to the right people at the right time. The Clearing-House Mechanism, a system of compiling, co-ordinating and providing access to relevant and up-to-date knowledge, is a key tool provided by the CBD framework.

✤ Monitoring – assessing and communicating progress towards the objectives and targets set by a biodiversity strategy is an important way to improve its effectiveness and visibility.

✤ Financing and capacity – co-ordinating action to support biodiversity will only be meaningful if there is money to do it and there are people who know how to do it.

NumberNumber of of countries countries

Number of countries 195195

195 Number of countries 180180

195 180 160160 FIGURE 1 Parties to Convention on 180 160 140140 Biological Diversity

160 140 120120 The number of countries party to the Conven- 140 120 tion on Biological Diversity has grown over time, 100100 and it currently has near universal membership. 120 100 Of the 193 Parties to the Convention 170 have 8080 developed National Biodiversity Strategies and 100 80 Action Plans (NBSAPs) and of these, more than 6060 35 Parties have revised their NBSAP. 80 60 Source: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity 4040

60 40 2020

40 20 0 0 19921992 19931993 19941994 19951995 19961996 19971997 19981998 19991999 20002000 20012001 20022002 20032003 20042004 20052005 20062006 20072007 20082008 20092009 20102010 20 0 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 CountriesCountries2002 2003 2004 Parties2005Parties2006 2007NBSAPsNBSAPs2008 2009 2010NBSAPNBSAP revisions revisions 0 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006Countries2007 2008 2009Parties2010 NBSAPs NBSAP revisions

Countries Parties NBSAPs NBSAP revisions

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 20

NumberNumber of of countries countries

Number of countries 195195

195 Number of countries 180180

195 180 160160

180 160 140140

160 140 120120

140 120 100100

120 100 8080

100 80 6060

80 60 4040

60 40 2020

Countries Parties NBSAPs NBSAP revisions There is no single measurement that captures Although the evidence does not show a signifi- the current status or trends in global biodiversity. cant decline in the rate of biodiversity loss, some Therefore a range of indicators was developed interventions have had a measurable, positive for the Convention on Biological Diversity, to pro- impact by making the decline less severe than it vide scientifically rigorous assessments of trends would otherwise have been. For example, it is es- in the state of the various components of biodi- timated that 31 bird species, out of a total of some versity (genes, populations, species, ecosystems); 9,800, would have become extinct in the absence the pressures being imposed upon it; and the of conservation actions. responses being adopted to address biodiversity loss. Ten of the fifteen headline indicators show Missing the 2010 target has serious implications trends unfavourable for biodiversity [See Table for human societies. Biodiversity underpins a 2]. Yet, for certain indicators the amount and wide range of services that support economies, coverage of data is not sufficient to make state- food production systems and secure living condi- ments with confidence. The assessment of status tions [See Box 3]. The loss of biodiversity (at the and trends of biodiversity on the following pages genetic, species and ecosystem levels) also affects therefore relies on multiple lines of evidence, human health in many ways. including scientific literature and recent assessments, as well as national reports from the Par- Projections of the impacts of continued biodi- ties to the Convention. Not a single government versity loss, some associated costs and how they in the latest reports submitted to the CBD claims might be avoided, are outlined in this synthesis. that the 2010 biodiversity target has been com- First, the current status and trends of biodiversity, pletely met at the national level. Around one in the pressures upon it and responses to its loss are five governments state explicitly that they have described in more detail. missed the target.

Coastal ecosystems, as well as supporting a wide range of species, often provide vital barriers that protect human communities from the full force of onshore waves and storms.

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 21 TableTab le2: Trends 2 Trends shown shownby agreed by indicators agreed of indicators progress towards of progress the 2010 towards biodiversity the target 2010 biodiversity target

Status and trends of the components of biological diversity Trends in extent of selected Most habitats in most parts of the world are declining in extent, although forest area expands in some biomes, ecosystems, and regions, and the loss of mangroves has slowed signiﬁcantly, except in Asia. habitats

Trends in abundance and Most species with limited population size and distribution are being further reduced, while some common distribution of selected and invasive species become more common. species (but limited number of taxa assessed)

Change in status of The risk of extinction increases for many threatened species, although some species recovery programmes threatened species have been very successful. (for those species assessed) Table 2: Trends shown by agreed indicators of progress towards the 2010 biodiversity target Trends in genetic diversity of domesticated It is likely that the genetic variety of cultivated species is declining, but the extent of such decline and its Status and trendsanimals, of the components cultivated of biological plants, diversity and fish species overall impacts are not well understood. of major socio-economic importance (although many case studies with a high degree of certainty are available) Trends in extent of selected Most habitats in most parts of the world are declining in extent, although forest area expands in some biomes, ecosystems, and regions, and the loss of mangroves has slowed significantly, except in Asia. habitatsCoverage of protected areas There has been a significant increase in coverage of protected areas, both terrestrial and marine, over the past decade. However, many ecological regions, particularly in marine ecosystems, remain underprotected, and Trends in abundance and Most species with limitedthe management population size effectivenessand distribution areof beingprotected further areasreduced, remains while some variable. common distribution of selected and invasive species become more common. species (but limited number of taxa assessed) Ecosystem integrity and ecosystem goods and services Change in status of The risk of extinction increases for many threatened species, although some species recovery programmes threatenedMarine species have been very successful.Despite intense pressure the Marine Trophic Index has shown a modest increase globally since 1970. However (for those species assessed) Trophic there is substantial regional variation with declines being recorded in half of the marine areas with data. TrendsIndex in genetic diversity of domesticated It is likely that the Althoughgenetic variety the of cultivated global increases species is declining, may indicate but the extent a recovery of such decline it is and more its likely a consequence of fishing fleets animals, cultivated plants, and fish species overall impacts are expandingnot well understood. their areas of activity, thus encountering fish stocks in which larger predators have not yet been of major socio-economic importance (although manyremoved case studies in with large a high numbers. degree of certainty are available)

Coverage of protected areas There has been a signiﬁcant increase in coverage of protected areas, both terrestrial and marine, over the past Connectivity – fragmentation decade. However, manyMost ecological terrestrial regions, and particularly aquatic in marine ecosystems ecosystems, are remain becoming underprotected, increasingly and fragmented, despite an increased of ecosystems the management effectivenessrecognition of protected of the value areas remains of corridors variable. and connections, especially in climate change adaptation.

Ecosystem integrity and ecosystem goods and services Water quality of aquatic Most parts of the world are likely to be suffering from declines in water quality, although quality in some Marineecosystems Despite intense pressureareas the has Marine improved Trophic Indexthrough has shown control a modest of point-source increase globally pollution. since 1970. However Trophic there is substantial regional variation with declines being recorded in half of the marine areas with data. Index Although the global increases may indicate a recovery it is more likely a consequence of fishing fleets expanding their areas of activity, thus encountering fish stocks in which larger predators have not yet been removed in large numbers. Threats to biodiversity Connectivity – fragmentation Most terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems are becoming increasingly fragmented, despite an increased of ecosystemsNitrogen deposition recognition of the valueHuman of corridors activity and has connections, doubled theespecially rate ofin climate creation change of reactive adaptation. nitrogen on the planet’s surface. Pressure on biodiversity from nutrient pollution continues to increase, although some measures to use nutrients more efficiently, to reduce their release into water and the atmosphere, are beginning to show positive effects. Water quality of aquatic Most parts of the world are likely to be suffering from declines in water quality, although quality in some ecosystems areas has improved through control of point-source pollution. Trends in invasive The number and rate of spread of alien species is increasing in all continents and all ecosystem types. alien species (although many case studies with a high degree of certainty are available) Threats to biodiversity Nitrogen deposition Human activity has doubled the rate of creation of reactive nitrogen on the planet’s surface. Pressure on biodiver- Sustainable use sity from nutrient pollution continues to increase, although some measures to use nutrients more efficiently, to reduce their release into water and the atmosphere, are beginning to show positive effects. Area of forest, agricultural and There are considerable efforts under way to increase the extent of areas of land under sustainable manage- Trendsaquaculture in invasive ecosystems under The number and ratement. of spread Regional of alien species efforts is increasing on sustainable in all continents forest and management all ecosystem types. are expected to contribute to this. Traditional aliensustainable species management (although manyagricultural case studies practices with a high are degree being of certainty maintained are available) and revitalized as the demand for ethical and healthy products increases. However, these are still relatively small niches and major efforts are required to substantially increase the areas under sustainable management. Sustainable use AreaEcological of forest, agricultural footprint and and related There are considerableThe efforts ecological under way footprint to increase of the humanity extent of areas is increasing. of land under Effortssustainable at manage increasing- resource efficiency are more than aquacultureconcepts ecosystems under ment. Regional effortscompensated on sustainable by forest increased management consumption are expected by toa contributegrowing toand this. more Traditional prosperous human population. sustainable management agricultural practices are being maintained and revitalized as the demand for ethical and healthy products increases. However, these are still relatively small niches and major efforts are required to substantially increase the areas under sustainable management. Status of traditional knowledge, innovations and practices Ecological footprint and related The ecological footprint of humanity is increasing. Efforts at increasing resource efficiency are more than conceptsStatus and trends of linguistic compensated by increasedA large consumption number of by minoritya growing and languages more prosperous are believed human population. in danger of disappearing, and linguistic diversity is very diversity and numbers of speakers likely declining. of indigenous languages (although case studies with a high degree of certainty are available) Status of traditional knowledge, innovations and practices Status and trends of linguistic A large number of minority languages are believed in danger of disappearing, and linguistic diversity is very Status of accessdiversity and and numbersbenefit of sharing speakers likely declining. of indigenous languages (although case studies with a high degree of certainty are available) Indicator of access and The need and possible options for additional indicators are being examined by the Ad Hoc Open-ended Status of access andbenefit-sharing benefit sharing to be Working Group on Access and Benefit-sharing. ? developed Indicator of access and The need and possible options for additional indicators are being examined by the Ad Hoc Open-ended benefit-sharing to be Working Group on Access and Benefit-sharing. Status? of resourcesdeveloped transfers

Status of resourcesOfficial transfers development assistance The volume of ODA for biodiversity has increased over the past few years. (ODA) provided in support of the Official development assistance The volume of ODA for biodiversity has increased over the past few years. (ODA)Convention provided in support of the Convention No clear global trend. Positive and negative Negative changes Positive changesNo clear global trend. Positivechanges and negative are occurring depending on the region Insufficient information to reach Negative changes Positive changes changes are occurring depending on the region Insufficient information to reach or biome considered ? a definitive conclusion. or biome considered ? a definitive conclusion.

Degree of ofcertainty: certainty: Low Low Medium Medium High High

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 22 BOX 3 Why biodiversity matters

Biodiversity is the variation that exists not just between the species of plants, animals, micro-organisms and other forms of life on the planet – but also within species, in the form of genetic diversity, and at the level of ecosystems in which species interact with one another and with the physical environment.

This diversity is of vital importance to people, because it underpins a wide range of ecosystem services on which human societies have always depended, although their importance has often been greatly undervalued or ignored. When elements of biodiversity are lost, ecosystems become less resilient and their services threatened. More homogeneous, less varied landscapes or aquatic environments are often more vulnerable to sudden external pressures such as disease and climatic extremes.

Ecosystem services can be divided into four categories:

✤ provisioning services, or the supply of goods of direct ✤ regulating services, the range of vital functions carried out benefit to people, and often with a clear monetary value, by ecosystems which are rarely given a monetary value in such as timber from forests, medicinal plants, and fish conventional markets. They include regulation of climate from the oceans, rivers and lakes. through the storing of carbon and control of local rainfall, the removal of pollutants by filtering the air and water, and protection from disasters such as landslides and coastal storms.

✤ cultural services, not providing direct material benefits, ✤ supporting services, not of direct benefit to people but but contributing to wider needs and desires of society, and essential to the functioning of ecosystems and therefore therefore to people’s willingness to pay for conservation. indirectly responsible for all other services. Examples are They include the spiritual value attached to particular eco- the formation of soils and the processes of plant growth. systems such as sacred groves, and the aesthetic beauty of landscapes or coastal formations that attract tourists.

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 23 Species populations and extinction risks

The population of wild vertebrate species fell by Observed trends in populations of wild species an average of nearly one- third (31%) globally be- include: tween 1970 and 2006, with the decline especially severe in the tropics (59%) and in freshwater eco- ✤ Farmland bird populations in Europe have systems (41%). declined by on average 50% since 1980. Changes in the abundance and Trends in the average size of species popula- ✤ Bird populations in North American grass- distribution of tions, as measured by the Living Planet Index lands declined by nearly 40% between 1968 species may (LPI), vary greatly between temperate and tropi- and 2003, showing a slight recovery over the have serious cal regions, and between types of species [See past five years; those in North American dry- Figure 2]. Temperate species populations actu- lands have declined by nearly 30% since the consequences ally increased on average since 1970, and the late 1960s. for human steady global decline since that date is account- societies ed for entirely by a sharp fall in the tropics. This ✤ Of the 1,200 waterbird populations with does not necessarily mean tropical biodiversity known trends, 44% are in decline. is in a worse state than in temperate regions: if the index were to extend back centuries rather ✤ 42% of all amphibian species and 40% of bird than decades, populations of temperate spe- species are declining in population. cies may have declined by an equal or greater amount. Moreover, the increase in wild animal populations in temperate regions may be linked to widespread afforestation of former cropland and pasture, and does not necessarily reflect richer diversity of species. However, the current rates of decline in global species abundance Living Planet Index Living Planet Index Livingrepresent Planet Index a severe and ongoing loss of biodiver- Living Planet Index Living Planet Index Living Planet Index sity in tropical ecosystems. 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Terrestrial Freshwater Marine Tropical realms Temperate realms

1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Nearctic

Freshwater temperate Marine temperate Temperate FIGURE 2 Living Planet Index Terrestrial temperate The global Living Planet Index (LPI), shown here by the middle line, has declined by more 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 than 30% since 1970, suggesting that on average, vertebrateMarine populations fell by nearly one-third during that period. The Tropical LPI (bottom line) shows a sharper decline, of Neotropical Terrestrial Palearctic Freshwater almost 60%. The Temperate LPI showed an increase of 15%, reflecting the recovery of some species populations in temperate regions after substantial declines in the more dis- tant past. Afrotropical Source: WWF/ Zoological Society of London Global

Terrestrial tropical 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Marine tropical Tropical Indo-Paciﬁc Freshwater tropical The LPI monitors more than 7,100 populations of over 2,300 species of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish from around the globe. The change in the size of these populations, relative to 0.0 Source : World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) 0.0 1970 (1970 =1.0) is plotted0.0 over time. A stable Living Planet value would indicate that there is no overall 0.0 0.0 0.0 change in average species abundance, a necessary but not sufficient condition to indicate a halt in 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000biodiversity loss.2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 24 Species populations and extinction risks

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 25 Species in all groups with known trends are, on av- The most severe recent increase in extinction erage, being driven closer to extinction, with am- risk has been observed among coral species, phibians facing the greatest risk and warm water probably due in large part to the widespread Most future reef-building corals showing the most rapid de- bleaching of tropical reef systems in 1998, a scenarios project terioration in status. Among selected vertebrate, year of exceptionally-high sea temperatures. continuing high invertebrate and plant groups, between 12% and Amphibians are on average the group most levels of extinctions 55% of species are currently threatened with ex- threatened with extinction, due to a combina- tinction. Species of birds and mammals used for tion of habitat modification, changes in climate and loss of habitats food and medicine are on average facing a greater and the fungal disease chytridiomycosis. throughout this extinction risk than those not used for such pur- century poses. Preliminary assessments suggest that 23% Regional trends regarding the extinction risk of of plant species are threatened. species include:

Conservation interventions have reduced the ✤ Bird species have faced an especially steep extinction risk for some species, but they are increase in extinction risk in South-East Asia, outnumbered by those species that are mov- on the Pacific Islands, polar regions and in ing closer towards extinction. The Red List In- marine and coastal ecosystems. dex (RLI), which tracks the average extinction risk of species over time, shows that all groups ✤ Mammals have also suffered the steepest that have been fully assessed for extinction risk increase in risk of extinction in South and are becoming more threatened. [See Box 4 and South-East Asia, due to the combined impact Figures 3, 4 and 5]. of hunting and loss of habitat. Between ecosystem types, marine mammals have faced the steepest increase in risk, although freshwater mammals remain the most threatened.

✤ Amphibians have deteriorated in status fast- est, and are in absolute terms at greatest risk of extinction, in South and Central America and the Caribbean.

Flamingoes congregating on Lake Naivasha in the Kenyan Rift Valley. They are among more than 300 bird species supported by this freshwater habitat, which is designated for protection under the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. Among the threats facing the lake are over-abstraction of water, linked partly to irrigation of nearby flower farms. The lake has also suffered from nutrient and pesticide pollution, introduction of invasive alien species and overfishing.

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 26 Number of species

BOX 4 How extinction risk is assessed 50 000

The IUCN Red list categories reflect the likelihood that a species may become extinct if current conditions persist. The risk status of species is based on information generated from the work of thousands of species scientists from around the world.

Assessments follow a rigorous system which classifies species into one of eight categories: Extinct, Extinct in the Wild, Critically Endangered, Endan- gered, Vulnerable, Near Threatened, Least Concern and Data Deficient. Those species that are classified as Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable are considered to be threatened. Data deﬁcient Species are assigned to categories of extinction risk using criteria with quantitative thresholds for population size and structure, rate of population decline, range size and structure, and extinction risk as determined by modeling of population viability.

As of 2009, 47,677 species had been assessed and of these 36% are considered threatened with extinction; while of the 25,485 species in completely assessed groups (mammals, birds, amphibians, corals, freshwater crabs, cycads and conifers) 21% are considered threatened. Of 12,055 plant species assessed, 70% are threatened. However, plant species with a higher average extinction risk are over-represented in this sample. 40 000

FIGURE 3 Proportion of species in 2% different threat categories (875) Proportion of all assessed species inNumber different of species categories of extinction risk on the IUCN Red 14% 7% 50 000 List, based on data from 47,677 species. 30 000 (3 325) Source: IUCN (6 548) Number of species 10% 50 000 Least concern (4 891) Data deficient Number of species 50 000 Data deficient LeastData deficientconcern 40 000 Near threatened 19% Data deficient Vulnerable 40 000 40% (9 075) Endangered Threatened 2% (19 032) Critically endangered 20 000 Near threatened (875) 40 000 7% Extinct or 2% 14% 8% Extinct in the Wild (6 548) (3 325) 30 000 (875) 10%(3 931) Least concern 7% (4 891) 2% 14% (6 548) (3 325) Data deficient 30 000 (875) 10% Least concern Least concern Vulnerable 14% 7% (4 891) Near threatened (6 548) (3 325) Data deficient 19% 30 000 Vulnerable 10% 40% Least concern (9 075) EndangeredLeast concern Threatened (4 891) (19 032) Near threatened Critically endangered 20 000 Near threatened Data19% deficient Vulnerable Extinct or 10 000 Threatened Extinct in the Wild 40% Least(9 075) concern Endangered8% Threatened (3 931) (19 032) Near threatened Critically endangered 20 000 Near threatened 19% Vulnerable Extinct or 8% Extinct in the Wild Vulnerable 40% (9 075) Endangered Threatened Endangered (3 931) (19 032) Critically endangered 20 000 Near threatened Extinct or 8% Extinct in the Wild Vulnerable 10 000 Threatened (3 931) Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 27 Critically endangered Vulnerable10 000 Threatened Endangered

0 Extinct or Endangered Critically Extinct in the Wild 10 000 Threatened endangered

0 Extinct or Extinct in the Wild Endangered Critically endangered

0 Extinct or Critically Extinct in the Wild endangered

0 Extinct or Extinct in the Wild Number of species

10 000 FIGURE 4 Threat status of species in comprehensively assessed taxonomic groups Birds

Number of species The number and proportion of species in dif- 9 000 Number of species ferent extinction risk categories in those taxo- 2 000 Amphibians nomic groups that have been comprehensively assessed, or (for dragonflies and reptiles) es- 10 000 8 000 timated from a randomized sample of 1,500 Birds species each. For corals, only warm water reef- building species are included in the assess- 9 000 Number of species ment. 2 000 7 000 Source: IUCN Amphibians 1 500 8 000 Data deﬁcient Amphibians Birds 6 000 Least concern 7 000 Mammals Near threatened Vulnerable 1 500 Data deﬁcient 5 000 Mammals Endangered Threatened Amphibians Birds 6 000 Least concern Critically endangered 1 000 Mammals Near threatened Extinct or Extinct in the Wild Vulnerable 4 000 5 000 Mammals Endangered Threatened Critically endangered 1 000 Extinct or Extinct in the Wild 3 000 4 000

500 3 000 2 000 500 Freshwater Reptiles Reptiles crabs 2 000 Dragonflies Corals 1 000 Conifers Freshwater Reptiles Reptiles crabs Freshwater crabs 0 Corals Dragonflies 1 000 Conifers Freshwater fish Cycads Corals 0 Freshwater Freshwater crabs 0 fish Freshwater fish Cycads Corals 0 Freshwater Dragonflies fish Conifers Dragonflies Conifers Cycads Cycads

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 28 FIGURE 5 Red List Index Red List Index 1.00 The proportion of warm-water coral, bird, mammal and am- Number of species phibian species expected to survive into the near future without additional conservation actions has declined over time. The 10 000 Red List Index (RLI) for all these species groups is decreasing. Birds Coral species are moving most rapidly towards greater extinction risk, while amphibians are, on average, the group most threatened. 9 000 Number of species Corals 0.95 2 000 A Red List Index value of 1.0 indicates that all species in a Amphibians group would be considered as being of Least Concern, that is 8 000 not expected to become extinct in the near future. At the other Birds extreme, a value of 0 indicates that all species in a group have gone extinct. A constant level of the index over time implies that the extinction risk of species is constant, and if the rate of 7 000 biodiversity loss were reducing, the lines on this figure would 0.90 show an upward slope. 1 500 Source: IUCN Data deﬁcient Amphibians Birds 6 000 Least concern Mammals Near threatened Vulnerable 5 000 Mammals Endangered Threatened Critically0.85 endangered 1 000 Mammals Extinct or Extinct in the Wild 4 000

3 000 0.80 500

2 000

Freshwater crabs Reptiles Amphibians Reptiles Corals Dragonflies 1 000 Conifers 0.75 Freshwater crabs 0 Freshwater fish Cycads Corals 0 Freshwater fish Dragonflies Conifers

Cycads 0.70 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 29 Species of birds and mammals used for food Globally some 80 per cent of people in develop- and medicines are on average facing a greater ing countries rely on traditional medicines, the extinction risk than species as a whole, through majority of which are derived from plants. Al- a combination of over-exploitation, habitat though global data for plants are not available, loss and other factors. Species of bird, mam- medicinal plants face a high risk of extinction in mal and amphibians that are exploited for food those parts of the world where people are most and medicines are also moving more quickly dependent on them for health care and income into a higher risk category. This emphasizes the from wild collection – namely Africa, Asia, the threat posed by biodiversity loss to the health Pacific and South America See[ Figure 6]. and well-being of millions of people directly dependent on the availability of wild species. For example the World Health Organization has estimated that 60% of children suffering from fever in Ghana, Mali, Nigeria and Zambia are treated at home with herbal medicines while in one part of Nepal, 450 plant species are com- monly used locally for medicinal purposes.

Percentage 100

FIGURE 6 Conservation status of medicinal plant species in different geographic regions 60 The greatest risk of extinction occurs in those regions, Africa, South America and the Pacific, where medicinal plants are most widely used. Source: IUCN 40

0 Australasia Europe Asia North Paciﬁc Southern Africa America America Extinct Threatened Not Threatened Data deﬁcient

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 30 Medicinal plants market in Arunachal Pradesh, India. The use of herbal medicine has a long tradition amongst all mountain communities in the Himalayan region. It involves a diversity of indigenous knowledge and cultural beliefs and consti- tutes an important basis for the development of society.

Cultivation of Himalayan mayapple (Podo- phyllum hexandrum) in Zhongdian, Yun- nan Province, China. The species was scientifically validated to contain anti-can- cerous compounds which led to high demand and large-scale collection from the wild. A few villagers embarked on cultivation of the species but economic benefits turned out to be limited.

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 31 Terrestrial ecosystems

Tropical forests continue to be lost at a rapid rate, bal forest biodiversity. Between 2000 and 2010, although deforestation has recently slowed in the global extent of primary forest (that is, sub- some countries. Net loss of forests has slowed substantially undisturbed) declined by more than stantially in the past decade, largely due to forest 400,000 square kilometres, an area larger than Well-targeted expansion in temperate regions. Zimbabwe. policies focusing The best information on terrestrial habitats re- South America and Africa continued to have on critical areas, lates to forests, which currently occupy approx- the largest net loss of forests in 2000-2010. Oce- species and imately 31 per cent of the Earth’s land surface. ania also reported a net loss of forests, while ecosystem Forests are estimated to contain more than the area of forest in North and Central Amer- services are half of terrestrial animal and plant species, the ica (treated as a single region) was estimated essential to great majority of them in the tropics, and ac- to be almost the same in 2010 as in 2000. The count for more than two-thirds of net primary forest area in Europe continued to expand, al- avoid the most production on land – the conversion of solar en- though at a slower rate than in the 1990s. Asia, dangerous ergy into plant matter. which had a net loss in the 1990s, reported a net impacts on gain of forests in the period 2000–2010, prima- people and Deforestation, mainly conversion of forests to rily due to large-scale afforestation reported by agricultural land, is showing signs of decreas- China, and despite continued high rates of net societies ing in several tropical countries [See Box 5 loss of forests in many countries in South and and Figure 7], but continues at an alarmingly Southeast Asia. high rate. Just under 130,000 square kilometres of forest were converted to other uses or lost The conifer-dominated boreal forests of high through natural causes each year from 2000 to Northern latitudes have remained broadly sta- 2010, compared to nearly 160,000 square kilo- ble in extent in recent years. However, there are metres per year in the 1990s. The net loss of signs in some regions that they have become forests has slowed substantially, from approxi- degraded. In addition, both temperate and bo- mately 83,000 square kilometres per year in real forests have become more vulnerable to the 1990s to just over 50,000 square kilometres outbreaks of pests and diseases, due in part to per year from 2000-2010. This is mainly due to an increase in winter temperatures. For example large-scale planting of forests in temperate re- an unprecedented outbreak of the mountain gions and to natural expansion of forests. Since pine beetle has devastated more than 110,000 newly-planted forests often have low biodiver- square kilometres of forest in Canada and the sity value and may only include a single tree Western United States since the late 1990s. species, a slowing of net forest loss does not necessarily imply a slowing in the loss of glo-

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 32 Terrestrial ecosystems

BOX 5 The Brazilian Amazon – a slowing trend for deforestation

The most recent satellite data suggest that annual deforestation of the Brazilian portion of the Amazon has slowed significantly, from a peak of more than 27,000 square kilometres in 2003-4 to just over 7,000 square kilometres in 2008-9, a decrease of over 74 per cent.

However, the same satellite images indicate that a growing area of the Amazon forest is becoming degraded. The 2008-9 deforestation figure, the lowest since satellite monitoring began in 1988, may have been influenced by the economic recession, as well as by actions taken by the government, private sector and civil society organizations to control deforestation; but the average from 2006-9 was more than 40 per cent below the average for the previous decade, indicating a significant slowing of the trend. Cumulative deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon is nevertheless substantial, reaching more than 17 per cent of the original forest area, and even achievement of the existing government target of an 80 per cent reduction in annual deforestation by 2020 (from the 1996-2005 average) would bring the cumulative loss of forest to nearly 20 per cent. According to a recent study co-ordinated by the World Bank, 20% Amazon deforestation would be sufficient to trigger significant dieback of forest in some parts of the biome by 2025, when coupled with other pressures such as climate change and forest fires.

FIGURE 7 Annual and cumulative deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon

Deforestation in km2 % lost 30 000 20 Cumulative forest loss

25 000

20 000

Forest loss per year 15 000 10

10 000

5 000

0 0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 The darker bars represent the actual area of the Brazilian portion of the Amazon deforested each year between 1990 and 2009 (figures on left vertical axis), as observed from satellite images analysed by the National Space Research Agency (INPE). The lighter bars represent the projected average annual rate required to fulfill the Brazilian government target to reduce deforestation by 80% by 2020 (from the average between 1996 and 2005). The solid line shows cumulative total deforestation (figures on right vertical axis) as a percentage of the estimated original extent of the Brazilian Amazon (4.1 million km2). Source: Brazilian National Space Research Agency (INPE)

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 33 Savannas and grasslands, while less well docu- The Miombo woodlands of Southern Africa, mented, have also suffered severe declines. another savanna region with significant plant diversity, are also experiencing continued de- The extent of other terrestrial habitats is less forestation. Stretching from Angola to Tanzania well documented. It is estimated that more and covering an area of 2.4 million square kilo- than 95 per cent of North American grasslands metres (the size of Algeria), the Miombo provide have been lost. Cropland and pasture have re- firewood, building material and extensive sup- placed nearly half of the cerrado, the woodland- plies of wild food and medicinal plants to local savanna biome of Central Brazil which has an communities across the region. The woodlands exceptionally rich variety of endemic plant spe- are threatened by clearing land for agriculture, cies. Between 2002 and 2008, the cerrado was es- extraction of wood to make charcoal, and un- timated to have lost more than 14,000 square controlled bush fires. kilometres per year, or 0.7% of its original extent annually, well above the current rate of loss in the Amazon.

BOX 6 Traditional managed landscapes and biodiversity

Agricultural landscapes maintained by farmers and herders using locally adapted practices not only maintain relatively high crop and livestock genetic diversity, but may also support distinctive wild biodiversity. These types of landscapes are found worldwide and are maintained through the application of a wide array of traditional knowledge and cultural practices which have evolved in parallel, creating landscapes with globally significant agricultural biodiversity.

Examples of these types of systems include:

Rice-fish agriculture practiced in China In the valleys of Cusco and Puno in Japan’s Satoyama landscapes are small has been used since at least the Han Dy- Peru the Quechua and the Aymara peo- mosaics composed of various types of ec- nasty, 2,000 years ago. In this system, fish ples employ a form of terracing which allow osystems including secondary woodlands, are kept in wet rice fields providing fertilizer, them to grow various crops, such as maize irrigation ponds, rice paddies, pastures and softening soils and eating larvae and weeds, and potatoes, as well as graze animals grasslands, from which landholders have while the rice provides shade and food for on steep slopes at altitudes ranging from traditionally harvested resources including the fish. The high quality of the fish and rice 2,800 to 4,500 meters. This system sup- plants, fish, fungi, leaf litter and wood, in produced from this system directly benefits ports as many as 177 varieties of potato, a sustainable way. Satoyama landscapes farmers through high nutrition, lower labour domesticated over many generations. It have evolved out of the long term interac- costs and reducing the need for chemical also helps to control soil erosion. tion between people and the environment. fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides. Activities such as the periodic clearing of forests and the harvesting of forest litter, prevent the system from being dominated by a few species and allow for a greater diversity of species to exist in the system.

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 34 Abandonment of traditional agricultural practices One-quarter of the world’s land is becoming de- may cause loss of cultural landscapes and associ- graded. ated biodiversity. The condition of many terrestrial habitats is de- Traditional techniques of managing land for ag- teriorating. The Global Analysis of Land Degra- riculture, some dating back thousands of years, dation and Improvement estimated that nearly have served an important function in keeping one quarter (24%) of the world’s land area was human settlements in harmony with the natu- undergoing degradation, as measured by a de- ral resources on which people depend [See Box cline in primary productivity, over the period 6]. In many parts of the world, these systems 1980-2003. Degrading areas included around are being lost, due partly to the intensifica- 30% of all forests, 20% of cultivated areas and tion of production, and partly to abandonment 10% of grasslands. Geographically they were linked to migration from rural to urban areas. In found mainly in Africa south of the Equator, some cases, this trend may create opportunities South-East Asia and southern China, north-cen- for biodiversity through the re-establishment tral Australia, the Pampas grasslands in South of natural ecosystems on abandoned farmland. America, and parts of the Siberian and North However, the changes may also involve impor- American boreal forests. Around 16 per cent of tant losses of distinctive biodiversity, among land was found to be improving in productivity, both domesticated and wild species, and of the largest proportion (43%) being in rangelands. ecosystem services provided by managed landscapes. The areas where a degrading trend was observed barely overlapped with the 15% of land identi- Terrestrial habitats have become highly fragment- fied as degraded in 1991, indicating that new ar- ed, threatening the viability of species and their eas are being affected and that some regions of ability to adapt to climate change. historical degradation remain at stubbornly low levels of productivity. About 1.5 billion people di- Ecosystems across the planet, including some rectly depend on ecosystem services provided by with exceptionally high levels of biodiversity, have areas that are undergoing degradation. The de- become severely fragmented, threatening the cline in fixation of carbon from the atmosphere long-term viability of many species and ecosystem associated with this degradation is estimated at services. Global data regarding this process are nearly a billion tonnes from 1980 to 2003, (al- hard to obtain, but some well-studied ecosystems most the equivalent of annual carbon dioxide provide illustrations of the scale of fragmentation emissions from the European Union) and emis- and its impacts. For example, the remaining South sions from the loss of soil carbon are likely to American Atlantic Forest, estimated to contain up have been many times greater. to eight per cent of all terrestrial species, is largely composed of fragments less than one square kilo- Despite more than 12 per cent of land now being metre in size. More than 50 per cent lies within 100 covered by protected areas, nearly half (44%) of metres of the forest edge. terrestrial eco-regions fall below 10 per cent protection, and many of the most critical sites for bio- When ecosystems become fragmented they diversity lie outside protected areas. Of those pro- may be too small for some animals to establish tected areas where effectiveness of management a breeding territory, or force plants and animals has been assessed, 13% were judged to be clearly to breed with close relatives. The in-breeding of inadequate, while more than one fifth demonstrat- species can increase vulnerability to disease by ed sound management, and the remainder were reducing the genetic diversity of populations. classed as “basic”. A study in the central Amazon region of Brazil found that forest fragments of less than one An increasing proportion of global land surface square kilometre lost half of their bird species in has been designated as protected areas [See less than fifteen years. In addition, isolated frag- Box 7 and Figure 8]. In total, some 12.2% enjoys ments of habitat make species vulnerable to cli- legal protection, made up of more than 120,000 mate change, as their ability to migrate to areas protected areas. However, the target of protect- with more favourable conditions is limited. ing at least 10% of each the world’s ecological

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 35 regions – aimed at conserving a representative cies that are threatened, have restricted geo- sample of biodiversity – is very far from being graphical ranges, are confined to a single biome, met. Of the 825 terrestrial ecoregions, areas con- or congregate in large numbers to feed or breed. taining a large proportion of shared species and Of nearly 11,000 IBAs in 218 countries, on average distinct habitat types, only 56% have 10% or more some 39% of their area is included in protected of their area protected [See Figure 10]. areas. Similarly, only 35% of sites holding the entire population of one or more highly threatened The existing protected area network also ex- species are fully covered by protected areas [See cludes many locations of special importance to Box 8 and Figure 9]. However, the proportion of biodiversity. For example, complete legal protec- both of these categories of sites under legal pro- tion is given to only 26% of Important Bird Areas tection has increased significantly in recent years. (IBAs), sites with significant populations of spe-

BOX 7 Terrestrial protected areas

Of the governments that have recently reported to the CBD, 57% say they now have protected areas equal to or above the 10% of their land areas.

A few countries have made a disproportionate contribution towards the growth of the global protected area network: of the 700,000 square kilometres designated as protected areas since 2003, nearly three-quarters lie in Brazil, largely the result of the Amazon Region Protected Areas (ARPA) programme. ARPA involves a partnership between Brazilian federal and state authorities, the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF), the German Government and the Global Environment Facility (GEF). It aims to consolidate 500,000 square kilometres of protected areas in the Brazilian Amazon over a period of 10 years, at an estimated cost of US$ 390 million.

Other very significant increases have occurred in Canada, where more than 210,000 square kilometres have been added to the protected areas network since 2002, and in Madagascar, where the size of protected areas has gone up from 17,000 square kilometres to 47,000 square kilometres since 2003.

Millions km2 20 Growth in nationally designated protected areas (1970-2008) FIGURE 8 Extent of nationally 18 designated protected areas Total terrestrial area protected

16 Terrestrial area protected with known year of establishment The surface area of land and ocean Total marine area protected designated as protected areas 14 Marine area protected with known year of establishment has steadily increased since 1970. While the extent of terrestrial protected areas is still much greater 12 than that of marine protected areas, the latter have expanded signifi- 10 cantly in recent years, concentrated in coastal waters. 8 Only protected areas with a known year of establishment are represented in this 6 graph. An additional 3.9 million square kilometres of land and 100,000 square 4 kilometres of ocean are covered by protected areas whose date of establishment is not known. This brings the total 2 coverage of protected areas to more than 21 million square kilometres. 0 Source: UNEP-WCMC 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2008 Total

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 36 BOX 8 Protecting the Noah’s arks of biodiversity

The Alliance for Zero Extinction (AZE) has identified 595 sites worldwide whose protection is critical to the survival of hundreds of species. The sites contain the entire global population of 794 Critically Endangered or Endan- gered species of mammals, birds, selected reptiles, amphibians and conifers. These species are considered likely to become extinct unless direct and urgent action is taken at these sites. The sites are concentrated in tropical forests, islands and mountainous ecosystems. Most are surrounded by intensive human development, and all are small, making them vulnerable to human activities.

Only about one-third (36%) are fully contained in gazetted protected areas, and on average, 44% of the area covered by these sites was protected by 2009. More than half of AZE sites (53%) lack any legal protection, represent- ing a significant gap in the protection of sites critical to biodiversity. However, the current level of protection is significantly better than in 1992, when only a third of the area of AZE sites was protected, and just over a quarter of sites (27%) enjoyed full legal protection.

FIGURE 9 Protection of critical biodiversity sites

Percentage 50 Average area protected

Sites completely protected 30

Alliance for Zero Extinction sites 0 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

The average proportion of AZE sites within protected areas, and the number of AZE sites completely protected, have increased steadily since the 1970s. However, the majority of the area covered by the AZE sites remains outside protected areas. Source: Alliance for Zero Extinction

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 37 FIGURE 10 Coverage of terrestrial protected areas by ecoregion

Note: Antarctica is a special case with an international treaty strictly regulating human activities, and the light colouring shown on this map should not be interpreted as implying a low level of actual protection.

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 38 Fifty-six per cent of 825 terrestrial ecoregions (regions with areas containing a large proportion of shared species and distinct habitat types) have 10% or more of their area included in protected areas, the proportion set as a sub-target towards achieving the 2010 biodiversity target. The lighter colouring on the map represents ecoregions with relatively low levels of protection. Source: UNEP-WCMC

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 39 Clearly, the benefit to biodiversity from protected Indigenous and local communities play a signifi- areas depends critically on how well they are man- cant role in conserving very substantial areas of aged. A recent global assessment of management high biodiversity and cultural value. effectiveness has found that of 3,080 protected areas surveyed, only 22% were judged “sound”, In addition to officially-designated protected ar- 13% “clearly inadequate”, and 65% demonstrated eas, there are many thousand Community Con- “basic” management. Common weaknesses iden- served Areas (CCAs) across the world, including tified in the assessment were lack of staff and re- sacred forests, wetlands, and landscapes, vil- sources, inadequate community engagement and lage lakes, catchment forests, river and coastal programmes for research, monitoring and evalu- stretches and marine areas [See Box 9]. These ation. Aspects relating to basic establishment of are natural and/or modified ecosystems of sig- the reserves and maintaining the values of the nificant value in terms of their biodiversity, cul- protected area were found to be quite strong. tural significance and ecological services. They

BOX 9 Cultural and biological diversity Cultural and biological diversity are closely intertwined. Biodiversity is at the centre of many religions and cultures, while worldviews influence biodiversity through cultural taboos and norms which influence how resources are used and managed. As a result for many people biodiversity and culture cannot be considered independently of one another. This is particularly true for the more than 400 million indigenous and local community members for whom the Earth’s biodiversity is not only a source of wellbeing but also the foundation of their cultural and spiritual identities. The close association between biodiversity and culture is particularly apparent in sacred sites, those areas which are held to be of importance because of their religious or spiritual significance. Through the application of traditional knowledge and customs unique and important biodiversity has often been protected and maintained in many of these areas over time. For example:

✤ In the Kodagu district of Karnataka State, India, sacred groves maintain significant populations of threatened trees such as Actinodaphne lawsonii and Hopea ponga. These groves are also home to unique microfungi.

✤ In central Tanzania a greater diversity of woody plants exists in sacred groves than in managed forests.

✤ In Khawa Karpo in the eastern Himalayas trees, found in sacred sites have a greater overall size than those found outside such areas.

✤ Coral reefs near Kakarotan and Muluk Village in Indonesia are periodically closed to fishing by village elders or chiefs. The reef closures ensure that food resources are available during periods of social significance. The average length and biomass of fish caught in both areas has been found to be greater than that at control sites.

✤ Strict rituals, specific harvesting requirements and locally enshrined enforcement of permits regulate the amount of bark collected from Rytigynia kigeziensis (right), an endemic tree in the Albertine Rift of western Uganda which plays a central role in local medicine. This keeps bark collection within sustainable limits.

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 40 are voluntarily conserved by indigenous and total. By no means all areas under community local communities, through customary laws or control effectively conserved, but a substantial other effective means, and are not usually in- portion are. In fact, some studies show that lev- cluded in official protected area statistics. els of protection are actually higher under community or indigenous management than under Globally, four to eight million square kilometres government management alone. (the larger estimate is an area bigger than Aus- tralia) are owned or administered by communities. In 18 developing countries with the largest forest cover, over 22% of forests are owned by or reserved for communities. In some of these countries (for example Mexico and Papua New Guinea) the community forests cover 80% of the

BOX 10 What is at stake?

Some estimated values of terrestrial biodiversity

✤ The Southern Africa tourism industry, based to a large extent on wildlife viewing, was estimated to be worth US$ 3.6 billion in 2000.

✤ It has been estimated that the real income of poor people in India rises from US$ 60 to $95 when the value of ecosystem services such as water availability, soil fertility and wild foods is taken into account – and that it would cost US$ 120 per capita to replace lost livelihood if these services were denied.

✤ Insects that carry pollen between crops, especially fruit and vegetables, are estimated to be worth more than US$ 200 billion per year to the global food economy.

✤ Water catchment services to New Zealand’s Otago region (pictured below) provided by tussock grass habitats in the 22,000 hectare Te Papanui Conservation Park are valued at more than US$ 95 million, based on the cost of providing water by other means.

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 41 Inland water ecosystems

Inland water ecosystems have been dramatically ✤ 60% of the original wetland area of Spain has altered in recent decades. Wetlands throughout the been lost. world have been and continue to be lost at a rapid rate. ✤ The Mesopotamian marshes of Iraq lost more Increasingly, than 90% of their original extent between the restoration of Rivers and their floodplains, lakes and wetlands 1970s and 2002, following a massive and sys- ecosystems will have undergone more dramatic changes than tematic drainage project. Following the fall of be needed to any other type of ecosystem, due to a combi- the former Iraqi regime in 2003 many drain- nation of human activities including drainage age structures have been dismantled, and re-establish for agriculture, abstraction of water for irriga- the marshes were reflooded to approximately ecosystem tion, industrial and household use, the input of 58% of their former extent by the end of 2006, functioning and nutrients and other pollutants, introduction of with a significant recovery of marsh vegeta- the provision of alien species and the damming of rivers. tion. valuable services Verifiable global data for loss of inland water Water quality shows variable trends, with improve- habitats as a whole are not available, but it is ments in some regions and river basins being off- known that shallow-water wetlands such as set by serious pollution in many densely-populated marshes, swamps and shallow lakes have de- areas. clined significantly in many parts of the world. Documented examples of loss include: Water quality in freshwater ecosystems, an important biodiversity indicator, shows variable ✤ Between 56% and 65% of inland water sys- trends, and global data are very incomplete. tems suitable for use in intensive agricul- Relevant information about pollution loads and ture in Europe and North America had been changes in water quality is lacking precisely drained by 1985. The respective figures for where water use is most intense – in densely Asia and South America were 27% and 6%. populated developing countries. As a result, the serious impacts of polluting activities on the ✤ 73% of marshes in northern Greece have been health of people and ecosystems remain largely drained since 1930. unreported.

The Lower Jordan River Basin has been drastically altered by abstractions for irrigation and growing cities: 83% of its flow is consumed before it reaches the Dead Sea.

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 42 Inland water ecosystems

In some areas, depletion and pollution of eco- and India. Rivers in arid regions also tend to be nomically important water resources have highly fragmented, as scarce water supplies have gone beyond the point of no return, and coping often been managed through the use of dams with a future without reliable water resources and reservoirs. Rivers flow most freely in the less- systems is now a real prospect in parts of the populated areas of Alaska, Canada and Russia, world. UNESCO’s Third World Water Develop- and in small coastal basins in Africa and Asia. ment Report predicts that nearly half of humanity will be living in areas of high water This fragmentation is important because so stress by 2030. much of the variety of freshwater life is determined by the connections formed between dif- Pollution control through sewage treatment and ferent parts of a river basin, as water, sediments regulation of industrial effluent has had sig- and nutrients flow in dynamic rhythms of flood nificant success in improving water quality in and interaction with tidal zones on the coast. many inland water ecosystems [See Figure 11], More than 40% of the global river discharge is although such progress has so far been very lim- now intercepted by large dams and one-third ited in developing countries. Pollution originat- of sediment destined for the coastal zones no ing from diffuse or non-point sources (particu- longer arrives. These large-scale disruptions larly from agriculture) remains a significant and have had a major impact on fish migration, growing problem in many parts of the world. freshwater biodiversity more generally and the services it provides. They also have a significant Of 292 large river systems, two-thirds have become influence on biodiversity in terrestrial, coastal moderately or highly fragmented by dams and res- and marine ecosystems. ervoirs. Inland water ecosystems are often poorly served Rivers are becoming increasingly fragmented, by the terrestrial protected areas network, which often with severe disruption to their flows. The rarely takes account of upstream and downstream most fragmented rivers are in industrialized re- impacts. Governments are reporting increased gions like much of the United States and Europe, concern about the ecological condition of wetland and in heavily-populated countries such as China sites of international importance (Ramsar sites).

Percentage 100

80 FIGURE 11 Malaysia river basin quality 70 Since 1997, the proportion of river basins in Malay- 60 sia classified as clean has been increasing. Source: Malaysia Department of Environment 50

0 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 Polluted Slightly polluted Clean

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 43 Assessing the proportion of inland water bio- In many countries, steps are being taken to diversity covered effectively by the existing restore wetlands, often involving reversals in network of protected areas is difficult. The Mil- land-use policies by re-wetting areas that were lennium Ecosystem Assessment estimated that drained in the relatively recent past. A single 12% of the area of the world’s inland waters freshwater ecosystem can often provide multi- was included within protected areas. This does ple benefits such as purification of water, pro- not, however, give an accurate indication of the tection from natural disasters, food and ma- proportion of the world’s river basins that enjoy terials for local livelihoods and income from protection, since the state of freshwater biodi- tourism. There is a growing recognition that versity at a particular location will often de- restoring or maintaining the natural functions pend on activities far upstream or downstream of freshwater systems can be a cost-effective – such as pollution, abstraction of water, the alternative to building physical infrastructure building of dams and deforestation. for flood defenses or costly water treatment facilities. Governments of 159 countries have ratified the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, currently committed to conserving 1,880 wetlands of international importance, covering over 1.8 million square kilometres, and to the sustainable use of wetland resources generally. The condition of these wetland protected areas continues to deteriorate, with the majority of governments reporting an increased need to address adverse ecological changes in 2005-8, compared with the previous three-year period. The countries reporting the greatest concern about the condition of wetlands were in the Americas and Africa.

In Denmark, 40 square kilometres of meadow and marsh in the Skjern River Valley were drained in the 1960s for agriculture. Since 2002, more than half of the area has been restored, making the site nationally important for migratory birds. The benefits from improved salmon fishing, greater carbon seques- tration, nutrient removal and recreation have offset the US$ 46 million cost of the project.

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 44 BOX 11 What is at stake?

Some estimated values of inland water biodiversity

✤ The Muthurajawela Marsh, a coastal wetland located in a densely populated area of Northern Sri Lanka, is estimated to be worth US$150 per hectare for its services related to agriculture, fishing and firewood; US$ 1,907 per hectare for preventing flood damage, and US$ 654 per hectare for industrial and domestic wastewater treatment.

✤ The Okavango Delta in Southern Africa (pictured below) is estimated to generate US$ 32 million per year to local households in Botswana through use of its natural resources, sales and income from the tourism industry. The total economic output of activities associated with the delta is estimated at more than US$ 145 million, or some 2.6% of Botswana’s Gross National Product.

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 45 Marine and coastal ecosystems

Coastal habitats such as mangroves, seagrass beds, Salt marshes, important as natural storm bar- salt marshes and shellfish reefs continue to decline riers and as habitats for shorebirds, have lost in extent, threatening highly valuable ecosystem some 25% of the area they originally covered services including the removal of significant quan- globally, and current rates of loss are estimated tities of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere; but to be between one and two per cent per year. there has been some slowing in the rate of loss of Salt marshes are especially important ecosys- mangrove forests, except in Asia. tems for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. For example in the United States Some of the best-studied examples of recent they are estimated to account for more than decline in the extent and integrity of marine one-fifth of the carbon absorbed by all ecosys- habitats are in coastal ecosystems of great tems, despite covering a relatively small area. importance to human societies and economies. Coastal habitats have come under pres- Shellfish reefs are an even more threatened sure from many forms of development includ- coastal habitat, and play an important role in ing tourism and urban infrastructure, shrimp filtering seawater and providing food and habi- farming and port facilities including dredging. tat for fish, crabs and seabirds. It is estimated This is compounded by sea level rise, creating that 85% of oyster reefs have been lost globally, what might be termed a “coastal squeeze”. and that they are functionally extinct in 37% of estuaries and 28% of ecoregions. Mangrove forests are highly-productive ecosystems in the inter-tidal zones of many tropical The quantity of carbon buried each year by veg- coastlines. They not only provide wood for lo- etated coastal habitats such as mangroves, salt cal communities, but also act as nursery areas marshes and seagrass beds has been estimated for a wide range of commercially-valuable fish at between 120 and 329 million tonnes. The and crustacean stocks, and act as vital energy higher estimate is almost equal to the annual barriers, protecting low-lying coastal commu- greenhouse gas emissions of Japan. nities from offshore storms. The FAO estimates that about one-fifth of the world’s mangroves, Tropical coral reefs have suffered a significant covering 36,000 square kilometres, were lost global decline in biodiversity since the 1970s. Al- between 1980 and 2005. The rate at which man- though the overall extent of living coral cover has groves are declining globally seems to have re- remained roughly in balance since the 1980s, it has duced more recently, although the loss is still not recovered to earlier levels. Even where local re- disturbingly high. During the 1980s, an average covery has occurred, there is evidence that the new of 1,850 square kilometres was lost each year. reef structures are more uniform and less diverse In the 1990s the annual average dropped to than the ones they replaced. 1,185 square kilometres, and from 2000-2005 it was 1,020 square kilometres – a 45% reduction Tropical coral reefs contribute significantly to in the annual rate of loss. The trend of reduced the livelihoods and security of coastal regions in rate of loss has not been observed in Asia, the areas where they occur, including through which holds a larger proportion of remaining tourism based on their aesthetic beauty, income mangroves than any other region. and nutrition from the fish species they support, and protection of coastlines from storms and Seagrass beds or meadows, fringing coastlines waves. throughout the world, perform a number of vital but under recognized ecosystem functions, Although they cover just 1.2% of the world’s con- including support for commercial fisheries, a tinental shelves, it is estimated that between 500 food source for species such as manatees and million and more than one billion people rely on dugongs, and the stabilization of sediments. It coral reefs as a food resource. Around 30 mil- is estimated that some 29% of seagrass habitats lion people in the poorest and most vulnerable have disappeared since the 19th century, with coastal and inland communities are entirely de- a sharp acceleration in recent decades. Since pendent on resources derived from coral reefs 1980, the loss of seagrass beds has averaged for their wellbeing. They also support between approximately 110 square kilometres per year, one and three million species, including approxi- a rate of loss comparable to mangroves, coral mately 25% of all marine fish species. reefs and tropical forests.

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 46 Marine and coastal ecosystems

Coral reefs face multiple threats including from with the outbreak of “white-band” coral disease overfishing, pollution from land-based sources, and the impacts of Hurricane Allen in Jamaica. dynamiting of reefs, disease outbreaks, “bleach- The overall decline of Caribbean reefs in the ing” from warmer sea temperatures as a re- 1970s and early 80s has been followed by a pe- sult of climate change, and ocean acidification riod of stable living coral cover, with declines in linked to higher concentrations of dissolved some areas being roughly balanced by recovery carbon dioxide as a consequence of human- in others. As in the Indo-Pacific region, there is induced atmospheric emissions [See Box 12]. no sign of long-term recovery to earlier levels of coral cover at the regional scale. It is also worth In the Indo-Pacific region, where the vast ma- noting that recovering coral communities ap- jority of corals occur, living coral cover fell rap- pear to produce more simplified reef struc- idly from an estimated 47.7% of reef areas in tures, suggesting a decline in their biodiversity, 1980 to 26.5% in 1989, an average loss of 2.3% as more complex structures tend to harbour a per year. Between 1990 and 2004 it remained greater variety of species. relatively stable on many monitored reefs, av- eraging 31.4%. An indication of the long-term There are increasing grounds for concern about decline of Indo-Pacific reefs is a drastic reduc- the condition and trends of biodiversity in deep- tion in the proportion of reefs with at least half water habitats, although data are still scarce. of their area covered by living coral – it fell from nearly two-thirds in the early 1980s to just four The condition of deep-water habitats such as per cent in 2004. sea mounts and cold-water corals has started to cause concern, as awareness increases of the Living coral cover in Caribbean reefs dropped impacts of modern fishing technology, especial- by nearly half (from 38.2% to 20.8% living coral ly bottom-trawling, on previously inaccessible cover) between 1972 and 1982, with a decline of ecosystems. Bottom-trawling and use of other almost one-quarter (24.9%) occurring in a sin- mobile fishing gear can have an impact on sea- gle year, 1981, a collapse presumed to be linked bed habitats equivalent to the clear-cutting of

BOX 12 The Great Barrier Reef – a struggle for ecosystem resilience

Although it is among the healthiest and best-protected coral reef systems in the world, Australia’s Great Barrier Reef has shown significant signs of decline and decreased resilience. The ecosystem continues to be exposed to increased levels of sediments, nutrients and pesticides, which are having significant effects inshore close to developed coasts, such as causing die-backs of mangroves and increasing algae on coral reefs.

There are no records of extinctions, but some species, such as dugongs, marine turtles, seabirds, black teatfish and some sharks, have declined significantly. Disease in corals and pest outbreaks of crown-of- thorns starfish and cyanobacteria appear to be becoming more frequent and more serious. Coral reef habitats are gradually declining, especially inshore as a result of poor water quality and the compounding effects of climate change. Coral bleaching resulting from increasing sea temperature and lower rates of calcification in skeleton-building organisms, such as corals, because of ocean acidification, are already evident.

While significant improvements have been made in reducing the impacts of fishing in the Great Barrier Reef, such as bycatch reduction devices, effort controls and closures, important risks to the ecosystem remain from the targeting of predators, the death of incidentally caught species of conservation concern, illegal fishing and poaching. The effects of losing predators, such as sharks and coral trout, as well further reducing populations of herbivores, such as the threatened dugong, are largely unknown but have the potential to alter food web interrelationships and reduce resilience across the ecosystem.

Even with the recent management initiatives to improve resilience, the overall outlook for the Great Barrier Reef is poor and catastrophic damage to the ecosystem may not be averted. Further building the resilience of the Great Barrier Reef by improving water quality, reducing the loss of coastal habitats and increasing knowledge about fishing and its effects, will give it the best chance of adapting to and recovering from the serious threats ahead, especially those related to climate change.

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 47 rainforests. Species from the deep ocean have About 80 percent of the world marine fish stocks for become increasingly targeted as more accessi- which assessment information is available are fully ble fish stocks become depleted and more strict- exploited or overexploited. ly regulated. For example preliminary estimates suggest that between 30-50 % of the cold-water Fish stocks assessed since 1977 have experi- coral reefs in the Exclusive Economic Zone of enced an 11% decline in total biomass globally, Norway (that is, within 200 nautical miles of the with considerable regional variation. The aver- Norwegian coast) have been impacted or damage maximum size of fish caught declined by aged by bottom trawling. Other documented 22% since 1959 globally for all assessed com- cases of damage caused by reef trawling have munities. There is also an increasing trend of been observed in the Faroe Islands, Denmark stock collapses over time, with 14% of assessed and Iceland. All three countries have now closed stocks collapsed in 2007. some coral areas to trawling. In some ocean fisheries, larger predators have Deep-water habitats are considered especially been caught preferentially in such numbers that vulnerable because species of the deep ocean their stocks do not recover, and there has been tend to be slow-growing and long-lived. Cold-wa- a tendency for catches to become dominated by ter corals are also considered in some studies to smaller fish and invertebrates, a phenomenon be particularly susceptible to impacts from ocean known as “fishing down the food web”. In the acidification, as the combination of cold and acid- long term, this compromises the capacity of ma- ity presents a double handicap in the formation of rine ecosystems to provide for the needs of hu- calcified structures. However, knowledge of these man communities. systems is still very limited, and data on their global status is not yet available.

FIGURE 12 China’s Marine Trophic Index China’s Marine Trophic Index 3.55 Since the mid 1990s, China’s Marine Trophic 3.50 Index has shown signs of an increase. This fol- lows a steep decline dur- 3.45 ing the 1980s and early 1990s, resulting from 3.40 overfishing. The figures suggest that although the marine food web off 3.35 China may be recovering to some extent, it has 3.30 not returned to its former condition. Source: Chinese Ministry of 3.25 Environmental Protection

3.20

3.15 1950 1954 1958 1962 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 48 Decades of catch records enable trends to be While the extent of marine protected areas has recorded in the average position of caught fish grown significantly, a small proportion (less than a in the food web (the Marine Trophic Index), and fifth) of marine ecoregions meet the target of hav- thus to monitor the ecological integrity of ma- ing at least 10% of their area protected. rine ecosystems, over time [See Figure 12]. De- spite the intense pressure on fish stocks, the In- Protection of marine and coastal areas still lags dex has shown an increase of 3% globally since far behind the terrestrial protected area net- 1970. However there is substantial regional work, although it is growing rapidly. Marine Pro- variation in the Marine Trophic Index, with de- tected Areas (MPAs) cover approximately half clines being recorded since 1970 in half of the of one per cent of the total ocean area, and 5.9 marine areas with data, including in the world’s per cent of territorial seas (to 12 nautical miles coastal areas and the North Atlantic and in the offshore). The open ocean is virtually unrepre- Southeast Pacific, Southeast Atlantic and Ant- sented in the protected area network reflecting arctic Indian Oceans. The largest proportional the difficulty of establishing MPAs on the high increases are in the Mediterranean and Black seas outside exclusive economic zones. Of 232 Seas, West Central Pacific and Southwest Pacif- marine ecoregions, only 18% meet the target for ic. Although these increases may indicate a re- protected area coverage of at least 10%, while covery of higher predator species, they are more half have less than 1% protection. likely a consequence of fishing fleets expanding their areas of activity, thus encountering fish In various coastal and island regions, the use of stocks in which larger predators have not yet community-based protected areas, in which lo- been removed in such numbers. cal and indigenous peoples are given a stake in conservation of marine resources, are becoming increasingly widespread, and have shown promising results [See Box 13].

BOX 13 Locally managed marine areas (LMMAs)

In the past decade, more than 12,000 square kilometres in the South Pacific have been brought under a community-based system of marine resource management known as Locally-Managed Marine Areas.

The initiative involves 500 communities in 15 Pacific Island States. It has helped achieve widespread livelihood and conservation objectives based on traditional knowledge, customary tenure and governance, combined with local awareness of the need for action and likely benefits. These benefits includes recovery of natural resources, food security, improved governance, access to information and services, health benefits, improved security of tenure, cultural recovery, and community organization

Results of LMMA implementation in Fiji since 1997 have included: a 20-fold increase in clam density in the tabu areas where fishing is banned; an average of 200-300% increase in harvest in adjacent areas; a tripling of fish catches; and 35-45% increase in household income.

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 49 BOX 14 What is at stake?

Some estimated values of marine and coastal biodiversity

✤ The world’s fisheries employ approximately 200 million ✤ The value of the ecosystem services provided by coral people, provide about 16% of the protein consumed reefs ranges from more than US$ 18 million per square worldwide and have a value estimated at US$ 82 billion. kilometer per year for natural hazard management, up to US$ 100 million for tourism, more than US$ 5 million for genetic material and bioprospecting and up to US$ 331,800 for fisheries.

✤ The annual economic median value of fisheries supported ✤ In the ejido (communally owned land) of Mexcaltitan, Na- by mangrove habitats in the Gulf of California has been yarit, Mexico, the direct and indirect value of mangroves estimated at US$ 37,500 per hectare of mangrove fringe. contribute to 56% of the ejido’s annual wealth increase. The value of mangroves as coastal protection may be as much as US$ 300,000 per kilometre of coastline.

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 50 Genetic diversity

Genetic diversity is being lost in natural ecosys- also recognized the leading role played by plant tems and in systems of crop and livestock produc- and animal breeders, as well as the curators of tion. Important progress is being made to conserve ex situ collections, in conservation and sustain- plant genetic diversity, especially using ex situ seed able use of genetic resources. banks. However, major efforts are still needed to The decline in species populations, combined conserve genetic diversity on farms, to allow with the fragmentation of landscapes, inland continued adaptation to climate change and water bodies and marine habitats, have neces- other pressures. Additional measures are also sarily led to an overall significant decline in the required to protect the genetic diversity of oth- genetic diversity of life on Earth. er species of social and economic importance, including medicinal plants, non-timber forest While this decline is of concern for many rea- products, local landraces (varieties adapted sons, there is particular anxiety about the loss over time to particular conditions) and the wild of diversity in the varieties and breeds of plants relatives of crops. and animals used to sustain human livelihoods. A general homogenization of landscapes Standardized and high-output systems of animal and agricultural varieties can make rural popu- husbandry have led to an erosion of the genetic lations vulnerable to future changes, if genetic diversity of livestock. At least one-fifth of livestock traits kept over thousands of years are allowed breeds are at risk of extinction. The availability of to disappear. genetic resources better able to support future livelihoods from livestock may be compromised. An example of the reduction in crop diversity can be found in China, where the number of lo- Twenty-one per cent of the world’s 7,000 live- cal rice varieties being cultivated has declined stock breeds (amongst 35 domesticated species from 46,000 in the 1950s to slightly more than of birds and mammal) are classified as being 1,000 in 2006. In some 60 to 70 per cent of the at risk, and the true figure is likely to be much areas where wild relatives of rice used to grow, higher as a further 36 per cent are of unknown it is either no longer found or the area devoted risk status [See Figure 13]. More than 60 breeds to its cultivation has been greatly reduced. are reported to have become extinct during the first six years of this century alone. Significant progress has been made in ex situ conservation of crops, that is the collection of The reduction in the diversity of breeds has seeds from different genetic varieties for cata- so far been greatest in developed countries, loguing and storage for possible future use. For as widely-used, high-output varieties such as some 200 to 300 crops, it is estimated that over Holstein-Friesian cattle come to dominate. In 70% of genetic diversity is already conserved in many developing countries, changing market gene banks, meeting the target set under the demands, urbanization and other factors are Global Strategy for Plant Conservation. The UN leading to a rapid growth of more intensive Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has animal production systems. This has led to the

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 51 increased use of non-local breeds, largely from The loss of genetic diversity in agricultural sys- developed countries, and it is often at the ex- tems is of particular concern as rural commu- pense of local genetic resources. nities face ever-greater challenges in adapting to future climate conditions. In drylands, where Government policies and development pro- production is often operating at the limit of heat The continued grammes can make matters worse, if poorly and drought tolerances, this challenge is par- loss of planned. A variety of direct and indirect subsi- ticularly stark. Genetic resources are critically biodiversity dies tend to favour large-scale production at the important for the development of farming sys- has major expense of small-scale livestock-keeping, and tems that capture more carbon and emit lower the promotion of “superior” breeds will further quantities of greenhouse gases, and for under- implications for reduce genetic diversity. Traditional livestock pinning the breeding of new varieties. A breed current and keeping, especially in drylands, is also threat- or variety of little significance now may prove to future human ened by degradation of pastures, and by the be very valuable in the future. If it is allowed to well-being loss of traditional knowledge through pressures become extinct, options for future survival and such as migration, armed conflict and the ef- adaptation are being closed down forever. fects of HIV/AIDS.

Seed banks play an important role in conserving the diversity of plant species and crop varieties for future generations. Among the most ambitious programmes for ex situ conservation are the Millennium Seed Bank Partner- ship, initiated by the Royal Botanic Gardens Kew and its partners worldwide, which now includes nearly 2 billion seeds from 30,000 wild plant species, mainly from drylands; and the complementary Svalbard Glo- bal Seed Vault, which has been constructed in Norway, close to the Arctic Circle, to provide the ultimate safety net against accidental loss of agricultural diversity in traditional gene banks. The vault has capacity to conserve 4.5 million crop seed samples.

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 52 FIGURE 13 Extinction risk of livestock breeds

Large numbers of breeds of Percentage the five major species of live- 0 20 40 60 80 100 stock are at risk from extinction. More generally, among 35 domesticated species, Chicken more than one-fifth of livestock breeds, are classified as being at risk of extinction. Source: FAO Goat

Sheep

Pig

Cattle

Unknown Not at risk At risk Extinct

Holstein-Friesian cattle are one of a small number of livestock breeds that are becoming increasingly dominant worldwide, often replacing traditional breeds and reducing genetic diversity.

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 53 Kennecott Utah Copper's Bingham Canyon Mine is the world's largest man-made excavation. It is almost 4.5 kilometres across and more than a kilometre deep. Open pit mining has been an important cause of habitat destruction in some regions. It is the type of activity increasingly subjected to environmental impact assessment. The Convention on Biological Diversity recently agreed voluntary guidelines on the inclusion of biodiversity factors in such assessments.

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 54 Current pressures on biodiversity and responses

The persistence and in some cases intensification of They are: the five principal pressures on biodiversity provide ✤ Habitat loss and degradation more evidence that the rate of biodiversity loss is ✤ Climate change not being significantly reduced. The overwhelming ✤ Excessive nutrient load and other forms majority of governments reporting to the CBD of pollution cite these pressures or direct drivers as affecting ✤ Over-exploitation and unsustainable use biodiversity in their countries. ✤ Invasive alien species

Habitat loss and degradation

Habitat loss and degradation create the biggest Even though there are no signs at the global level single source of pressure on biodiversity world- that habitat loss is declining significantly as a wide. For terrestrial ecosystems, habitat loss is driver of biodiversity loss, some countries have largely accounted for by conversion of wild lands shown that, with determined action, historically to agriculture, which now accounts for some 30% persistent negative trends can be reversed. An of land globally. In some areas, it has recently been example of global significance is the recent re- partly driven by the demand for biofuels. duction in the rate of deforestation in the Brazil- ian Amazon, mentioned above. The IUCN Red List assessments show habitat loss driven by agriculture and unsustainable for- For inland water ecosystems, habitat loss and deg- est management to be the greatest cause of spe- radation is largely accounted for by unsustainable cies moving closer towards extinction. The sharp water use and drainage for conversion to other land decline of tropical species populations shown in uses, such as agriculture and settlements. the Living Planet Index mirrors widespread loss of habitat in those regions. For example, in one The major pressure on water availability is ab- recent study the conversion of forest to oil palm straction of water for irrigated agriculture, which plantations was shown to lead to the loss of 73- uses approximately 70 per cent of the world’s 83% of the bird and butterfly species of the eco- withdrawals of fresh water, but water demands system. As noted above, birds face an especially for cities, energy and industry are rapidly grow- high risk of extinction in South-east Asia, the re- ing. The construction of dams and flood levees gion that has seen the most extensive develop- on rivers also causes habitat loss and fragmen- ment of oil palm plantations, driven in part by tation, by converting free-flowing rivers to res- the growing demand for biofuel. ervoirs, reducing connectivity between different parts of river basins, and cutting off rivers from Infrastructure developments, such as housing, their floodplains. industrial developments, mines and transport networks, are also an important contributor to In coastal ecosystems, habitat loss is driven by a conversion of terrestrial habitats, as is afforesta- range of factors including some forms of maricul- tion of non-forested lands. With more than half ture, especially shrimp farms in the tropics where of the world’s population now living in urban they have often replaced mangroves. areas, urban sprawl has also led to the disap- pearance of many habitats, although the higher Coastal developments, for housing, recreation, population density of cities can also reduce the industry and transportation have had important negative impacts on biodiversity by requiring the impacts on marine ecosystems, through dredg- direct conversion of less land for human habita- ing, landfilling and disruption of currents, sedi- tion than more dispersed settlements. ment flow and discharge through construction of jetties and other physical barriers. As noted above, use of bottom-trawling fishing gear can cause significant loss of seabed habitat.

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 55 Climate Change

Climate change is already having an impact on bio- has major biodiversity implications [See Box 15 diversity, and is projected to become a progressive- and Figure 14]. ly more significant threat in the coming decades. Loss of Arctic sea ice threatens biodiversity across Already, changes to the timing of flowering and The linked an entire biome and beyond. The related pressure migration patterns as well as to the distribution of ocean acidification, resulting from higher con- of species have been observed worldwide. In Eu- challenges of centrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, is rope, over the last forty years, the beginning of biodiversity loss also already being observed. the growing season has advanced by 10 days on and climate average. These types of changes can alter food change must be Ecosystems are already showing negative impacts chains and create mismatches within ecosys- under current levels of climate change (an increase tems where different species have evolved syn- addressed by of 0.74ºC in global mean surface temperature chronized inter-dependence, for example be- policymakers relative to pre-industrial levels), which is modest tween nesting and food availability, pollinators with equal compared to future projected changes (2.4-6.4 ºC and fertilization. Climate change is also project- priority and in by 2100 without aggressive mitigation actions). In ed to shift the ranges of disease-carrying organ- close co- addition to warming temperatures, more frequent isms, bringing them into contact with potential extreme weather events and changing patterns of hosts that have not developed immunity. Fresh- ordination rainfall and drought can be expected to have sig- water habitats and wetlands, mangroves, coral nificant impacts on biodiversity. reefs, Arctic and alpine ecosystems, dry and sub- humid lands and cloud forests are particularly Impacts of climate change on biodiversity vary vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. widely in different regions of the world. For example, the highest rates of warming have been Some species will benefit from climate change. observed in high latitudes, around the Antarc- However, an assessment looking at European tic peninsula and in the Arctic, and this trend birds found that of 122 widespread species as- is projected to continue. The rapid reduction sessed, about three times as many were los- in the extent, age and thickness of Arctic sea ing population as a result of climate change as ice, exceeding even recent scientific forecasts, those that were gaining numbers.

Climate change is projected to cause species to migrate to higher latitudes (ie towards the poles) and to higher altitudes, as average temperatures rise. In high-altitude habitats where species are already at the extreme of their range, local or global extinction becomes more likely as there are no suitable habitats to which they can migrate.

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 56 BOX 15 Arctic sea ice and biodiversity

The annual thawing and refreezing of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean has seen a drastic change in pattern during the first years of the 21st century. At its lowest point in September 2007, ice covered a smaller area of the ocean than at any time since satellite measurements began in 1979, 34% less than the average summer minimum between 1979-2000. Sea ice extent in September 2008 was the second-lowest on record, and although the level rose in 2009, it remained below the long-term average.

As well as shrinking in extent, Arctic sea ice has become significantly thinner and newer: at its maximum extent in March 2009, only 10% of the Arctic Ocean was covered by ice older than two years, compared with an average of 30% during 1979-2000. This increases the likelihood of continued acceleration in the amount of ice-free water during summers to come.

The prospect of ice-free summers in the Arctic Ocean implies the loss of an entire biome. Whole species assemblages are adapted to life on top of or under ice – from the algae that grow on the underside of multi-year ice, forming up to 25% of the Arctic Ocean’s primary production, to the invertebrates, birds, fish and marine mammals further up the food chain.

Many animals also rely on sea ice as a refuge from predators or as a platform for hunting. Ringed seals, for example, depend on specific ice conditions in the spring for reproduction, and polar bears live most of their lives travelling and hunting on the ice, coming ashore only to den. Ice is, literally, the platform for life in the Arctic Ocean – and the source of food, surface for transportation, and foundation of cultural heritage of the Inuit peoples.

The reduction and possible loss of summer and multi-year ice has biodiversity implications beyond the sea-ice biome. Bright white ice reflects sunlight. When it is replaced by darker water, the ocean and the air heat much faster, a feedback that accelerates ice melt and heating of surface air inland, with resultant loss of tundra. Less sea ice leads to changes in seawater temperature and salinity, leading to changes in primary productivity and species composition of plankton and fish, as well as large-scale changes in ocean circulation, affecting biodiversity well beyond the Arctic.

FIGURE 14 Arctic sea ice

Millions km2 8

4 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

The extent of floating sea ice in the Arctic Ocean, as measured at its annual minimum in September, showed a steady decline between 1980 and 2009. Source: National Snow and Ice Data Center

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 57 The specific impacts of climate change on biodiversity will largely depend on the ability of species to migrate and cope with more extreme climatic conditions. Ecosystems have adjusted to relatively stable climate conditions, and when Action to those conditions are disrupted, the only options implement the for species are to adapt, move or die. Convention on Biological It is expected that many species will be unable to keep up with the pace and scale of project- Diversity has not ed climate change, and as a result will be at an been taken on a increased risk of extinction, both locally and sufficient scale globally. In general climate change will test the to address the resilience of ecosystems, and their capacity for pressures on adaptation will be greatly affected by the intensity of other pressures that continue to be im- biodiversity posed. Those ecosystems that are already at, or close to, the extremes of temperature and precipitation tolerances are at particularly high risk.

Over the past 200 years, the oceans have absorbed approximately a quarter of the carbon dioxide produced from human activities, which would otherwise have accumulated in the atmosphere. This has caused the oceans (which on average are slightly alkaline) to become more acidic, lowering the average pH value of surface seawater by 0.1 units. Because pH values are on a logarithmic scale, this means that water is 30 per cent more acidic.

The impact on biodiversity is that the greater acidity depletes the carbonate ions, positively- charged molecules in seawater, which are the building blocks needed by many marine organisms, such as corals, shellfish and many plank- tonic organisms, to build their outer skeletons. Concentrations of carbonate ions are now lower than at any time during the last 800,000 years. The impacts on ocean biological diversity and ecosystem functioning will likely be severe, though the precise timing and distribution of these impacts are uncertain.

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 58 Pollution and nutrient load

Pollution from nutrients (nitrogen and phospho- cally, plants such as grasses and sedges will rous) and other sources is a continuing and grow- benefit at the expense of species such as dwarf ing threat to biodiversity in terrestrial, inland wa- shrubs, mosses and lichens. ter and coastal ecosystems. Nitrogen deposition is already observed to be Modern industrial processes such as the burn- the major driver of species change in a range ing of fossil fuels and agricultural practices, in of temperate ecosystems, especially grasslands particular the use of fertilizers, have more than across Europe and North America, and high doubled the quantity of reactive nitrogen - ni- levels of nitrogen have also been recorded in trogen in the form that is available to stimulate southern China and parts of South and South- plant growth - in the environment compared east Asia. Biodiversity loss from this source with pre-industrial times. Put another way, hu- may be more serious than first thought in other mans now add more reactive nitrogen to the ecosystems including high-latitude boreal for- environment than all natural processes, such ests, Mediterranean systems, some tropical sa- as nitrogen-fixing plants, fires and lightning. vannas and montane forests. Nitrogen has also been observed to be building up at significant In terrestrial ecosystems, the largest impact levels in biodiversity hotspots, with potential- is in nutrient-poor environments, where some ly serious future impacts on a wide variety of plants that benefit from the added nutrients plant species. out-compete many other species and cause significant changes in plant composition. Typi-

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 59 Large parts of Latin America and Africa, as well large areas virtually devoid of marine life. The as Asia, are projected to experience elevated number of reported dead zones has been rough- levels of nitrogen deposition in the next two ly doubling every ten years since the 1960s, and decades. Although the impacts have mainly by 2007 had reached around 500 [See Figure 15]. Investment in been studied in plants, nitrogen deposition may also affect animal biodiversity by changing the While the increase in nutrient load is among resilient and composition of available food. the most significant changes humans are mak- diverse ing to ecosystems, policies in some regions are ecosystems, able In inland water and coastal ecosystems, the showing that this pressure can be controlled to withstand the buildup of phosphorous and nitrogen, mainly and, in time, reversed. Among the most compre- through run-off from cropland and sewage pol- hensive measures to combat nutrient pollution multiple lution, stimulates the growth of algae and some is the European Union’s Nitrates Directive [See pressures they forms of bacteria, threatening valuable ecosys- Box 16 and Figure 16]. are subjected to, tem services in systems such as lakes and coral may be the reefs, and affecting water quality. It also creates best-value “dead zones” in oceans, generally where major rivers reach the sea. In these zones, decompos- insurance policy ing algae use up oxygen in the water and leave yet devised

FIGURE 15 Marine “dead zones”

Number of dead zones 500

400

300

200

Dead zone location 100

0 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

The number of observed “dead zones”, coastal sea areas where water oxygen levels have dropped too low to support most marine life, has roughly doubled each decade since the 1960s. Many are concentrated near the estuaries of major rivers, and result from the buildup of nutrients, largely carried from inland agricultural areas where fertilizers are washed into watercourses. The nutrients promote the growth of algae that die and decompose on the seabed, depleting the water of oxygen and threatening fisheries, livelihoods and tourism. Source: Updated from Diaz and Rosenberg (2008). Science

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 60 BOX 16 The European Union’s Nitrates Directive

The European Union has attempted to address the problem of nitrogen buildup in ecosystems by tackling diffuse sources of pollution, largely from agriculture, which can be much more difficult to control than point-source pollution from industrial sites.

The Nitrates Directive promotes a range of measures to limit the amount of nitrogen leaching from land into watercourses. They include:

✤ Use of crop rotations, soil winter cover and catch crops – fast-growing crops grown between successive planting of other crops in order to prevent flushing of nutrients from the soil. These techniques are aimed at limiting the amount of nitrogen leaching during wet seasons.

✤ Limiting application of fertilizers and manures to what is required by the crop, based on regular soil analysis.

✤ Proper storage facilities for manure, so that it is made available only when the crops need nutrients.

✤ The use of the "buffer" effect of maintaining non-fertilized grass strips and hedges along watercourses and ditches.

✤ Good management and restriction of cultivation on steeply sloping soils, and of irrigation.

Recent monitoring of inland water bodies within the European Union suggests that nitrate and phosphate levels are declining, although rather slowly. While nutrient levels are still considered too high, the improvements in quality, partly as a result of the Directive, have helped in the ecological recovery of some rivers.

Kg per ha 400 FIGURE 16 Nitrogen balance in Europe

The average nitrogen balance per hectare of agricultural land (the amount of nitrogen added to land as fertilizer, compared with the amount used up by crops and pasture) for selected European countries. The reduction over time in some countries implies improved efficiency in the use of fertilizer, and therefore a reduced risk of damage to biodiversity through nutrient run-off. Netherlands Source: OECD 300

Belgium

200

Denmark

100 OECD Czech Republic

Sweden Spain 0 1990 1995 2000 2005

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 61 Overexploitation and unsustainable use

Overexploitation and destructive harvesting prac- The FAO estimates that more than a quarter of tices are at the heart of the threats being imposed marine fish stocks are overexploited (19%), de- on the world’s biodiversity and ecosystems, and pleted (8%) or recovering from depletion (1%) there has not been significant reduction in this while more than half are fully exploited. Al- The poor face pressure. Changes to fisheries management in though there have been some recent signs that some areas are leading to more sustainable prac- fishing authorities are imposing more realistic the earliest and tices, but most stocks still require reduced pressure expectations on the size of catches that can most severe in order to rebuild. Bushmeat hunting, which pro- safely be taken out of the oceans, some 63% of impacts of vides a significant proportion of protein for many assessed fish stocks worldwide require rebuild- biodiversity loss, rural households, appears to be taking place at un- ing. Innovative approaches to the management sustainable levels. of fisheries, such as those that give fishermen a but ultimately all stake in maintaining healthy stocks, are prov- societies and Overexploitation is the major pressure being ex- ing to be effective where they are applied [See communities erted on marine ecosystems, with marine cap- Box 17]. would suffer ture fisheries having quadrupled in size from the early 1950s to the mid 1990s. Total catches have fallen since then despite increased fishing effort, an indication that many stocks have been pushed beyond their capacity to replenish.

BOX 17 Managing marine food resources for the future

Various management options have emerged in recent years that aim to create more secure and profitable livelihoods by focusing on the long-term sustainability of fisheries, rather than maximizing short-term catches. An example is the use of systems that allocate to individual fishermen, communities or cooperatives a dedicated share of the total catch of a fishery. It is an alternative to the more conventional system of quota-setting, in which allocations are expressed in terms of tonnes of a particular stock.

This type of system, sometimes known as Individual Transferable Quotas (ITQ), gives fishing businesses a stake in the integrity and productivity of the ecosystem, since they will be entitled to catch and sell more fish if there are more fish to be found. It should therefore deter cheating, and create an incentive for better stewardship of the resource.

A study of 121 ITQ fisheries published in 2008 found that they were about half as likely to face collapse than fisheries using other management methods. However, the system has also been criticized in some areas for concentrating fishing quotas in the hands of a few fishing enterprises.

Recent studies on the requirements for fish stock recovery suggest that such approaches need to be combined with reductions in the capacity of fishing fleets, changes in fishing gear and the designation of closed areas.

The benefits of more sustainable use of marine biodiversity were shown in a study of a programme in Kenya aimed at reducing pressure on fisheries associated with coral reefs. A combination of closing off areas to fishing, and restrictions on the use of seine nets that capture concentrated schools of fish, led to increased incomes for local fishermen.

Certification schemes such as the Marine Stewardship Council are aimed at providing incentives for sustainable fishing practices, by signaling to the consumer that the end-product derives from management systems that respect the long-term health of marine ecosystems. Seafood fulfilling the criteria for such certification can gain market advantages for the fishermen involved.

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 62 Wild species are being over-exploited for a variety of purposes in terrestrial, inland water and marine and coastal ecosystems. Bush- meat hunting, which provides a significant proportion of protein for many rural households in forested regions such as Central Afri- ca, appears to be taking place at unsustainable levels. In some areas this has contributed to the so-called “empty forest syndrome”, in which apparently healthy forests become virtually devoid of animal life. This has potentially serious impacts on the resilience of forest ecosystems, as some 75% of tropical trees depend on animals to disperse their seeds.

Freshwater snakes in Cambodia have been found to be suffering from unsustainable hunting for sale to crocodile farms, restaurants and the fashion trade, with low-season catches per hunter falling by more than 80% between 2000 and 2005. A wide variety of other wild species have also declined in the wild as a result of overexploitation, ranging from high pro- file species such as tigers and sea turtles to lesser-known species such as Encephalartos brevifoliolatus, a cycad which is now extinct in the wild as a result of over harvesting for use in horticulture.

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 63 Invasive alien species

Invasive alien species continue to be a major threat It is difficult to get an accurate picture of to all types of ecosystems and species. There are whether damage from this source is increas- no signs of a significant reduction of this pressure ing, as in many areas attention has only re- on biodiversity, and some indications that it is in- cently been focused on the problem, so a rise creasing. Intervention to control alien invasive spe- in known invasive species impacts may partly cies has been successful in particular cases, but it is reflect improved knowledge and awareness. outweighed by the threat to biodiversity from new However, in Europe where introduction of alien invasions. species has been recorded for many decades, the cumulative number continues to increase In a sample of 57 countries, more than 542 alien and has done so at least since the beginning of species, including vascular plants, marine and the 20th century. Although these are not neces- freshwater fish, mammals, birds and amphib- sarily invasive, more alien species present in a ians, with a demonstrated impact on biodiver- country means that in time, more may become sity have been found, with an average of over invasive. It has been estimated that of some 50 such species per country (and a range from 11,000 alien species in Europe, around one in nine to over 220). This is most certainly an un- ten has ecological impacts and a slightly higher derestimate, as it excludes many alien species proportion causes economic damage [See Box whose impact has not yet been examined, and 18]. Trade patterns worldwide suggest that the includes countries known to lack data on alien European picture is similar elsewhere and, as a species. consequence, that the size of the invasive alien species problem is increasing globally.

BOX 18 Documenting Europe’s alien species

The Delivering Alien Invasive Species Inventories for Europe (DAISIE) project provides consolidated information aimed at creating an inventory of invasive species that threaten European biodiversity. This can be used as the basis for the prevention and control of biological invasions, to assess the ecological and socio-economic risks associated with most widespread invasive species, and to distribute data and experience to member states as a form of early warning system.

Currently about 11,000 alien species have documented by DAISIE. Examples include Canada geese, zebra mussels, brook trout, the Bermuda but- tercup and coypu (nutria). A recent study based on information provided by DAISIE indicated that of the 11,000 alien species in Europe, 1,094 have documented ecological impacts and 1,347 have economic impacts. Terrestrial invertebrates and terrestrial plants are the two taxonomic groups causing the greatest impacts.

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 64 Eleven bird species (since 1988), five mammal and more than 200 times the number of am- species (since 1996) and one amphibian (since phibian species, have deteriorated in conser- 1980) have substantially had their risk of ex- vation status due largely to increased threats tinction reduced due primarily to the successful from invasive animals, plants or micro-organ- control or eradication of alien invasive species. isms. Overall, birds, mammals and amphibian Without such actions, it is estimated that the species have on average become more threat- average survival chances, as measured by the ened due to invasive alien species. While other Red List Index, would have been more than 10% groups have not been fully assessed, it is known worse for bird species and almost 5% worse for that invasive species are the second leading mammals [See Box 19]. However, the Red List cause for extinction for freshwater mussels and Index also shows that almost three times as more generally among endemic species. many birds, almost twice as many mammals,

BOX 19 Successful control of alien invasive species

✤ The Black vented Shearwater (Puffinus opisthomelas) breeds on six islands off the Pacific coast of Mexico, one of which is Natividad. Predation from approximately 20 feral cats reduced the population of the bird by more than 1,000 birds per month while introduced herbivores such as donkeys, goats sheep and rabbits damaged habitat of importance to the bird. With the assistance of a local fishing community goats and sheep were removed from the island in 1997-1998 while cats were controlled in 1998 and eventually eradicated in 2006. As a result the pressure on this species has decreased, the population has begun to recover and the species was reclassified from Vulnerable to Near Threatened in the IUCN Red List of 2004.

✤ The Western Brush Wallaby (Macropus irma) is endemic to south western Australia. During the 1970 the wallaby began to decline as a result of a dramatic increase in the Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes) population. Surveys conducted in 1970 and 1990 suggested that population had declined from approximately 10 individuals per 100 kilometers to about 1 per 100 kilometers. Since the introduction of fox control measures the wallaby population has recovered and currently stands at approximately 100,000 individuals. As a result the Western Brush Wallaby has been reclassified from Near Threatened to Least Concern on the IUCN Red List of 2004.

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 65 Combined pressures and underlying causes of biodiversity loss

The direct drivers of biodiversity loss act together ✤ Sea level rise caused by climate change com- to create multiple pressures on biodiversity and bines with physical alteration of coastal ecosystems. Efforts to reduce direct pressures are habitats, accelerating change to coastal bio- challenged by the deep-rooted underlying causes diversity and associated loss of ecosystem or indirect drivers that determine the demand services. Effective action for natural resources and are much more difficult to address to control. The ecological footprint of humanity An indication of the magnitude of the com- exceeds the biological capacity of the Earth by a biodiversity loss bined pressures we are placing on biodiversity wider margin than at the time the 2010 target was and ecosystems is provided by humanity’s ec- depends on agreed. ological footprint, a calculation of the area of addressing the biologically-productive land and water needed underlying The pressures or drivers outlined above do not to provide the resources we use and to absorb causes or act in isolation on biodiversity and ecosystems, our waste. The ecological footprint for 2006, the but frequently, with one pressure exacerbating latest year for which the figure is available, was indirect drivers the impacts of another. For example: estimated to exceed the Earth’s biological ca- of that decline pacity by 40 per cent. This “overshoot” has in- ✤ Fragmentation of habitats reduces the capac- creased from some 20 per cent at the time the ity of species to adapt to climate change, by 2010 biodiversity target was agreed in 2002. limiting the possibilities of migration to areas with more suitable conditions. As suggested above, specific measures can and do have an impact in tackling the direct driv- ✤ Pollution, overfishing, climate change and ers of biodiversity loss: alien species control, ocean acidification all combine to weaken responsible management of farm waste and the resilience of coral reefs and increase the habitat protection and restoration are some tendency for them to shift to algae-dominat- examples. However, such measures must ed states with massive loss of biodiversity. compete with a series of powerful underlying causes of biodiversity loss. These are even ✤ Increased levels of nutrients combined with more challenging to control, as they tend to in- the presence of invasive alien species can volve long-term social, economic and cultural promote the growth of hardy plants at the ex- trends. Examples of underlying causes include: pense of native species. Climate change can further exacerbate the problem by making more habitats suitable for invasive species.

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 66 ✤ Demographic change belief systems, worldviews and identity. Cultural changes such as the loss of indigenous languages ✤ Economic activity can therefore act as indirect drivers of biodiversity loss by affecting local practices of conserva- ✤ Levels of international trade tion and sustainable use [See Box 20]. Equally, scientific and technological change can provide ✤ Per capita consumption patterns, linked to new opportunities for meeting society’s demands individual wealth while minimizing the use of natural resources – but can also lead to new pressures on biodiversity ✤ Cultural and religious factors and ecosystems.

✤ Scientific and technological change Strategies for decreasing the negative impacts of indirect drivers are suggested in the final section Indirect drivers primarily act on biodiversity by of this synthesis. They centre on “decoupling” in- influencing the quantity of resources used by direct from direct drivers of biodiversity loss, pri- human societies. So for example population in- marily by using natural resources much more ef- crease, combined with higher per capita con- ficiently; and by managing ecosystems to provide sumption, will tend to increase demand for ener- a range of services for society, rather than only gy, water and food – each of which will contribute maximizing individual services such as crop pro- to direct pressures such as habitat conversion, duction or hydro-electric power. over-exploitation of resources, nutrient pollution and climate change. Increased world trade has The trends from available indicators suggest that been a key indirect driver of the introduction of the state of biodiversity is declining, the pressures invasive alien species. upon it are increasing, and the benefits derived by humans from biodiversity are diminishing, but that Indirect drivers can have positive as well as nega- the responses to address its loss are increasing [See tive impacts on biodiversity. For example, cultural Figure 17]. The overall message from these indica- and religious factors shape society’s attitudes tors is that despite the many efforts taken around towards nature and influence the level of funds the world to conserve biodiversity and use it sus- available for conservation. The loss of traditional tainably, responses so far have not been adequate knowledge can be particularly detrimental in this to address the scale of biodiversity loss or reduce regard, as for many local and indigenous com- the pressure. munities biodiversity is a central component of

BOX 20 Trends in indigenous languages

Indigenous languages transmit specialized knowledge about biodiversity, the environment and about practices to manage natural resources. How- ever, determining the status and trends of indigenous languages at the global level is complicated by the lack of standardized methodologies, the absence of shared definitions for key concepts and limited information. Where such information exists there is evidence that the extinction risk for the most endangered languages, those with few speakers, has increased. For example:

✤ Between 1970 and 2000, 16 of 24 indigenous languages spoken by less than 1,000 people in Mexico lost speakers.

✤ In the Russian Federation, between 1950 and 2002, 15 of 27 languages spoken by less than 10,000 people lost speakers.

✤ In Australia, 22 of 40 languages lost speakers between 1996 and 2006.

✤ In an assessment of 90 languages used by different indigenous peoples in the Arctic, it was determined that 20 languages have become extinct since the 19th century. Ten of these extinctions have occurred since 1989, suggesting an increasing rate of language extinctions. A further 30 languages are considered to be critically endangered while 25 are severely endangered.

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 67 STATE 100 150 0.8 1.0 Corals Wetland Birds 80 130 0.6 0.9 Mammals 60 110 0.8 Terrestrial 0.4 40 90 0.7 FIGURE 17 Summary of biodiversity indicators Amphibians 0.2 Waterbird Population 20 70 0.6 Living Planet Index Wild Bird Index Status Index Red List Index 0 50 0 0.5 STA1970TE 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 STATE STATE STATE Million km2 STATEMillion km2 100 150 1000.8 150 0.8 STATE 3.5 1.090 Corals 41 1.0 0.25 Corals 100 150 1000.8 Birds 150 0.8 Birds Seagrass extent 1.0 Wetland Wetland 1001.0 Corals 150 0.8 Birds Corals 80 130 800.6 1300.9 0.6 Wetland Birds 0.9 0.20 1.0 Corals Wetland 8085 Mammals 130 Mammals Birds 80 130 0.6 0.9 0.6 Wetland 0.9 60 110 60 1100.8 80 Mammals 0.8 0.15130 0.6 Mammals 0.9 60 Terrestrial 0.41103.0 6080 Terrestrial 0.41100.840 0.8 Mammals 40 90 40 900.70.4 Amphibians 60 Terrestrial 0.7 0.40.10110 Amphibians 0.8 Terrestrial 40 90 0.4 40 0.290 Waterbird Population 0.2 0.7 WaterbirdAmphibians Population Terrestrial 0.7 Amphibians 20 70 20 700.675 40 0.6 90 0.7 Amphibians Status Index 0.2 Waterbird Population Status Index 0.20.05 Waterbird Population Living Planet Index 20 Wild Bird Index 70 LivingMarine Planet Trophic Index Index 20 WaterWildRed Bird Quality List Index Index Index 700.6 Forest extent Red List Index 0.60.2 Waterbird Population 0 50 Living Planet Index 0 0 Wild Bird Index 500.5 Living PlanetStatus Index Index 0 20 Wild Bird Index 0.5 70 Status Index Red List Index 0.6 2.5 70 39 LivingRed Planet List Index 0 Wild Bird Index Status Index 0 50 0 0 500.5 0 0.5 Red List Index 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 197019701970198019801980199019901990200020002000201020102010 197019701970198019801980199019901990200020002000201020102010 197019700 19801980199019902000200020102010 197050197019801980199019902000200020102010 0 0.5 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 19701970 19801980 19901990 20002000 20102010 19701970 19801980 19901990 20002000 20102010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2 19702 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Million km 2 Million km 2 Per cent of live corals STATEMillion km Million km 22 2 MillionMillion kmkm 2 3.5 90 3.5 41 900.25Million km STATE41 Million km2 0.25 Million km 2 50 0.25 Million km Million km2 100 3.5 150 90 STATE0.8 3.541 Seagrass extent 1.0 0.2590 41 Seagrass extent 0.25 100 150 0.83.5 Birds Corals 1.090 41 Seagrass extent 0.25 85 40 Wetland 850.20 PRESSURES Seagrass extent 0.200.20 Birds Corals 80 100 130 150 Indo-Pacific 0.8 Wetland 0.9 0.201.0 0.20 Seagrass extent 8085 0.6130 85 Birds Corals 0.20 30 Wetland 0.15 Per cent 0.6 Mammals 0.150.90.1585 3.0 60 8080 1103.0 40130 80 0.6 85 0.840 0.150.9 MammalsMangrove extent 0.15 3.0 60 Caribbean 0.40.101103.0 80 Mammals 0.100.840 0.15 2080 Terrestrial 40 80 0.43.0 0.10 40 60 90 110 Terrestrial 0.7 0.100.8 Amphibians 80 0.1040 75 40 75 900.4 0.7 Amphibians 0.10 10 Terrestrial 0.05 75 0.050.05 Marine Trophic Index 20 40 Water Quality Index 70 9075 Marine Trophic Index 0.2 WaterbirdWater Quality Population Index 750.7 0.05 CoralForest condition extent 70 0.60.20.05 WaterbirdAmphibiansForest Population extent 75 2.5 70 LivingMarine Planet Trophic Index Index 2.52039 WildWater Bird Quality Index Index 70 700 MarineStatus Trophic Index Index 39 WaterRed QualityList Index Index 00.6 Forest extent 0.05 0 Living Planet Index 0.2 WaterbirdWildForest Bird Population Index extent Marine StatusTrophic Index Index 0 WaterRed Quality List Index Index 0 2.520 50 70 0 2.539 65 0.5 700.60 39 0 Forest extent 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990Living Planet2000 Index2010 1970019701970198019801980199019901990Wild20002000 2000Bird 2010Index20102010 1970501970 19801980 19901990 20002000Status 2010Index2010 19702.50 1980 1990 2000Red List 2010Index 19700.570197019801980199019902000200020102010 39 0 1970197019801980199019902000200020102010 1970197019801980199019902000200020102010 19701970197019801980198019901990199020006020002000201020102010 197019701970198019801980199019901990200020002000201020102010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 0 197050 1980 1990 2000 2010 19700 1980 1990 2000 2010 Over or0.519701970 fully exploited19801980 19901990 20002000 20102010 19701970 19801980 19901990 20002000 20102010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Per cent of live corals Per cent of live corals 2 55 2 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Million1970 km2 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Million km Million km or depleted2 fish stocks 2 Per cent of live corals STATE Per cent of live corals Million km 22 Million km 50 50 0.25 50 MillionPer cent km of live corals 0.25Million km2 2 3.5 90 41 50 2 0.25 0.25 Million km 100 150 50 0.83.5 90Million km 1970 1980 1990Million410.25 km20002 2010 0.25 40 PRESSURES40 1.00.20 CoralsPRESSURES50 Seagrass extent 0.20 0.25 Indo-Pacific 3.5 Wetland 90 Indo-Pacific 4041 Birds 0.20 0.25 PRESSURES Seagrass extent 0.20 80 130 40 Per cent 85 PRESSURES Indo-PacificPer cent 0.20 Seagrass extent 0.20 30 Indo-Pacific 0.630 0.90.1585Nitrogen deposition (Tg per year) Number40 of alien species 0.15 PRESSURES 0.20 85 Per cent 30 MammalsMangrove85 extent 0.15 0.20 Indo-PacificPer cent Mangrove extent 0.15 60 Caribbean 1103.0 30 2.085 Caribbean 0.8 120 10.15 200 0.151.5 Per cent 20 80 80203.0 85 400.10 80 30 Mangrove85 extent 0.10 Mangrove extent 0.15 Caribbean 0.4 8020 Caribbean 0.10 0.1540 85 0.10 Mangrove extent 3.020 Terrestrial 80 100 10.10 000 80 Caribbean 40 10 90 75 10 80 0.70.0540 Amphibians75 20 0.050.10 80 0.10 75 1.5 0.10 75 Coral condition 10 70 0.2 WaterbirdCoral Population condition75 751080 70 0.05 0.05800 1.0 0.05 20 70 Marine Trophic Index Water Quality Index 0.6 10 0.05 75 0.05 0 Coral condition 0 75 Marine Trophic70 Index 0 ForestCoral extentcondition 70 0 Living Planet Index 2.5 Wild65 Bird Index 70 1.0 Status Index 39 060 WaterRed65 Quality List Index Index 0 0.05600 CoralForest condition extent 70 0 0 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 50 0 Marine Trophic Index 019702.5 1980 1990Water2000 Quality 2010Index 701970 1980 1990 2000 2010 39 0 65 19700 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 602000 2010 65 0.5 60 Forest extent 0 0 2.51970 1980 1990 2000 2010Over1970 or 70fully exploited1980 1990 2000 2010 197039197040 19801980 19901990 20002000 20102010Over or1970 fully40001970 exploited19801980199019902000200020102010 0.5 65 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 552000 2010 197019700.5 19801980 19901990 2000602000 20102010 19701970 19801980 1990199055 20002000 20102010 19701970 19801980 1990199060 20002000 20102010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010or depleted fish stocks Over or20 fully exploited or depleted200 fish stocks Over or fully exploited 60 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 19702 1980 199055 2000 2010 Per cent of live corals 50 2 Ecological55 footprint Nitrogen50 deposition Million km European alien species or depleted fish stocksClimatic Impact Indicator Over or fully exploited MillionPer centkm of live corals Millionor depleted km2 fish stocks Million km2 55 50 0 50 0 0.25 0 50 0 or depleted fish stocks 3.5 Per cent of live corals 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2 2010 50 90 These41 50 graphs1970 help1980 to summarize1990 the2000 message2010 from0.25 the available1970 indicators1980 1990 on biodiversity:2000 that2010 Million1970 km 1980 1990197020001980201019900.25 19702000 19802010 1990 2000 2010 50 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Seagrass extent 40 the state of biodiversity is declining, thePRESSURES pressures upon it are increasing, and the benefits de- 0.20 0.25 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Indo-Pacific Number40 of alien species 0.20 PRESSURESNumber of alien species 0.20 85Nitrogen deposition (Tg per year) rived by humans from biodiversityIndo-PacificPer cent are diminishing,Nitrogen but that depositionthe responses (Tg per to addressyear) its loss are 30 40 Nitrogen deposition (Tg per year) PRESSURESNumber of alien species Per cent 0.15 Nitrogen0.20 deposition (Tg per year) Number of alien species 2.0 120 Indo-Pacific increasing.2.01 20030 They reinforce the85 conclusion that the0.15120 20101.5 biodiversity target has not been met. 1 200 Mangrove extent 1.50.15Nitrogen deposition (Tg per year) Number of alien species 3.0 80 2.0 Caribbean 40 120 Per cent 12.0 200 85 1201.5 1 200 Mangrove extent 1.5 2010030 1 000 80 Caribbean 100 10.10 0000.152.0 120 1 200 1.5 1.5 1.5 20 85 0.10 80 RESPONSES100 Mangrove extent 0.10 Caribbean Most 100indicators of the state75 of biodiversity show negative1 000 trends, with no significant reduction 1 000 10 801.520 800 80 801.01.5 0.058000.10Millions km2 of Forest Stewardship Council 1.0 100 1 000 75 in the10 rate of decline. 0.05 75 801.5 0.05800 1.0 Coral condition Million80 km2 70 800Mean per cent protected 1.0certified forest Per cent of countries with policies 1.0 Marine Trophic Index 0 6010 Water Quality Index 1.0600 ForestCoral75 conditionextent 60 70 6000 0.05 80 800 1.0 2.5 70 1.0 Coral condition 39 03060 65 0 1.060050 604 6001000 197040 1980 1990 2000 2010 There400 is no evidence of a slowing70 in the increase of40 0.5pressures upon biodiversity,65 based on the 40019701.0 1980 1990 2000 2010 0.5 60 600 19700.5 1980 1990 2000 2010 19700 1980 1990 2000 2010 0.519701970 19801980 1990199060 20002000 20102010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 400 4001970 1980 1990 2000 2010 0.5 20 trend200 shown40 by indicators of humanity’s65 ecologicalOver or20 fullyfootprint,40040 exploited nitrogen deposition,AZEs60 alien species 200 0.5 80 International 0.51970 1980 Nitrogen1990 deposition2000 2010 European55 alien species 0.5 Nitrogen deposition Over or fully19703 exploited1980European1990 alien species2000 2010 40 400 0.5 Ecological footprint introductions,2020 overexploitedEcological fish footprint60 stocks andor the depleted impact200 fish of climatestocksClimatic change Impacton 55biodiversity. Indicator 200.5 200 Climatic Impact Indicator Per cent0 of live corals 0 0 0 Nitrogen deposition MillionOver0 or0 30km fully2 exploitedEuropeanEcological alien footprint species or depleted0 fish stocks Nitrogen deposition 0 6020 European alien species 200 Climatic Impact Indicator Ecological footprint 50 55 IBAs Climatic Impact Indicator Invasive alien Nitrogenspecies deposition European alien species 50 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 19700 1980 1990 2000 2010 197019700 19801980 19901990 20002000 201020100.25or depleted197019700 0 fish19801980 stocks19901990 5020002000 20102010 1970020 1980 1990Ecological2000 footprint2010 19700 1980 1990 2000 2010 0 Climatic Impact Indicator The limited indicators of the1970 benefits1980 derived 1990by humans2000 from 2010biodiversity also show negative 0 0 policy adoption 0 0 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 199050 2000 2010 1970201970 19801980 199019901970200020001980201020101990 197019702000 198019802010 19901990 20002000 20102010 401970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 40 PRESSUREStrends.10 0.20 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Indo-Pacific 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1 Sustainably managed National Nitrogen deposition (Tg per year) Number10 of alien species 20 30 Per cent In contrast, all indicatorsProtected of the responses area extent to address0.15Nitrogen biodiversity deposition loss are (Tg movingper year)Site in coverage a positive Number offorest alien species extent 2.0 120 0 1 200 0 1.5 0 0 85 direction.2.0Nitrogen More deposition areas are (Tg being per year)protected for biodiversity,120Number ofmore alien Mangrovepolicies species and extent laws are being 1 200 1.5 20 Caribbean RESPONSES RESPONSES 2.0 80 introduced100 1201970 to avoid1980 damage1990 from 2000invasive 2010alien10.10 000 species,1 2001970 and more1980 money1990 is being2000 spent 2010in 1.51970 1980 1990 2000RESPONSES2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1.5 Millions km2 of Forest Stewardship CouncilRESPONSES 100 1 Millions000 km2 of Forest Stewardship Council 75 support of the Convention on Biological Diversity and its objectives. 2 RESPONSES 10 2 Mean per cent protected 801.5100 2 0.05800MeanPer1 000 cent per ofcent countries protected2 with policies 1.0 Per centMillions of countries km of with Forest policies Stewardship Council Million km Millioncertified km forest 80 Millions km of Forest StewardshipBillions of dollars Council certified forest 1.0 2 Coral condition 1.5 70 2 800Mean per cent protected Per centMillions of countries km of Forest with policies Stewardship Council 30 1.0 50Million km2 3060 4Mean per cent protected 50100Millioncertified km forest 4 Per cent of countries with policies 100 certified forest 0 The overall80 message from these indicators is that600 0despite800 the many efforts taken3.2 around the 1.0Million km2 Mean per cent protected certified forest Per cent of countries with policies 65 1.0 6030 4 60050100 4 100 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 30 40 50 4001970 1980 1990 2000 2010 0.5 4 100 401.0 AZEs60 world to60 conserve biodiversity and use it sustainably,40 80responses600 so far haveAZEs not beenInternational adequate 30 800.550 International 0.5 3 40 340040 AZEs 80 International 20 Overto or20 address fully0.540 exploited the scale of biodiversityAZEs loss or reduce200 the400 pressures. 0.580 International 3 30 Ecological55 footprint 40 Nitrogen deposition 306020 3 European alien3.0 species 200 Climatic Impact Indicator 60 40 AZEs 80 International 0.520 IBAs or depletedSource: Adapted fish stocks from ButchartEcological etal. (2010). Sciencefootprint 20 Invasive alien NitrogenspeciesIBAs deposition European alien species Invasive alien species 3 0 50 0 22030 0 200 02 302060 IBAs Climatic Impact Indicator 60 20 Ecological footprint 0 NitrogenIBAs deposition 20400 policy adoptionEuropean alien species 0 Invasive Climaticalien species Impact Indicator 40 0230policy adoption Invasive alien species 60 1970 1980 1990 19702000 19802010 199019702000198020101990 2000 2010 19702 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 IBAs Invasive alien species 10 0 10 1970200 1980 1990 2000 2010 19700 1980 1990 2.82000 2010 201970400 policy1980 adoption1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 402 policy adoption 1 Sustainably managed 10 National 1 Sustainably managed 20 National 40 policy adoption 10101970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1020 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 20 1 Protected area extent Site coverage forest extentProtected area extent 1 Sustainably managedSite coverage 1010forest extent National Sustainably managed 20 National Nitrogen deposition (Tg per year) Number 10of alien species Biodiversity aid 20 1 Sustainably managed National 0 0 Protected area extent 0 0 Site coverage 0 0 forest extentProtected2.6 area extent 0 Site coverage 0 10 forest extent 20 Protected area extent Site coverage forest extent 2.0 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 120 19700 1980 1990 2000 20101 200197019700 19801980 19901990 20002000 20102010 1.5197019700 0 19801980 19901990 20002000 20102010 197000 1980 1990 2000 2010 19700 1980 1990 2000 2010 0 RESPONSES1970 1980 1990 19702000 19802010 199019700 20001980 20101990 2000 2010 19700 1980 1990 2000 2010 19700 1980 1990 2000 2010 0 100 1970 1980 1990 2000 Global20101 Biodiversity 000 1970 Outlook1980 3 | 68 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000RESPONSES2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1.5 Millions km2 of Forest Stewardship Council 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 80 Billions of dollars RESPONSES1.0 Billions of dollars Millions km2 of Forest Stewardship Council Million km2 800Mean per cent protected certified forest Per cent of countries with policiesBillions of dollars 3.2 2 Billions of dollars Mean per cent 2protected 3.2 Per cent of countries with policies 1.0 Million km Millions km of Forest Stewardship Council certified forest Billions of dollars 3060 2 60050 3.2 4 100 3.2 Million km 30Mean per cent protected 50 certified forest Per4 cent of countries with policies 100 3.2 0.5 BENEFITS 40 30 40040 50 AZEs 4 80 100 International 0.5 3.0 3 40 AZEs3.0 80 International 2020 200 3.0 3 3.0 Ecological footprint Nitrogen deposition 30 2040 EuropeanAZEs alien species 120 Climatic Impact Indicator 60 1.0080 International 3.0 0 0 0 IBAs 0 30 3 Invasive alien species 60 20 2.8 2 2.8 IBAs Internationally Invasive alien species 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 20197030 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 40 0.95260policy adoption 10 2.8IBAs 20100 Invasivetraded speciesalien species2.8 40 policy adoption 10 1 2 2.8 Biodiversity aid10 20 Sustainably managed Biodiversity aid 20 0.90140 policy adoption National 10 Protected 2.6area extent Site coverage 10forest extent 2.6 Sustainably managed 20 National Protected areaBiodiversity extent aid 801 Sustainably managedSite coverage forestFood extent & medicine BiodiversityNational aid 0 0 10 2.6 0 0 0.8520 2.6 Biodiversity aid Protected1970 area extent1980 19900 2000 2010 Site coverage 0 forest extent 1970 1980 1990 02000 2010species 0 2.6 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 20001970 20101980 1970199060 19802000 19902010 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 20001970 20101980 1990 2000 2010 0 RESPONSES19700 1980 1990 2000 2010 19700 1980 1990Living 2000Plant Index2010 0.8019700 Red List1980 Index1990 for species2000 utilized2010 1970 1980 1990 19702000 19802010 1990 2000 2010 2 1970 for1980 utilized1990 vertebrate2000 species2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Millions1970 km of1980 Forest StewardshipBillions1990 of 2000dollars Council 2010 in trade and food and medicine 2 Mean per cent protected Per cent40 of countries with policies 0.75 Million km certified forest 3.2 Billions of dollars 30 50 BENEFITS4 Billions of dollars 100 1970 1980 19903.2 2000BENEFITS2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 3.2 BENEFITS 40 AZEs BENEFITS80 3 3.0 International BENEFITS 120 1.00 120 3.0 1.00 20 30 60 IBAs 120 Internationally 3.0 1.00Invasive alien species 120 Internationally 1.00 0.952 0.95 120 Internationally 1.00 20100 traded species 2.8 10040 policy adoptionInternationally traded species 0.95 2.8 100 0.95 traded species Internationally 10 0.90100 traded species 0.90 0.95 1 Sustainably managed 2.8 National 100 traded species 10 80 Food & medicine Biodiversity aid 2080 0.90 Food & medicine 0.90 Protected area extent Site coverage forest extent 0.90 0.8580 species 2.6 Food & medicine Biodiversity aid0.85 80 species Food & medicine 0 0 0 Biodiversity aid0 2.6 0.8580 Food & medicine 60 Living Plant Index 1970 1980 199060 0.852000 2010speciesLiving Plant Index species 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 0.801970 Red1980 List Index1990 for species20002.6 utilized2010 1970 1980 1990 20001970 20101980 0.801990Red 2000List Index2010 for species utilized 0.85 species 60 60 Living Plant Index for utilized vertebrate species in trade and food andLiving medicine1970 Plant Index1980 19900.80 Redfor2000 utilized List Index2010 vertebrate for species species utilized in trade and food and medicine 0.8060 Red List Index for species utilized 40 0.75 40 0.75 for utilized vertebrate species Living Plant Index 0.80 Red List Index for species utilized Billions of dollars for utilized vertebrate species in trade and food and medicine in trade and food and medicine 40 0.75 40 0.75 for utilized vertebrate species in trade and food and medicine 1970 1980 19903.2 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 40 0.75 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 BENEFITS BENEFITS 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 3.0 BENEFITS 120 1.00 120 Internationally 1.00 120 1.00 2.8 100 0.95 traded species Internationally 100 Internationally 0.95 traded species 100 0.90 0.95 traded species Biodiversity aid 80 Food & medicine 0.90 2.6 0.85 0.9080 species Food & medicine 80 Food & medicine 0.85 species 1970 1980 199060 2000 2010 Living Plant Index 0.80 0.85Red List Indexspecies for species utilized 60 Living Plant Index 0.80 Red List Index for species utilized 60 for utilized vertebrate species in trade and food and medicine 40 Living Plant Index 0.75 0.80 Redfor List utilized Index forvertebrate species speciesutilized in trade and food and medicine for utilized vertebrate species 40 0.75 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 in1980 trade and1990 food and2000 medicine2010 40 0.751970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 BENEFITS 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

120 1.00 Internationally 100 0.95 traded species 0.90 80 Food & medicine 0.85 species 60 Living Plant Index 0.80 Red List Index for species utilized for utilized vertebrate species in trade and food and medicine 40 0.75 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 STATE 100 150 0.8 1.0 Corals Wetland Birds 80 130 0.6 0.9 Mammals 60 110 0.8 Terrestrial 0.4 40 90 0.7 Amphibians 0.2 Waterbird Population 20 70 0.6 Living Planet Index Wild Bird Index Status Index Red List Index 0 50 0 0.5 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

STATE Million km2 Million km2 3.5 90 41 0.25 100 150 0.8 1.0 Seagrass extent Birds Corals Wetland 85 0.20 80 130 0.6 0.9 Mammals 0.15 60 1103.0 80 0.840 Terrestrial 0.4 0.10 40 90 0.7 75 Amphibians 0.2 Waterbird Population 0.05 20 70 Marine Trophic Index Water Quality Index 0.6 Forest extent Living Planet Index 2.5 Wild Bird Index 70 Status Index 39 Red List Index 0 0 501970 1980 1990 2000 2010 19700 1980 1990 2000 2010 0.51970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Per cent of live corals Million km2 Million km2 2 50 Million km 0.25 3.5 90 41 0.25 40 PRESSURES Seagrass extent 0.20 Indo-Paciﬁc 85 STATE0.20 30 Per cent 0.15 100 150 85 0.80.15 1.0 Mangrove extent 3.0 Caribbean Corals 2080 40 Wetland 80 0.10 Birds 80 130 0.10 0.9 75 0.6 1075 0.05 Mammals 60 Coral condition 110 70 0.05 0.8 Marine Trophic Index 0 Water Quality Index Terrestrial Forest extent 0.4 0 2.5 65 40 701970 1980 1990 2000 2010 9039 0 0.7 1970 1980Amphibians1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 60 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 20 70 Over0.2 or fully exploitedWaterbird Population 55 0.6 Living Planet Index Wild Bird Index or depleted ﬁsh stocks Status Index Red List Index Per cent of live corals 0 50 50 Million0 km2 0.5 50 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 19702000 19802010 19900.251970 20001980 20101990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

40 0.20 2 PRESSURES Million km 2 Indo-Pacific STATE Nitrogen deposition (Tg per year) Number of alien species Million km 30 3.5 Per cent 90 410.15 0.25 100 1502.0 85 0.8120 1.01 200 Mangrove extent 1.5 Seagrass extent Caribbean Birds Corals 20 Wetland 80 85100 10.10 000 0.20 80 1301.5 0.6 0.9 10 75 80 0.05800 Mammals 0.151.0 60 1103.0 0.8 Coral condition 1.0 70 80 40 0 Terrestrial 0.4 60 6000 0.10 40 90 65 0.7 Amphibians 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 75 40 4001970 1980 1990 2000 2010 0.5 0.5 60 0.2 Waterbird Population 0.05 20 70 Marine Trophic Index Over or fully exploitedWater Quality Index 0.6 55 20 200 EuropeanForest alien extent species Living Planet Index 2.5 EcologicalWild Bird footprint Index or depleted70 fish stocks NitrogenStatus deposition Index 39 Red List Index 0 Climatic Impact Indicator 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 1970 1980 1990 502000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 0.51970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 19701970 19801980 19901990 200019702000 201019802010 199019701970200019801980201019901990 20002000 20102010 19701970 19801980 19901990 20002000 20102010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2 Per cent of live corals 2 Million km Million km Million km2 STATE50Nitrogen deposition (Tg per year) Number of alien species 0.25 3.5 90 41 0.25 2.0 120 1 200 1.5 100 150 0.840 1.0 PRESSURES Seagrass extent 0.20 Indo-Pacific Birds Corals RESPONSES Wetland 85100 1 000 0.20 80 1301.5 STATE 0.630 0.9 Per cent Millions km2 of Forest Stewardship Council 0.15 Million80 km2 STATE 800Mean per centMammals protected85 0.151.0certified forest Per cent of countriesMangrove with policiesextent 60 1103.0 80 Caribbean 0.840 100 150 1.0 0.8 203060 50 80 4 0.10100 100 Terrestrial 1500.4 1.0 0.8 600Corals 1.00.10 40 Wetland 90 Birds 0.7 Amphibians75 Birds Corals 80 130 7510 40 Wetland 40040 AZEs 0.5 0.0580 International 80 0.5 0.6 1300.2 Waterbird0.9 Coral Population condition 0.6 70 0.90.05 3 20 70 Marine Trophic Index 02020 Water Quality IndexMammals 0.6200 Forest extent Mammals 0 60 110Living Planet Index 602.5 EcologicalWild Bird footprint Index 11070 0.8NitrogenStatus deposition Index 39 30 EuropeanRed65 alienListIBAs Index species 0.8 0 Climatic Impact Indicator 60 0 0.4 19700 1980 1990 2000 2010 0 0 1970 Invasive1980 alien1990 species2000 2010 0 Terrestrial 501970 1980 1990 2000 2010 01970 1980Terrestrial1990 2000 2010 0.40.51970 1980 1990 60 2000 2010 19702 1980 1990 2000 2010 40 90 40 1970 1980 1990 2000 201090 1970 1980 0.71990 2000 Amphibians2010 201970 1980 1990 2000 2010Over0.7 or fully1970 exploited1980Amphibians1990 2000 2010 40 policy adoption 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 197010 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 55 2000 2010 0.2 Waterbird Population or depleted1 fish stocks 20 70 Per cent of live corals 0.2 10 Waterbird Population 2Sustainably managed 20 National 20 70 2 0.6 50 0.6Million km Wild Bird Index MillionStatus Indexkm Protected area extent 2 Site coverage forest extent Living Planet Index STATE50 Living Planet Index Wild Bird Index MillionRed List km Index Status Index 0.25 Red List Index 0 3.5 50 090 0 5041 0 STATE0.5 0.250 0 1970 1980 0.51990 0 2000 2010 0 100 1970 1980 1990 1502000 2010 1970 1980 1990 0.8402000 2010 1970 1980 1990 1.020001970 20101980 19701990 19802000PRESSURES19902010 20001970 20101980 Seagrass1990 extent2000 20100.20 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 100 1970 1980 1990Indo-Pacific150 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990Birds0.8 2000Corals2010RESPONSES1970 1980 1990 1.0 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Wetland 0.20Nitrogen deposition (Tg per year) BirdsNumberCorals of alien species 85 Per cent 2 80 130 30 Million km2 Wetland 0.9 2 Millions2 km of Forest Stewardship Council 0.15 80 0.6 130 2.0 Million km Million120 km 0.9 Billions of dollarsMillion1 200 km2 1.5 Million km2 STATE Mean per centMammals protected0.685 0.15 certified forest Per cent of countriesMangrove with policiesextent 60 3.5 1103.0 90 3.58020 41 Caribbean 900.840 0.25 41 3.2 Mammals0.250.10 100 60 1500.430 110 0.8 50 80 Seagrass0.10100 extent4 0.8 1 000100 Terrestrial 1.5 0.4 1.0 Corals Seagrass extent 40 90 10 Terrestrial0.7 Amphibians0.20 75 80 Birds 0.20 1.0 8540 75 Wetland 90 85 40 AZEs 0.7 Amphibians0.0580080 80 130 Coral condition 0.6 70 0.90.05 3 3.0 International 20 70 Marine Trophic Index 0.2 WaterbirdWater Quality Population Index 1.0 0.15 60 Mammals 600 3.0 20 0 20 70 0.6 0.2Forest extent Waterbird Population 0.15 0 Living Planet Index 602.5 80 Wild Bird Index 1103.070 40 Status Index 8039 30 65Red ListIBAs Index 0.840 0 0.6 60 Living1970 Planet Index1980 1990 2000 2010 0.4Wild Bird Index 0.10 40Status2 Index 400Red1970 ListInvasive Index1980 alien1990 species2000 2010 0.5 0 501970 1980 1990 2000 2010 19700 1980Terrestrial1990 2000 2010 0.51970 1980 1990 60 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2.82000 2010 0.10 40 0 90 50 20 0 Over0.7 or fully exploitedAmphibians0.5 40 policy adoption 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 199075 2000 2010 197010 1980 1990 2000 2010 75 1970 1980 1990 55 2000 2010 20 200 European alien species 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 19900.2 2000 2010Waterbird0.05Ecological1970 Population footprint1980 or1990 depleted20001 fish stocks2010 Nitrogen1970 deposition1980 19900.05 2000 2010 Climatic Impact Indicator Marine20 TrophicPer cent Index of live corals Water70 Quality Index 0 10 0 2Sustainably managed 020 National 0 2 Marine Trophic Index Forest extent Water Quality50 Index 0.6Million km Forest extentBiodiversity aid Million km Protected area extent 2 StatusSite Index coverage forest extent 2.6 2.5 50 Living70 Planet Index 2.5 39Wild Bird Index 70Million1970 km 1980 19900Million2000 km2 2010 390.251970 1980 1990Red List2000 Index2 2010 0 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 0 50 0 0 0 1970 1980 1990 02000 2010 Million km 0 3.5 1970 1980 1990 902000 2010 1970 1980 1990 1970412000 19802010 199019702000198020101990 0.2519702000 19802010 1990197020001980201019900.519702000 19802010 1990 20001970 20101980 19701990 19802000 19902010 2000 2010 3.5 1970 1980 199090 2000 2010 1970 1980 Seagrass199041 extent2000 2010 1970 1980 0.251990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 197040 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 PRESSURES2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 0.201970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Seagrass extent Indo-Pacific 0.20Nitrogen deposition (Tg per year) Number of alien species Per cent of live corals 85 Per cent Million km2 0.20 2 30 Per cent of live corals 85 2 0.15 Million km 2.0 Million km Billions of dollarsMillion1 200 km2 1.5 50 STATE50 85 0.15120 0.25 Mangrove extent 0.25 3.0 3.5 2080 Caribbean 90PR40 ESSURE 41 RESPONSES 3.2 0.250.10 BENEFItS 0.15 RESPONSES 100 150 3.0 0.8 8080 100 40 1 000 40 401.5 PRESSURES 1.00.10 0.20 Corals PRESSURES Seagrass extent BENEFITS0.20 Millions km2 of Forest Stewardship Council Indo-Pacific Indo-Pacific75 Birds 0.20 0.10 1.0 10 Wetland 85 80 2 0.05800Mean per cent protected Per cent of countries with policies 80 30 130 75 Coral condition Per cent 0.90.05Million km 0.15Per cent certified forest 0.630 7570 3.0 0.05 0.15 Marine Trophic Index 0 Water Quality Index 851.0 Forest extent 3060 Mammals 85 Mangrove0.15600 extent500120 1.004 Mangrove extent 100 60 1103.0 Caribbean Marine Trophic Index Caribbean65 Water0.8 Quality Index Forest extent 2.5 20 701970 1980 1990 2000 2010 80208039 40 400 0.1080 4001970 1980 1990 2000 2010 0.100.5 Internationally 2.5 0.4 7060 39 0.10 40 AZEs0 0.95 80 International 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980Terrestrial1990 2000 2010 750.51970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2.82000 2010 100 3 traded species 40 10 90 1970 1980 199010 2000 2010 1970 1980 Over19900.7 or20 fully2000 exploited2010Amphibians0.05751970 1980 1990200 2000 2010 1970 1980 19900.05 2000 2010 75 Ecological55 footprint 20 Nitrogen deposition 30 European alien species 0.90 Climatic Impact Indicator 60 Coral condition 0.270 WaterbirdCoral Population condition or depleted fish stocks 70 0.05 IBAs Invasive alien species 20 Per cent of live corals 0 70 Marine Trophic Index 0 Water Quality50 Index 0.6Million0 km2 0Forest extentBiodiversity aid 080 02 Food & medicine Per cent of live corals 650 Status Index Million km2 0 50 Living Planet Index 2.5 Wild Bird Index 70 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 39 1970 1980 1990Red65 List2.62000 Index 2010 0 201970 1980 1990 2000 2010 0.851970 1980species1990 2000 2010 40 policy adoption 0 1970 1980 199050 2000 2010 01970 1980 1990 19702000 19802010 19900.2510 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 502000 2010 601970 1980 1990 2000 2010 0.51970 1980 1990 60 20001970 20101980 1970199060 19802000 199020100.25 2000 2010 1 Over or fully exploited Over or fully10 exploited Living Plant Index 0.80 SustainablyRed List Index managed for species utilized 20 National 197040 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010PRESSURES551970 1980 1990 2000 2010 19700.20 1980 1990 55 2000 2010 for utilized vertebrate species Indo-Pacific 40 Nitrogen depositionor depleted (Tg per year)fish stocks Number of alienPRESSURES speciesProtected area extentor depleted fish stocks 0.20 Site coverage forestin trade extent and food and medicine Per cent of live corals Indo-Pacific 2 Per cent 50 2 0 50 Million0 km40 0.750 0 30 2.0 Million120 km Million10.15 200Per km cent2 1.5 STATE50 3085 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 Mangrove1990 extent2000 20100.25 19701970 19801980 19900.151990 20002000 20102010 19701970 19801980 19901990 20002000 20102010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 3.5 Caribbean 85 1970 1980RESPONSES1990 2000 2010 Mangrove extent 20 90 41100Caribbean 0.2510.10 000 100 150 0.8 2080 2 401.5 1.0 CoralsPRESSURES80 Seagrass extent BENEFITS0.20 Millions km of Forest0.10 Stewardship Council Indo-Pacific75 80 BirdsNumber of alien species 0.20 1.0 Billions of dollars 10 Wetland 85 Nitrogen deposition (Tg per year)Million km2 Nitrogen0.05800Mean75 deposition per cent protected (Tg per year) Numbercertified of alien forest species Per cent of countries with policies 80 130 30 10 0.9 Per cent 0.15 0.053.2 2.0 Coral condition 0.61.0 120 70 3060 1 200 50 1.5 4 100 0 2.0Coral conditionMammals85 0.15120600700120 1 200 1.00 Mangrove extent 1.5 60 1103.0 8020 100 0Caribbean65 0.840 0.10 Internationally 0 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 0.4 40 1 00080 10040040651970 1980 1990AZEs 2000 20101 0000.5 80 Terrestrial1.5 0.5 197060 1980 19901.5 2000 2010 0.10 100 0.953 traded species 19703.0 1980 1990 2000 2010 International 40 90 10 80 Over0.7 or2020 fully exploitedAmphibians80075 8020060 1.0 0.05800 1.0 75 Ecological55 footprint Nitrogen deposition 0.05 30 EuropeanOver or fully alien exploited species 0.90 Climatic Impact Indicator 60 1.0 0.2 WaterbirdCoral60 Population condition or depleted fish stocks 70 55 IBAs Invasive alien species 20 70 Marine Trophic Index 0 0 Water Quality50 Index 0.61.0 0 600Forest extent 60 0 80 or depleted fish stocks 6000 02 Food & medicine Living Planet Index 2.5 Wild Bird Index 70 Status Index 39 65Red List Index 0 2050 0.85 2.8 40 policy adoption 19701970 19801980 1990199040 200019702000 201019802010 19901019702000198020104001990 2000 2010 40 1970 1980 19900.5 2000 2010 40019701970 19801980 species19901990 20002000 20102010 0.5 0 501970 1980 19900.5 2000 2010 19700 1980 1990 2000 2010 0.51970 1980 1990 60 2000 2010 19701970 19801980 19901990 20002000 20102010 1 20 0.5 200 Over or fully10 60 exploited Living Plant Index 0.80SustainablyRed List Index managed for species utilized 20 National 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Nitrogen1970 deposition1980 1990 55 2000 2010European20 alien species 200 Biodiversity aid Ecological footprint EcologicalProtected footprintarea extentor depleted fish stocksfor utilizedNitrogen vertebrate Sitedeposition coverage Climaticspecies Impact Indicatorforestin trade extentEuropean and food alien 2.6and medicinespecies Climatic Impact Indicator 0 Nitrogen deposition (Tg0 per year) Number of alien species 0 2 0 Per cent of live corals 2 0 0 50Nitrogen deposition (TgMillion per0 0year) km40 Number of alien species 0 0.750 0 0 Million km Million km2 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 502.0 1970 1980 1990 1202000 2010 1970 1980 19901 197020019702000 198019802010 1990199019702000200019802010201019900.2519701.51970200019701980198020101980199019901970199020002000198020002010201019902010 19701970200019701980198020101980199019901990200020002000201020102010 19701970 19801980 19901990 20002000 20102010 3.5 90 41 2.0 0.25 1201970 1980RESPONSES1990 2000 2010 1 200 1.5 100 1 000 40 PRESSURES Seagrass100 extent 0.20 Millions km2 of Forest1 000 Stewardship Council 1.5 Indo-Pacific 0.20 Billions of dollars 85 Million80 km2 1.5 Nitrogen800Mean deposition per cent protected (Tg per year) Number1.0certified of alien forest species Per cent of countries with policies 30 Per cent 80 0.15 8003.2 1.0 1.0 2.03060 85 0.1512060050 1 200 4 Mangrove extent 1.5100 1.0 60 600 BENEFITS 3.0 2080 Caribbean 40 RESPONSES 0.10 RESPONSES 40 80 10040040 AZEs 2 1 0000.5 80 1.5 0.10 Millions40 km of Forest Stewardship Council 4003.0 2 0.5 International 0.5 75 3 Millions km of Forest Stewardship Council 10 2 2020 Mean0.5 per cent protected 80200 2 0.05800 Per cent of countries with policies1.0120 1.00 75 Million km Nitrogen deposition Million30 km Europeancertified20 alien forest species Mean per cent protected 200 certified60 forest Per cent of countries with policies EcologicalCoral condition footprint 70 0.05 IBAs Nitrogen depositionClimatic Impact Indicator European alienInvasive species alien species Internationally Marine Trophic Index 0 Water30 Quality Index 1.0 0 50 Ecological3060 0 footprint 4 60050 20 100 4 Climatic100 Impact0.95 Indicator 0 Forest0 extent 0 0 2.80 100 policy adoption 0 traded species 2.5 70 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 39 1970 1980 199065 2000 2010 0 201970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 40 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 10 40 1970 1980 AZEs199040 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990400401970 20001980 20101990AZEs80 19702000 19802010 19900.5 International2000 2010 1970 1980 199080 2000 2010 International 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 0.51970 1980 1990 60 2000 2010 1970 1980 19903 2000 2010 1 Sustainably managed 3 National 0.90 20 Over or20 fully10 exploited 200 Biodiversity aid 2080 Food & medicine Protected3055 area extent 20 Nitrogen depositionSite coverage forest extentEuropean60 alien species Ecological footprint or depletedIBAs fish stocks 30 2.6IBAsInvasive alien species Climatic Impact Indicator 600.85 species Per cent of live corals 0 0 50 Million0 0 km2 2 0 0 02 0 Invasive alien species 20 20 40 policy1970 adoption1980 199060 2000 2010 Living Plant Index 40 policy adoption 50 10 19701970 19801980 1990199019702000200019802010201019900.2519701970200019801980201019901990 20002000 20102010 19701970 19801980 19901990 20002000 20102010 19701970 19801980 19901990 20002000 20102010 0.80 Red List Index for species utilized RESPONSES10 1 for utilized vertebrate species 10 Sustainably managed RESPONSES20 1 SustainablyNational managed in trade and food and medicineNational 40 PRESSURES 0.20 Millions km2 of Forest Stewardship Council 10 40 200.75 Indo-Pacific Protected area extent Site coverage ProtectedBillions areaforest extent of extent dollars SiteMillions coverage km2 of Forest Stewardshipforest extent Council Million km2 0 NitrogenMean deposition per cent protected (Tg per0 year) Numbercertified of alien forestspecies 0 Per cent of countries with0 policies 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 30 Per cent Million km2 0.150 Mean3.2 per cent protected0 certified forest 0 Per cent of countries with 0policies 2.0 30 197085 1980 1990120 502000 2010 1970 1980 19901 200 42000 2010Mangrove1970 extent 1980 19901.51002000 2010 1970 1980 BENEFITS1990 2000 2010 Caribbean 30 1970 1980 1990 50 2000 RESPONSES2010 1970 1980 1990 4 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990100 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 20 80 100 10.10 000 1.5 40 AZEs 3.0 Millions80 km2 of Forest StewardshipInternational Council 75 Billions3 of dollars 40 AZEs120 Billions of dollars 1.00 80 International 10 20 80 2 0.05800Mean per cent protected 1.0 3 Per cent of countries with policies Million30 km 20 3.2 certified60 forest 3.2 Coral condition 70 IBAs 30 Invasive alien species Internationally 60 0 1.0 3060 600500 2 4 IBAs 1000.95 Invasive alien species 65 20 2.8 10040 policy adoption 2 traded species 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 40 4001970 1980 1990 20 2000 2010 0.5 40 policy adoption 10 60 3.040 AZEs 800.90 International 0.5 10 1 Sustainably managed 3 3.0 National Over or2020 fully10 exploited 200 Biodiversity aid 8020 1 Sustainably managed Food & medicine National EcologicalProtected55 footprint area extent Nitrogen depositionSite coverage 30 forest extentEuropean 10alien2.6 species Climatic Impact Indicator 60 20 or depleted fish stocks Protected area extent IBAs Site coverage forest extent 0.85Invasive alienspecies species 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 02 0 0 2.8 01970 1980 199060 2000 2010 Living2.80 Plant Index policy adoption 0 19701970 19801980 19901990 20002000 20102010 19701970 19801980 19901990 20002000 20102010 2019701970 19801980 19901990 20002000 20102010 19701970 19801980 19901990 20002000 20102010 400.80 Red List Index for species utilized 1970 1980 199010 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000for utilized2010 vertebrate1970 species1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1 Sustainably managed in trade and food and medicineNational 10 Biodiversity aid 40 Biodiversity aid 200.75 Protected Billionsarea extent of dollars 2.6 Site coverage forest extent Nitrogen deposition (Tg per year) Number of alien species Billions1970 of dollars1980 19902.6 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 0 3.2 0 0 0 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 3.2 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2.0 120 1 2001970 1980 1990 2000 RESPONSES2010 1.51970 1980 1990 2000 2010BENEFITS1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 100 1 000 1.5 Millions km2 of Forest Stewardship Council 3.0 120 Billions of dollars 1.00 Million80 km2 800Mean per cent protected 1.0certified forest Per 3.0cent of countries with policies 3.2 Internationally 1.0 3060 60050 4 BENEFITS 1000.95 2.8 100 traded species BENEFITS 2.8 40 40040 AZEs 0.5 80 0.5 3 3.0 0.90 International 20 200 120 80 1.00 120 Food & medicine 1.00 20 Nitrogen deposition European alien speciesBiodiversity aid Ecological footprint 30 IBAs2.6 Climatic Impact IndicatorInternationally 600.85 Biodiversityspecies aid Internationally 0 0 0 20 0.95 2.6Invasive alien species 100 1970 1980 199060 2000 2010 Living2.8 tradedPlant Index species 100 0.95 traded species 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 201970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 400.801970policyRed Listadoption1980 Index for1990 species2000 utilized 2010 10 for utilized0.90 vertebrate species 1 Sustainably managed in trade and food and medicineNational 0.90 10 80 40 BiodiversityFood & medicine aid 20800.75 Food & medicine Protected area extent Site coverage forest extent 0.852.6 species 0.85 0 0 0 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 0 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 species 60 Living Plant Index 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010BENEFITS1970 1980 19900.80 Red2000 List Index2010 for species601970 utilized1980 1990Living Plant2000 Index2010 0.80 Red List Index for species utilized RESPONSES for utilized vertebrate species in trade and food and medicinefor utilizedBENEFITS vertebrate species in trade and food and medicine 40 0.75 Millions km2 of Forest StewardshipBillions of dollars Council 40 0.75 2 120 1.00 Million km Mean per cent protected certified forest 1970 1980 1990Per cent2000 of countries2010 with policies1970120 1980 1990 19702000 19802010 19901.00 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 3.2 Internationally 30 50 4 100 Internationally Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 69 100 0.95 traded species BENEFITS 100 0.95 traded species 40 AZEs 800.90 International 3 3.0 0.90 20 80 120 Food & medicine 1.00 30 600.85 80 Food & medicine IBAs Invasive alienspecies species Internationally 0.85 2 2.8 100 0.95 traded species species 20 60 Living Plant Index 400.80policyRed Listadoption Index for species utilized 10 60 Living Plant Index 0.80 Red List Index for species utilized 1 Sustainablyfor utilized managed vertebrate species in trade and food and medicine 0.90 10 40 Biodiversity aid 80200.75 Nationalfor utilized vertebrateFood species & medicine in trade and food and medicine Protected area extent Site coverage forest extent 2.6 40 0.85 0.75 0 0 0 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 0 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 species 1970 1980 199060 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990Living Plant2000 Index2010 0.80 Red List Index for species utilized for utilized vertebrate species in trade and food and medicine 40 0.75 Billions of dollars 3.2 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 BENEFITS 3.0 120 1.00 Internationally 2.8 100 0.95 traded species 0.90 Biodiversity aid 80 Food & medicine 2.6 0.85 species 1970 1980 199060 2000 2010 Living Plant Index 0.80 Red List Index for species utilized for utilized vertebrate species in trade and food and medicine 40 0.75 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 BENEFITS

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 70 Continuing species extinctions far above the ✤ Projections of the impact of global change on bio- historic rate, loss of habitats and changes diversity show continuing and often accelerating in the distribution and abundance of spe- species extinctions, loss of natural habitat, and cies are projected throughout this century changes in the distribution and abundance of spe- according to all scenarios analyzed for this cies, species groups and biomes over the 21st cen- Outlook. There is a high risk of dramatic bio- tury. diversity loss and accompanying degradation of a broad range of ecosystem services ✤ There are widespread thresholds, amplifying feed- if the Earth system is pushed beyond certain backs and time-lagged effects leading to “tipping thresholds or tipping points. The loss of such points”, or abrupt shifts in the state of biodiversity services is likely to impact the poor first and and ecosystems. This makes the impacts of global most severely, as they tend to be most directly change on biodiversity hard to predict, difficult to dependent on their immediate environments; control once they begin, and slow, expensive or im- but all societies will be impacted. There is possible to reverse once they have occurred [See greater potential than was recognized in Box 21 and Figure 18]. earlier assessments to address both climate change and rising food demand without fur- ✤ Degradation of the services provided to human ther widespread loss of habitats. societies by functioning ecosystems are often more closely related to changes in the abundance For the purposes of this Outlook, scientists from and distribution of dominant or keystone species, a wide range of disciplines came together to rather than to global extinctions; even moderate identify possible future outcomes for biodiver- biodiversity change globally can result in dispro- sity change during the rest of the 21st century. portionate changes for some groups of species (for The results summarized here are based on a example top predators) that have a strong influ- combination of observed trends, models and ence on ecosystem services. experiments. They draw upon and compile all previous relevant scenario exercises conducted ✤ Biodiversity and ecosystem changes could be pre- for the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, the vented, significantly reduced or even reversed Global Environment Outlook and earlier edi- (while species extinctions cannot be reversed, di- tions of the Global Biodiversity Outlook, as well versity of ecosystems can be restored) if strong as scenarios being developed for the next assess- action is applied urgently, comprehensively and ment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on appropriately, at international, national and local Climate Change (IPCC). They pay particular at- levels. This action must focus on addressing the di- tention to the relationship between biodiversity rect and indirect factors driving biodiversity loss, change and its impacts on human societies. In and must adapt to changing knowledge and condi- addition to the analysis of existing models and tions. scenarios, a new assessment was carried out of potential “tipping points” that could lead to large, The projections, potential tipping points, impacts rapid and potentially irreversible changes. The and options for achieving better outcomes are analysis reached four principal conclusions: summarized on the following pages:

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 71 BOX 21 What is a tipping point?

A tipping point is defined, for the purposes of this Outlook, as a situation in which an ecosystem experiences a shift to a new state, with significant changes to biodiversity and the services to people it underpins, at a regional or global scale. Tipping points also have at least one of the following characteristics: There is a high ✤ The change becomes self-perpetuating through so-called positive feedbacks, for example deforestation reduces risk of dramatic regional rainfall, which increases fire-risk, which causes forest dieback and further drying. biodiversity loss and ✤ There is a threshold beyond which an abrupt shift of ecological states occurs, although the threshold point can rarely be predicted with precision. accompanying degradation of a ✤ The changes are long-lasting and hard to reverse. broad range of ✤ There is a significant time lag between the pressures driving the change and the appearance of impacts, creating ecosystem great difficulties in ecological management. services if Tipping points are a major concern for scientists, managers and policy–makers, because of their potentially large im- ecosystems are pacts on biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. It can be extremely difficult for societies to adapt to pushed beyond rapid and potentially irreversible shifts in the functioning and character of an ecosystem on which they depend. While it is almost certain that tipping points will occur in the future, the dynamics in most cases cannot yet be predicted with certain enough precision and advance warning to allow for specific and targeted approaches to avoid them, or to mitigate their thresholds or impacts. Responsible risk management may therefore require a precautionary approach to human activities known to tipping points drive biodiversity loss.

Figure 18 Tipping points – an illustration of the concept

Pressures Tipping point

Existing biodiversity CHANGED STATE

Actions to increase resilience

Less diverse Fewer ecosystem SAFE services Degradation of OPERATING human well being

SPACE Changed biodiversity

The mounting pressures on biodiversity risks pushing some ecosystems into new states, with severe ramifications for human wellbeing as tipping points are crossed. While the precise location of tipping points is difficult to determine, once an ecosystem moves into a new state it can be very difficult, if not impossible, to return it to its former state. Source: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 72 Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 73 Terrestrial ecosystems to 2100

Current path: Impacts for people:

Land-use change continues as the main short-term threat, The large-scale conversion of natural habitats to cropland with climate change, and the interactions between these two or managed forests will come at the cost of degradation drivers, becoming progressively important. Tropical forests of biodiversity and the ecosystem services it underpins, continue to be cleared, making way for crops and biofuels. such as nutrient retention, clean water supply, soil erosion Species extinctions many times more frequent than the his- control and ecosystem carbon storage, unless sustain- toric “background rate” - the average rate at which species able practices are used to prevent or reduce these losses. are estimated to have gone extinct before humans became Climate-induced changes in the distribution of species and a significant threat to species survival - and loss of habitats vegetation-types will have important impacts on the serv- continue throughout the 21st century. Populations of wild ices available to people, such as reduced wood harvests and species fall rapidly, with especially large impacts for equato- recreation opportunities. rial Africa and parts of South and South-East Asia. Climate change causes boreal forests to extend northwards into tundra, and to die back at their southern margins giving way to temperate species. In turn, temperate forests are projected to die back at the southern and low-latitude edge of their range. Many species suffer range reductions and/or move close to extinction as their ranges shift several hundred kilometres towards the poles. Urban and agricultural expansion further limits opportunities for species to migrate to new areas in response to climate change.

In addition, there is a high risk of dramatic loss of biodiversity and degradation of services from terrestrial ecosystems if certain thresholds are crossed. Plausible scenarios include:

✤ The Amazon forest, due to the interaction of deforestation, fire and climate change, undergoes a widespread dieback, changing from rainforest to savanna or seasonal forest over wide areas, especially in the East and South of the biome. The forest could move into a self-perpetuating cycle in which fires become more frequent, drought more intense and dieback accelerates. Die- back of the Amazon will have global impacts through increased carbon emissions, accelerating climate change. It will also lead to regional rainfall reductions that could compromise the sustainability of regional agriculture.

✤ The Sahel in Africa, under pressure from climate change and over-use of limited land resources, shifts to alternative, degraded states, further driving desertification. Severe impacts on biodiversity and agricultural productivity result. Continued degradation of the Sahel has caused and could continue to cause loss of biodiversity and shortages of food, fibre and water in Western Africa.

✤ Island ecosystems are afflicted by a cascading set of extinctions and ecosystem instabilities, due to the impact of invasive alien species. Islands are particularly vulnerable to such invasions as communities of species have evolved in isolation and often lack defences against predators and disease organisms. As the invaded communities become increasingly altered and impoverished, vulnerability to new invasions may increase.

BEFORE Amazon forest

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 74 Alternative paths:

Alleviating pressure from land use changes in the tropics is essential, if the negative impacts of loss of terrestrial biodiversity and associated ecosystem services are to be minimized. This involves a combination of measures, including an increase in productivity from existing crop and pasture lands, reducing post-harvest losses, sustainable forest management and moderating excessive and wasteful meat consumption.

Full account should be taken of the greenhouse gas emissions associated with large-scale conversion of forests and other ecosystems into cropland. This will prevent perverse incentives for the destruction of biodiversity through large-scale deployment of biofuel crops, in the name of climate change mitigation [See Figures 19 and 20]. When emissions from land-use change rather than just energy emissions are factored in, plausible development pathways emerge that tackle climate change without widespread biofuel use. Use of payments for ecosystem services, such as Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) mechanisms may help align the objectives of addressing biodiversity loss and climate change. However, these systems must be carefully designed, as conserving areas of high carbon value will not necessarily conserve areas of high conservation importance – this is being recognized in the development of so-called “REDD-Plus” mechanisms.

Tipping points are most likely to be avoided if climate change mitigation to keep average temperature increases below 2 degrees Celsius is accompanied by action to reduce other factors pushing the ecosystem towards a changed state. For example, in the Amazon it is estimated that keeping deforestation below 20% of the original forest extent will greatly reduce the risk of widespread dieback. As current trends will likely take cumulative deforestation to 20% of the Brazilian Amazon at or near 2020, a programme of significant forest restoration would be a prudent measure to build in a margin of safety. Better forest management options in the Mediterranean, including the greater use of native broad-leaf species in combination with improved spatial planning, could make the region less fire-prone. In the Sahel, better governance, poverty alleviation and assistance with farming techniques will provide alternatives to current cycles of poverty and land degradation.

Avoiding biodiversity loss in terrestrial areas will also involve new approaches to conservation, both inside designated protected areas and beyond their boundaries. In particular, greater attention must be given to the management of biodiversity in human-dominated landscapes, because of the increasingly important role these areas will play as biodiversity corridors as species and communities migrate due to climate change.

There are opportunities for rewilding landscapes from farmland abandonment in some regions – in Europe, for example, about 200 000 square kilometers of land are expected to be freed up by 2050. Ecological restoration and reintroduction of large herbivores and carnivores will be important in creating self-sustaining ecosystems with minimal need for further human intervention.

BEFORE AFTER BEFORE AFTER Amazon forest Island ecosystems

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 75 FIGURE 19 Projected forest loss until 2050 under different scenarios

Billion ha 7

MiniCam

1 GBO-2

GEO-4

0 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

The graph shows projections of global forest cover to 2050, according to various scenarios from four assessments which assume different approaches to environmental concerns, regional co-operation, economic growth and other factors. These include three earlier assessments (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Global Biodiversity Outlook 2 and Global Environmental Outlook 4) and one model (MiniCam, developed for the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). When the different scenarios are considered together, the gap between better and worse outcomes for biodiversity is wider than has been suggested in any one of the earlier assessments. In addition, the MiniCam scenarios shows a greater range still. They mainly represent the contrasting outcomes for forests depending on whether or not carbon emissions from land use change are taken into account in climate change mitigation strategies. Source: Leadley and Pereira et al (2010)

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 76 FIGURE 20 Land use change under different scenarios

Scenario A The three images represent a comparison Scenario A of different global land use patterns under 100%100% different scenarios from 1990 until 2095 for the same MiniCam scenarios as those shown in figure 19. Scenario A represents 80%80% land use under a business as usual scenario. Scenario B illustrates a scenario in ForestForest which incentives, equivalent to a global 60% carbon tax, are applied to all carbon di- 60% oxide emissions, including those resulting from land use change, to keep carbon dioxide concentrations below 450 parts 40%40% per million. Scenario C illustrates what will happen if the incentives apply to carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels and in- 20% dustrial emissions only, with no considera- 20% Grassland Biofuels Grassland Biofuels Urban land tion of emissions from land use change. Crops Urban land 0% Crops Rock, ice, desert Under scenario C, there is a dramatic 0% 1990 2005 2020 2035 2050 2065 2080 2095 Rock, ice, desert decline in both forests and pasture as 1990 2005 2020 2035 2050 2065 2080 2095 Other arable land more land is devoted to the production Other arable land of biofuels. The dramatic difference in the Scenario B Tundra remaining extent of forests and pasture Scenario100% B Tundra by 2095 under the respective scenarios ShrubLand emphasizes the importance of taking land 100% ForestShrubLand use into account when designing policies 80% to combat climate change. UnmanagedForest forest Source: Wise et al. (2009). Science 80% Forest 60% UnmanagedUnmanaged pasture forest Forest 60% PastureUnmanaged pasture 40% GrasslandPasture 40% BiofuelsGrassland 20% Grassland Rice Biofuels Biofuels 20% Crops 0% Sugar crops Grassland Rice 1990 2005 2020 2035 2050 2065 2080Biofuels2095 Crops Other grain 0% Sugar crops Oil crops Scenario1990 2005 C 2020 2035 2050 2065 2080 2095 100% Other grain Miscellaneous crops Crops Scenario C Oil crops Fodder crops 100%80% FiberMiscellaneous crops crops Crops Forest Fodder crops 80%60% Corn Biofuels Fiber crops Forest Wheat 40% 60% Corn Biofuels Wheat 20% 40% Grassland Crops

0% 20% 1990 2005 2020 2035 2050 2065 2080 2095 Grassland Crops

0% 1990 2005 2020 2035 2050 2065 2080 2095

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 77 Inland water ecosystems to 2100

Current path: Impacts for people:

Inland water ecosystems continue to be subjected to mas- The overall projected degradation of inland waters and the sive changes as a result of multiple pressures, and biodiver- services they provide casts uncertainty over the prospects sity to be lost more rapidly than in other types of ecosystem. for food production from freshwater ecosystems. This is im- Challenges related to water availability and quality multiply portant, because approximately 10% of wild harvested fish globally, with increasing water demands exacerbated by a are caught from inland waters, and frequently make up large combination of climate change, the introduction of alien spe- fractions of dietary protein for riverside or lake communities. cies, pollution and dam construction, putting further pressure on freshwater biodiversity and the services it provides. Dams, weirs, reservoirs for water supply and diversion for irrigation and industrial purposes increasingly create physical barriers blocking fish movements and migrations, endanger- ing or extinguishing many freshwater species. Fish species unique to a single basin become especially vulnerable to climate change. One projection suggests fewer fish species in around 15% of rivers by 2100, from climate change and increased water withdrawals alone. River basins in developing countries face the introduction of a growing number of non-native organisms as a direct result of economic activity, increasing the risk of biodiversity loss from invasive species.

In addition, there is a high risk of dramatic loss of biodiversity and degradation of services from freshwater ecosystems if certain thresholds are crossed. Plausible scenarios include:

✤ Freshwater eutrophication caused by the build-up of phosphates and nitrates from agricultural fertilizers, sewage effluent and urban stormwater runoff shifts freshwater bodies, especially lakes, into an algae-dominated (eutrophic) state. As the algae decay, oxygen levels in the water are depleted, and there is widespread die-off of other aquatic life including fish. A recycling mechanism is activated which can keep the system eutrophic even after nutrient levels are substantially reduced. The eutrophication of freshwater systems, exacerbated in some regions by decreasing precipitation and increasing water stress, can lead to declining fish availability with implications for nutrition in many developing countries. There will also be loss of recreation opportunities and tourism income, and in some cases health risks for people and livestock from toxic algal blooms.

✤ Changing patterns of melting of snow and glaciers in mountain regions, due to climate change, cause irreversible changes to some freshwater ecosystems. Warmer water, greater run-off during a shortened melt-season and longer periods with low flows disrupt the natural functioning of rivers, and ecological processes which are influenced by the timing, duration and volume of flows. Impacts will include, among many others, loss of habitat, changes to the timing of seasonal responses (phenology), and changes to water chemistry.

BEFORE Snow and glaciers

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 78 Alternative paths:

There is large potential to minimize impacts on water quality and reducing the risk of eutrophication, through investment in sewage treatment, wetland protection and restoration, and control of agricultural run-off, particularly in the developing world.

There are also widespread opportunities to improve the efficiency of water use, especially in agriculture and industry. This will help to minimize the tradeoffs between increasing demand for fresh water and protection of the many services provided by healthy freshwater ecosystems.

More integrated management of freshwater ecosystems will help reduce negative impacts from competing pressures. Restoration of disrupted processes such as reconnecting floodplains, managing dams to mimic natural flows and re-opening access to fish habitats blocked by dams, can help to reverse degradation. Payments for ecosystem services, such as the protection of upstream watersheds through conservation of riparian forests, can reward communities that ensure continued provision of those services to users of inland water resources in different parts of a basin.

Spatial planning and protected area networks can be adapted more specifically to the needs of freshwater systems, by safeguarding the essential processes in rivers and wetlands, and their interactions with terrestrial and marine ecosystems. Protection of rivers that are still unfragmented can be seen as a priority in the conservation of inland water biodiversity. Maintaining connectivity within river basins will be increasingly important, so that species are better able to migrate in response to climate change.

Even with the most aggressive measures to mitigate climate change, significant changes to snow and glacier melt regimes are inevitable, and are already being observed. However, the impacts on biodiversity can be reduced by minimizing other stresses such as pollution, habitat loss and water abstraction, as this will increase the capacity of aquatic species and ecosystems to adapt to changes in snow and glacier melting.

BEFORE AFTER BEFORE AFTER Snow and glaciers Freshwater eutrophication

Global Biodiversity Outlook 30 | 79 Marine and coastal ecosystems to 2100

Current path: Impacts for people:

Demand for seafood continues to grow as population in- The decline of fish stocks and their redistribution towards creases and more people have sufficient income to include the poles has major implications for food security and nutri- it in their diet. Wild fish stocks continue to come under pres- tion in poor tropical regions, as communities often rely on sure, and aquaculture expands. Progressively fishing down fish protein to supplement their diet. The impact of sea level the marine food web comes at the expense of marine biodi- rise, by reducing the area of coastal ecosystems, will increase versity (continuing decline in marine trophic index in many hazards to human settlements, and the degradation of coast- marine areas). Climate change causes fish populations to al ecosystems and coral reefs will have very negative impacts redistribute towards the poles, and tropical oceans become on the tourism industry. comparatively less diverse. Sea level rise threatens many coastal ecosystems. Ocean acidification weakens the ability of shellfish, corals and marine phytoplankton to form their skeletons, threatening to undermine marine food webs as well as reef structure. Increasing nutrient loads and pollution increase the incidence of coastal dead zones, and increased globalization creates more damage from alien invasive species transported in ship ballast water.

In addition, there is a high risk of dramatic loss of biodiversity and degradation of services from marine and coastal ecosystems if certain thresholds are crossed. Plausible scenarios include:

✤ The combined impacts of ocean acidification and warmer sea temperatures make tropical coral reef systems vulnerable to collapse. More acidic water (brought about by higher carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere) decreases the availability of the carbonate ions required to build coral skeletons. At atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations of 450 parts per million (ppm), the growth of calcifying organisms is inhibited in nearly all tropical and sub-tropical coral reefs. At 550 ppm, coral reefs are dissolving. Together with the bleaching impact of warmer water, and a range of other human-induced stresses, reefs increasingly become algae-dominated with catastrophic loss of biodiversity.

✤ Coastal wetland systems become reduced to narrow fringes or are lost entirely, in what may be described as a “coastal squeeze”. This is due to sea level rise, exacerbated by coastal developments such as aquaculture ponds. The process is further reinforced by greater coastal erosion created by the weakened protection provided by tidal wetlands. Further deterio- ration of coastal ecosystems, including coral reefs, will also have wide-ranging consequences for millions of people whose livelihoods depend on the resources they provide. The physical degradation of coastal ecosystems such as salt marshes and mangroves will also make coastal communities more vulnerable to onshore storms and tidal surges.

✤ The collapse of large predator species in the oceans, triggered by overexploitation, leads to an ecosystem shift towards the dominance of less desirable, more resilient species such as jellyfish. Marine ecosystems under such a shift become much less able to provide the quantity and quality of food needed by people. Such changes could prove to be long-lasting and difficult to reverse even with significant reduction in fishing pressure, as suggested by the lack of recovery of cod stocks off Newfoundland since the collapse of the early 1990s.The collapse of regional fisheries could also have wide-ranging social and economic consequences, including unemployment and economic losses.

BEFORE Tropical coral reefs

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 80 Alternative paths:

More rational management of ocean fisheries can take a range of pathways, including stricter enforcement of existing rules to prevent illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. Scenarios suggest that the decline of marine biodiversity could be stopped if fisheries management focuses on rebuilding ecosystems rather than maximizing catch in the short-run. Fishery models suggest that modest catch reductions could yield substantial improvements in ecosystem condition while also improving the profitability and sustainability of fisheries. The development of low-impact aquaculture, dealing with the sustainability issues that have troubled some parts of the industry, would also help to meet the rising demand for fish without adding pressure on wild stocks.

The reduction of other forms of stress on coral systems may make them less vulnerable to the impacts of acidification and warmer waters. For example, reducing coastal pollution will remove an added stimulus to the growth of algae, and reducing overexploitation of herbivorous fish will keep the coral/algae symbiosis in balance, increasing the resilience of the system.

Planning policies that allow marshes, mangroves and other coastal ecosystems to migrate inland will make them more resilient to the impact of sea level rise, and thus help to protect the vital services they provide. Protection of inland processes including the transport of sediments to estuaries would also prevent sea level rise from being compounded by sinking deltas or estuaries.

BEFORE AFTER BEFORE AFTER Tropical coral reefs Coastal wetlands

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 81 Towards a Strategy for Reducing Biodiversity Loss

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 82 Well-targeted policies focusing on critical ar- Systematic proofing of policies for their impact on eas, species and ecosystem services can help biodiversity and ecosystem services would ensure to avoid the most dangerous impacts on peo- not only that biodiversity was better protected, but ple and societies from biodiversity loss in the that climate change itself was more effectively ad- near-term future, which it will be extremely dressed. Conservation of biodiversity, and, where challenging to avoid. In the longer term, necessary restoration of ecosystems, can be cost- The real biodiversity loss may be halted and then re- effective interventions for both mitigation of and benefits of versed, if urgent, concerted and effective ac- adaptation to climate change, often with substan- biodiversity, tion is applied in support of an agreed long- tial co-benefits. and the costs term vision. The 2010 review of the strategic plan for the Convention on Biological Diversi- It is clear from the scenarios outlined above that of its loss, ty provides an opportunity to define such a vi- addressing the multiple drivers of biodiversity need to be sion and set time-bound targets to stimulate loss is a vital form of climate change adaptation. reflected the action required to achieve it. Looked at in a positive way, this understanding within gives us more options. We do not need to resign economic A key lesson from the failure to meet the 2010 bio- ourselves to the fact that due to the time lags diversity target is that the urgency of a change of built into climate change, we are powerless to systems and direction must be conveyed to decision-makers protect coastal communities against sea level markets beyond the constituency so far involved in the bio- rise, dry regions against fire and drought, or riv- diversity convention. The CBD has very nearly er-valley dwellers against floods and landslides. universal participation from the world’s governments, yet those involved in its implementation Although it will not address all climate impacts, rarely have the influence to promote action at targeting ecosystem pressures over which we the level required to effect real change. have more immediate control will help to ensure that ecosystems continue to be resilient Thus, while the activities of environmental de- and to prevent some dangerous tipping points partments and agencies in tackling specific from being reached. threats to species, and expanding protected areas, has been and continues to be extremely im- If accompanied by determined action to reduce portant, they are easily undermined by decisions emissions – with the conservation of forests and from other ministries that fail to apply strategic other carbon-storing ecosystems given due pri- thinking on policies and actions that impact on ority in mitigation strategies – then biodiversity ecosystems and other components of biodiversity. protection can help buy time, while the climate system responds to a stabilizing of greenhouse Mainstreaming therefore needs to be seen as gas concentrations. the genuine understanding by government machinery as a whole that the future well-be- Important incentives for the conservation of biodi- ing of society depends on defending the natu- versity can emerge from systems that ensure fair ral infrastructure on which we all depend. To and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out some extent, this approach is already working of the use of genetic resources, the third objec- its way through some government systems on tive of the Convention on Biological Diversity. In the question of climate change, with “climate- practice, this means drawing up rules and agree- proofing” of policies becoming a more common ments that strike a fair balance between facili- practice. Some trade-offs between conservation tating access to companies or researchers seek- and development are inevitable, and it is im- ing to use genetic material, and ensuring that the portant that decisions are informed by the best entitlements of governments and local commu- available information and that the tradeoffs are nities are respected, including the granting of in- clearly recognized up-front. formed consent prior to access taking place, and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge.

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 83 Development of systems for access and benefit- sharing (ABS) has been slow, and negotiations on BOX 22 Sharing the benefits of bio- an international regime to regulate such agree- diversity access – examples from Africa ments have been long and protracted. However, Better individual examples have shown the way that ✤ Vernonia (Vernonia galamensis), a tall weed en- communities, companies and biodiversity can demic to Ethiopia, has shiny black seeds rich in decisions for each benefit from ABS agreements. See[ Box 22]. oil. The oil is being investigated for its possible use biodiversity With the deadline for the 2010 target now here, as a “green chemical” in the production of plastic compounds that are currently only made from pet- must be made the global community must consider what rochemicals. In 2006, a British company, Vernique at all levels and long-term vision it is seeking, and the type of Biotech, signed a 10 year agreement with the medium-term targets that might set us on the Ethiopian Government to have access to Vernonia in all sectors road towards achieving it. These targets must and to commercialize its oil. As part of the deal, also be translated into action at the national Vernique Biotech will pay a combination of licence fees, royalties and a share of its profits to the Ethio- level though national biodiversity strategies pian Government. In addition, local farmers will be and action plans, and treated as a mainstream paid to grow Vernonia on land which is otherwise issue across government. unsuitable to grow food.

From analysis of the failure so far to slow biodiversity loss, the following elements ✤ Uganda is one of the few African countries that has might be considered for a future strategy [See developed specific regulations on access to ge- Figure 21]: netic resources and benefit-sharing. Introduced in 2005 as part of the National Environment Act, the ✤ Where possible, tackle the indirect drivers regulations set out procedures for access to genetic resources, provide for the sharing of benefits of biodiversity loss. This is hard, because it derived from genetic resources; and promote the involves issues such as consumption and sustainable management and utilization of genetic lifestyle choices, and long-term trends like resources, thereby contributing to conservation of population increase. However, as the analysis biological resources in Uganda. conducted as part of The Economics of Eco- systems and Biodiversity (TEEB) illustrates, public engagement with the issues combined

FIGURE 21 Why the 2010 Biodiversity Target was not met, and what we need to do in the future

One of the main reasons for the failure to meet the 2010 Biodiversity Target at the UNDERLYING global level is that actions tended to focus on measures that mainly responded CAUSES to changes in the state of biodiversity, such as protected areas and programmes

0 1 0 2 T S O P S E S N O P S E R targeted at particular species, or which focused on the direct pressures of biodi- 0 1 0 2 E R P S E S N O P S E R versity loss, such as pollution control measures.

For the most part, the underlying causes of biodiversity have not been addressed in a meaningful manner; nor have actions been directed ensuring we continue DIRECT to receive the benefits from ecosystem services over the long term. Moreover, PRESSURES actions have rarely matched the scale or the magnitude of the challenges they were attempting to address. In the future, in order to ensure that biodiversity is effectively conserved, restored and wisely used, and that it continues to deliver the benefits essential for all people, action must be expanded to additional levels and scales. Direct pressures on biodiversity must continue to be addressed, and actions to improve the state of biodiversity maintained, although on a much larger scale. In addition, actions must be developed to address the underlying causes of STATE OF biodiversity loss, and to ensure that biodiversity continues to provide the ecosys- BIODIVERSITY tem services essential to human wellbeing. Source: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity

BENEFITS FROM ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 84 with appropriate pricing and incentives (in- pathways of invasive species transfers can cluding the removal of perverse subsidies) prevent increased trade from acting as a driv- could reduce some of these drivers, for ex- er of ecosystem damage. ample by encouraging more moderate, less wasteful – and more healthy – levels of meat ✤ Efficiency in the use of a natural resource consumption. Awareness of the impact of must be balanced with the need to main- excessive use of water, energy and materials tain ecosystem functions and resilience. This can help to limit rising demand for resources involves finding an appropriate level of in- from growing and more prosperous popula- tensity in the use of resources, for example tions. increasing productivity of agricultural land while maintaining a diverse landscape, and ✤ International and national rules and frame- reducing fishing intensity below the so-called works for markets and economic activities can maximum sustainable yield. An ecosystem- and must be adjusted and developed in such a level approach will be required to establish way that they contribute to safeguarding and this balance. sustainably using biodiversity, instead of threatening it as they have often done in the past. ✤ Where multiple drivers are combining to Using pricing, fiscal policies and other mecha- weaken ecosystems, aggressive action to re- nisms to reflect the real value of ecosystems, duce those more amenable to rapid interven- powerful incentives can be created to reverse tion can be prioritized, while longer-term ef- patterns of destruction that result from the forts continue to moderate more intractable under-valuation of biodiversity. An important drivers, such as climate change and ocean step will be for governments to expand their acidification. The many human pressures on economic objectives beyond what is measured coral reefs, mentioned above, provide an ex- by GDP alone, recognizing other measures of ample of where this strategy can be applied. wealth and well-being that take natural capital and other concepts into account.

✤ Use every opportunity to break the link between the indirect and direct drivers of biodiversity loss – in other words, prevent underlying pressures such as population increase and increased consumption from inevitably leading to pressures such as loss of habitat, pollution or over-exploitation. This involves Number of environmental impact assessments much more efficient use of land, water, sea 300 and other resources to meet existing and future demand [See figure 22]. Better spatial planning to safeguard areas important for biodiversity and ecosystem services is essen- 250 tial. Specific measures such as addressing the

200

FIGURE 22 Environmental impact assessment in Egypt 150

Since 1998, the number of environmental impact assessments conducted in Egypt has been steadily increasing, 100 with a marked increase in 2008. Environmental impact assessments have been undertaken to review enforcement of environmental laws and to monitor Egypt’s adherence to international conventions, amongst other things. The increased 50 use of environmental impact assessment in Egypt mirrors a similar global trend. The use of strategic environmental impact assessment is also increasing globally, though its use still remains very low. 0 Source: Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 85 ✤ Avoid unnecessarily tradeoffs resulting from ning for geographical shifts in species and maximizing one ecosystem service at the ex- communities by maintaining and enhancing pense of another. Substantial benefits for bio- ecological connectivity across landscapes diversity can often arise from only slight lim- and inland water ecosystems. its on the exploitation of other benefits – such With adequate as agricultural production. An example is ✤ Use national programmes or legislation to resources and that funds to reward protection of forest car- create a favourable environment to support political will, the bon stocks could dramatically improve spe- effective “bottom-up” initiatives led by com- tools exist cies conservation, if targeted towards areas of munities, local authorities, or businesses. high biodiversity value, with a tiny marginal This also includes empowering indigenous for loss of increase in cost. peoples and local communities to take re- biodiversity to sponsibility for biodiversity management and be reduced at ✤ Continue direct action to conserve biodiversi- decision-making; and developing systems to wider scales ty, targeting vulnerable and culturally-valued ensure that the benefits arising from access species and habitats, and critical sites for bio- to genetic resources are equitably shared diversity, combined with priority actions to [See Box 23]. safeguard key ecosystem services, particularly those of importance to the poor such as the ✤ Strengthen efforts to communicate better the provision of food and medicines. This should links between biodiversity, ecosystem servic- include the protection of functional ecologi- es, poverty alleviation and climate change ad- cal groups – that is, those species collectively aptation and mitigation. Through education responsible for the provision of ecosystem and more effective dissemination of scientific services such as pollination, maintenance of knowledge, a much wider section of the pub- healthy predator- prey relationships, cycling lic and decision-makers could be made aware of nutrients and soil formation. of the role and value of biodiversity and the steps needed to conserve it. ✤ Take full advantage of opportunities to contribute to climate change mitigation through ✤ Increasingly, restoration of terrestrial, inland conservation and restoration of forests, peat- water and marine ecosystems will be needed lands, wetlands and other ecosystems that to re-establish ecosystem functioning and capture and store large amounts of carbon; the provision of valuable ecosystem serv- and climate change adaptation through in- ices. A recent analysis of schemes to restore vesting in “natural infrastructure”, and plan- degraded ecosystems showed that, overall,

BOX 23 Local action for biodiversity

Actions by local communities to conserve biodiversity occur worldwide and most countries indicate that they have mechanisms in place for co- management and or community management of biological resources. Though these actions occur on relatively small scales, and can often go unrec- ognized, they can none the less have significant positive impacts on local biodiversity conditions and human wellbeing. For example:

✤ The Nguna-Pele Marine Protected Area Network in Vanuatu , which is composed of 16 village collaborations across two islands, works to strengthen traditional governance strucutures while enabling more effective natural resource management. Since the initiative began in 2002 there have been significant increases in fish biomass, marine invertebrate abundance and live coral cover within community reserves as well as an increase in villagers average income, largely as a result of ecotourism. The Network has also encouraged a resurgence in local cultural and lingusitics traditions as well as the increased invovlement of women and children in governce and decision making processes.

✤ The Tmatboey village borders the Kulen Promtep Wildlife Sanctuary in northern Cambodia, an area known for its endangered bird populations such as the white-shouldered ibis (Pseudibis davisoni). Given its proximity to the wildlife sanctuary ecotourism is particularly important to the village. To promote sustainable use of the sanctuary the Tmatboey Community Protected Area Committee has, amongst other things, established a comprehensive land use plan for the village and implemented a hunting ban. As a result of the Committees actions the declines of some critically endangered endemic wildlife species has stopped and has even been reversed while deforestation and encroachment into key wildlife areas has declined. As revenues from ecotourism are reinvested into local infrastructure the actions of the committee have also helped to promote sustainable development in the village.

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 86 such schemes are successful in improving may pay dearly in the form of ecosystems inca- the status of biodiversity. Moreover, economic pable of meeting the basic needs of humanity. analysis conducted by the Economics of Eco- The rewards for coherent action, on the other systems and Biodiversity (TEEB), shows that hand, are great. Not only will the stunning va- ecosystem restoration may give good eco- riety of life on Earth be much more effectively nomic rates of return when considering the protected, but human societies will be much There are long-term provision of ecosystem services. better equipped to provide healthy, secure and greater However the levels of biodiversity and eco- prosperous livelihoods in the challenging dec- opportunities system services remained below the levels of ades ahead. than the pristine ecosystems, reinforcing the argu- ment that, where possible, avoiding degrada- The overall message of this Outlook is clear. We can previously tion through conservation is preferable (and no longer see the continued loss of biodiversity as recognized to even more cost-effective) than restoration an issue separate from the core concerns of society: address the after the event. Restoration can take decades to tackle poverty, to improve the health, prosperity biodiversity and security of present and future generations, and to have a significant impact, and will be more crisis while effective for some ecosystems than for oth- to deal with climate change. Each of those objectives ers. In some cases, restoration of ecosystems is undermined by current trends in the state of our contributing will not be possible as the impacts of degra- ecosystems, and each will be greatly strengthened if to other social dation are irreversible. we finally give biodiversity the priority it deserves. objectives

Addressing biodiversity loss at each of these lev- In 2008-9, the world’s governments rapidly mobi- els will involve a major shift in perception and lized hundreds of billions of dollars to prevent col- priorities on the part of decision-makers, and the lapse of a financial system whose flimsy founda- engagement of all sections of society, including tions took the markets by surprise. Now we have the private sector. For the most part, we know clear warnings of the potential breaking points what needs to be done, but political will, perse- towards which we are pushing the ecosystems that verance and courage will be required to carry out have shaped our civilizations. For a fraction of the these actions at the necessary scale and address money summoned up instantly to avoid economic the underlying causes of biodiversity loss. meltdown, we can avoid a much more serious and fundamental breakdown in the Earth’s life support Continued failure to slow current trends has systems. potential consequences even more serious than previously anticipated, and future generations

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 87 Acknowledgements

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 88 The preparation of the third edition of Global Bio- sible in order to judge progress towards the diversity Outlook (GBO-3) began in 2006 following target. The Partnership is coordinated by UNEP- the eighth meeting of the Conference of the Par- WCMC, with the Secretariat supported by Anna ties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Chenery, Philip Bubb, Damon Stanwell-Smith GBO-3, like its previous two editions, is an out- and Tristan Tyrrell. Indicator partners include put of the processes under the Convention. Par- BirdLife International, the Convention on Inter- ties to the Convention, other Governments, and national Trade in Endangered Species, the Food observer organizations have helped to shape and Agriculture Organization of the United Na- the Outlook through their contributions during tions, the Global Footprint Network, the Global various meetings as well as through their com- Invasive Species Programme, the International ments and inputs to earlier drafts of GBO-3. Nitrogen Initiative, IUCN, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the GBO-3 has been prepared by the Secretariat of Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, The Na- the Convention on Biological Diversity, in close ture Conservancy, the University of Queensland, collaboration with the World Conservation TRAFFIC International, the United Nations Edu- Monitoring Centre of the United Nations Envi- cational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, ronment Programme (UNEP-WCMC). Numer- the United Nations Environment Programme ous partner organizations and individuals from GEMS/Water Programme, the UNEP-WCMC, the Governments, non-governmental organizations University of British Columbia Fisheries Centre, and scientific networks have generously con- WWF, and the Zoological Society of London as tributed their time, energy and expertise to the well as a number of Associate Indicator Part- preparation of GBO-3, which really is a product ners. Global Environment Facility full-sized of the collective efforts of this community. The project funding provided substantial financial sheer number of organizations and people in- support for the activities of the Partnership, involved in GBO-3 makes it difficult to thank all cluding development of many of the global indi- contributors by name and doing so runs the cators used in monitoring progress towards the risk that some may be overlooked. We sincerely 2010 target. Financial support was also provided apologize to anyone who may have been unin- by the European Commission. tentionally omitted. In preparing GBO-3 some 500 scholarly articles The third and fourth national reports submit- were examined and multiple assessments from ted by the Parties to the Convention have been international organizations were drawn upon. key sources of information in the preparation This collection of scientific information, experi- of GBO-3. These reports, which detail the status ences and perspectives was fundamental to the and trends of biodiversity at the national level conclusions presented in GBO-3, and essential as well the successes and challenges in imple- in reinforcing the information contained in the menting the Convention, have influenced the fourth national reports and that provided by entire report and have in particular guided the the 2010 Biodiversity Indicators Partnership. In preparation of the chapter on future strategic addition, case study material was provided by actions, alongside the process to update the a large number of partners amongst which the Convention’s Strategic Plan beyond 2010. The Equator Initiative, the Small Grants Program of Secretariat would like to thank the more than the Global Environment Facility and the Forest 110 Parties who had submitted their fourth na- Peoples Network have been particularly active. tional reports by the time GBO-3 was finalized. The section of GBO-3 on biodiversity scenarios One of the main purposes of GBO-3 is to re- and tipping points is based on a larger study port on the progress which has been made by prepared by DIVERSITAS and UNEP-WCMC. The the world community towards the 2010 Biodi- Secretariat would like to thank the lead authors versity Target. This assessment, presented in of this report Paul Leadley, Henrique Miguel the first section of the report, is based on data Pereira, Rob Alkemade, Vânia Proença, Jörn P.W. and analyses provided by the 2010 Biodiversity Scharlemann, and Matt Walpole, as well as the Indicators Partnership, a network of organiza- contributing authors John Agard, Miguel Araújo, tions which have come together to provide the Andrew Balmford, Patricia Balvanera, Oonsie most up-to-date biodiversity information pos- Biggs, Laurent Bopp, William Cheung,

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 89 Philippe Ciais, David Cooper, Joanna C. Ellison, GBO-3 was written by Tim Hirsch with Kieran Juan Fernandez-Manjarrés, Joana Figueiredo, Mooney, Robert Höft and David Cooper. Ahmed Eric Gilman, Sylvie Guenette, Bernard Hugueny, Djoghlaf and Jo Kalemani Mulongoy provided George Hurtt, Henry P. Huntington, Michael Jen- guidance. Its production was managed by Rob- nings, Fabien Leprieur, Corinne Le Quéré, Geor- ert Höft, Kieran Mooney and David Ainsworth. gina Mace, Cheikh Mbow, Kieran Mooney, Aude In addition many Secretariat colleagues pro- Neuville, Carlos Nobres, Thierry Oberdorf, Car- vided input and feedback on GBO-3 includ- men Revenga, James C. Robertson, Patricia Ro- ing Ahmed Abdullah, Véronique Allain, Claire drigues, Juan Carlos Rocha Gordo, Hisashi Sato, Baffert, Mateusz Banski, Caroline Belair, Lise Bob Scholes, Mark Stafford-Smith, Ussif Rashid Boutin, Lijie Cai, Monique Chiasson, Tim Chris- Sumaila, and Pablo A. Tedescco. tophersen, David Coates, Olivier de Munck, Charles Gbedemah, Linda Ghanimé, Christine In order to ensure that the findings of GBO-3 Gibb, Sarat Babu Gidda, Susanne Heitmuller, were of the highest possible quality, two drafts Michael Hermann, Oliver Hillel, Christopher were made available for peer review between Hogan, Lisa Janishevski, Claudia Kis Madrid, August and December 2009. During this time Stefano La Tella, Jihyun Lee, Markus Lehmann, responses were received from almost 90 review- Sandra Meehan, Djessy Monnier, Noriko Mori- ers who provided more than 1,500 individual wake, Valerie Normand, Neil Pratt, Nadine comments. The Outlook was greatly enhanced Saad, John Scott, Ravi Sharma, Junko Shimura, by these comments. The preparation of GBO-3 Stella Simiyu, Gweneth Thirlwell, Alberto Vega, has been overseen by an Advisory Group and Danush Viswanathan, Frédéric Vogel, Jaime a Scientific Advisory Panel. The Secretariat is Webb, Anne-Marie Wilson, Kati Wenzel, and grateful for the guidance and support provid- Yibin Xiang. ed by the members: Thomas M. Brooks, Stuart Butchart, Joji Carino, Nick Davidson, Braulio Graphs were designed by In-folio. The layout Dias, Asghar Fazel, Tony Gross, Peter Herken- was prepared by Phoenix Design Aid. Camellia rath, Kazuaki Hoshino, John Hough, Jon Hutton, Ibrahim assisted with photo selection. Tom Lovejoy, Kathy MacKinnon, Tohru Nakashi- zuka, Carsten Neßhöver, Alfred Oteng-Yeboah, Editing and proof-reading of the language ver- Axel Paulsch, Balakrishna Pisupati, Jan Plesnik, sions was done by Abdelwahab Afefe, Anasta- Christian Prip, Peter Schei, James Seyani, Jane sia Beliaeva, Lise Boutin, Lijie Cai, Clementina Smart, Oudara Souvannavong, Spencer Tho- Equihua Zamora, Moustafa Fouda, Thérèse Ka- mas, Matt Walpole, Dayuan Xue, and Abdul Ha- rim, Diane Klaimi, Nadine Saad, Jérôme Spag- mid Zakri. giari and Tatiana Zavarzina.

GBO-3 consists of a range of products. This main The production of GBO-3 was enabled by finan- report was prepared to provide a short and con- cial contributions from Canada, the European cise overview of current and projected biodiver- Union, Germany, Japan, Spain and the United sity trends, and policy options to address bio- Kingdom, as well as UNEP. diversity loss and negative impacts for human well-being. Comments and additional informa- While the Secretariat has taken great care to tion received through the peer review process ensure that all statements made in GBO-3 are as well as case study examples that could not backed up by credible scientific evidence, it as- be incorporated in the main report have mostly sumes full responsibility for any errors or omis- been included in an extended technical docu- sion in this work. ment and will be made available online through the GBO-3 web portal accessible from www.cbd. int/gbo3. For reasons of readability, this version of the report does not include scientific references. However, these can be consulted in an annotated version also available on the GBO-3 web portal.

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 90 Photo Credits

Cover: (The Earth in a drop) = © Shevs | Dreamstime.com Page 52: © Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (Coral reef) = © Carlcphoto | Dreamstime.com © Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (Cattle with people) = © Claude Hamel Page 53: © Phillipmin... | Dreamstime.com (Mountain and eagle) = © Urosmm | Dreamstime.com Page 54: © Oranhall | Dreamstime.com Page 2: © Kay Muldoon Ibrahim Page 56: © Ricardo278 | Dreamstime.com Page 4: © I-rishka | Dreamstime.com Page 58: © Gail A Johnson | istockphoto.com Page 8: © Jeffthemon... | Dreamstime.com Page 60: © Kodym | Dreamstime.com Page 10: © David Coates Page 62: © Lightcatch... | Dreamstime.com Page 12: © Johnanders... | Dreamstime.com Page 63: © Simon Gurney | istockphoto.com Page 14: © Tfaust | Dreamstime.com © Charles Taylor | Shutter Stock.com Page 16: © Christian Carroll | istockphoto.com © Joe McDaniel | istockphoto.com Page 17: © Parks Canada / Heiko Wittenborn Page 64: © Photawa | Dreamstime.com Page 21: © 0tvalo | Dreamstime.com © Davecurrey | Dreamstime.com Page 23: © Dejan750 | Dreamstime.com © Billwarcho... | Dreamstime.com © Ryszard | Dreamstime.com Page 65: © Lucaplacid... | Dreamstime.com © Ferdericb | Dreamstime.com Page 66: © Slobo Mitic | istockphoto.com © Chesterf | Dreamstime.com Page 70: © Marjo Vierros Page 25: © Cathy Keifer | istockphoto.com Page 73: © Claude Hamel Page 26: © William Davies | istockphoto.com Page 74-75: © 3000ad | Dreamstime.com Page 28: © Johnanders... | Dreamstime.com © Tony1 | Dreamstime.com © Deborahr | Dreamstime.com © Kate Kiefer, Australian Antarctic Division Page 29: © Rudis | Dreamstime.com © Kate Kiefer, Australian Antarctic Division © Weknow | Dreamstime.com Page 78-79: © Robert Höft Page 31: © Ajay Rastogi © Robert Höft © Ajay Rastogi © Brighthori... | Dreamstime.com Page 32: © Charles Besançon © Barsik | Dreamstime.com Page 33: © luoman | istockphoto.com Page 80-81: © Ilanbt | Dreamstime.com Page 34: © Nmedia | Dreamstime.com © Alexedmond... | Dreamstime.com © Jan Rihak | istockphoto.com © Erikgauger | Dreamstime.com © Hoshino Village, Fukuoka, Japan © Spanishale... | Dreamstime.com Page 37: © Jmjm | Dreamstime.com Page 82: © Leightonph... | Dreamstime.com Page 40: © Robert Höft Page 87: © Invisiblev... | Dreamstime.com Page 41: © Tupungato | Dreamstime.com Page 88: © Claude Hamel Page 42: © Ellah | Dreamstime.com Back cover: (Boat on a river) = © David Cooper Page 44: © Jan Kofod Winther (Trees with person) = © Luis Alfonso Argüelles Page 45: © Peter Malsbury | istockphoto.com (Woman with beans) = © Louise Sperling Page 47: © Pniesen | Dreamstime.com (Shark) = © Lenta | Dreamstime.com Page 49: © Desislava Nikolova | istockphoto.com (Gorilla) = © Warwick Lister-Kaye | istockphoto.com Page 50: © Francisco Ramananjatovo (Frog) = © Geckophoto | Dreamstime.com © Carl Chapman | istockphoto.com (Field) = © Alexsol | Dreamstime.com © Jerl71 | Dreamstime.com (Forest) = © Lagustin | Dreamstime.com © Jerry Oldenettel | flickr.com (Leaf background) = © Cobalt88 | Dreamstime.com

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 91 List of Boxes, Tables and Figures

Boxes

Box 1: Biodiversity, the CBD and the 2010 Target Box 2: National action on biodiversity Box 3: Why biodiversity matters Box 4: How extinction risk is assessed Box 5: The Brazilian Amazon – a slowing of deforestation Box 6: Traditionally managed landscapes and biodiversity Box 7: Terrestrial protected areas Box 8: Protecting the Noah’s arks of biodiversity Box 9: Cultural and biological diversity Box 10: What is at stake? Box 11: What is at stake? Box 12: The Great Barrier Reef – a struggle for ecosystem resilience Box 13: Locally managed marine areas (LMMAs) Box 14: What is at stake? Box 15: Arctic sea ice and biodiversity Box 16: The European Union’s Nitrates Directive Box 17: Managing marine food resources for the future Box 18: Documenting Europe’s alien species Box 19: Successful control of alien invasive species Box 20: Trends in indigenous languages Box 21: What is a tipping point? Box 22: Sharing the benefits of biodiversity access – examples from Africa Box 23: Local action for biodiversity

Tables

Table 1: Status of agreed subsidiary targets to 2010 biodiversity target Table 2: Trends shown by agreed indicators of progress towards the 2010 biodiversity target

Figures

Figure 1: Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (Source - Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity)

Figure 2: Living Planet Index (Source - Adapted from WWF/ Zoological Society of London)

Figure 3: Proportion of species in different threat categories (Source - Adapted from J.-C. Vié, C. Hilton-Taylor and S. N. Stuart (eds). The 2008 review of the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN)

Figure 4: Threat status of species in comprehensively assessed taxonomic groups (Source - Adapted from Hilton-Taylor, C., Pollock, C., Chanson, J., Butchart, S. H. M., Oldfield, T. and Katariya, V. (2008) Status of the world's species. Pp 15-42 in: J.-C. Vié, C. Hilton-Taylor and S. N. Stuart (eds). The 2008 review of the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN)

Figure 5: Red List Index (Source - Adapted from Hilton-Taylor, C., Pollock, C., Chanson, J., Butchart, S. H. M., Oldfield, T. and Katariya, V. (2008) Status of the world’s species. Pp 15–42 in: J.-C. Vié, C. Hilton-Taylor and S. N. Stuart (eds). The 2008 review of the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN)

Figure 6: Conservation status of medicinal plant species in different geographic regions (Source - Adapted from J.-C. Vié, C. Hilton-Taylor and S. N. Stuart (eds). The 2008 review of the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN)

Figure 7: Annual and cumulative deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon (Source - Adapted from Brazilian National Space Research Institute (INPE) and the Brazilian Ministry of Environment (MMA))

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 92 Figure 8: Extent of national designated protected areas (Source - Adapted from UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre (2009) World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA))

Figure 9: Protection of critical biodiversity sites (Source - Adapted from Stuart Butchart/Alliance for Zero Extinction)

Figure 10: Coverage of terrestrial protected areas by ecoregions (Source – Bastian Bomhard, adapted from Coad, L., Burgess, et.al. (2009). The ecological repre- sentativeness of the global protected areas estate in 2009: progress towards the CBD 2010 target. UNEP-WCMC, WWF-US and the Environmental Change Institute at the University of Oxford.

Figure 11: Malaysia river basin quality (Source - Adapted from Government of Malaysia - Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (2009). Fourth National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity and Malaysia Department of Environment (2009). Malaysia Environment Quality Report 2008. Department of Environment.

Figure 12: China’s Marine Trophic Index (Source - Adapted from Chinese Ministry of Environmental Protection (2008). China’s Fourth National Report on Implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity and Xu, H., Tang, X., Liu, J., Ding, H., Wu, J., Zhang, M., Yang, Q., et al. (2009). China's Progress toward the Significant Reduction of the Rate of Biodiversity Loss. BioScience, 59(10), 843-852)

Figure 13: Extinction risk of livestock breeds (Source - Adapted from FAO. (2007). The State of the World’s Animal Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, edited by Barbara Rischkowsky & Dafydd Pilling. Rome)

Figure 14: Arctic sea ice (Source - Adapted from NSIDC (2009) Sea Ice Index. Boulder, Colorado USA: National Snow and Ice Data Center)

Figure 15: Marine “dead zones” (Source - Updated and adapted from Diaz, R. J., & Rosenberg, R. (2008). Spreading Dead Zones and Consequences for Marine Ecosystems. Science, 321(5891)

Figure 16: Nitrogen balance in Europe (Source - Adapted from OECD (2008) Environmental Performance of Agriculture in OECD countries)

Figure 17: Summary of biodiversity indicators (Source - Adapted from Butchart, S. H. M., Walpole, M., et.al. (2010) Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science (in press)

Figure 18: Tipping points – an illustration of the concept (Source - Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity)

Figure 19: Projected forest loss until 2050 under different scenarios (Source - Adapted from Leadley, P., Pereira, H.M., et.al. (2010) Biodiversity Scenarios: Projections of 21st century change in biodiversity and associated ecosystem services. Secretariat of the Conven- tion on Biological Diversity, Montreal. Technical Series no. 50)

Figure 20: Land use change under different scenarios (Source -Adapted from Wise, M., Calvin, K., Thomson, A., Clarke, L., Bond-Lamberty, B., Sands, R., Smith, S. J., et al. (2009). Implications of Limiting CO2 Concentrations for Land Use and Energy. Sci- ence, 324(5931), 1183-1186)

Figure 21: Why the 2010 biodiversity target was not and we need to do in the future (Source - Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity)

Figure 22: Environmental impact assessment in Egypt (Source - Adapted from Arab Republic of Egypt (2009). Egypt State of Environment Report 2008. Ministry of State for Environmental Affairs Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency)

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 93 Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 94 Table of Contents Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 Outlook 3 Outlook Biodiversity Global