Global biodiversity outlook 31

səhifə	7/9
tarix	25.06.2016
ölçüsü	0.59 Mb.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Current path: Inland water ecosystems continue to be subjected to massive changes as a result of multiple pressures, and biodiversity to be lost more rapidly than in other types of ecosystem. Challenges related to water availability and quality multiply globally, with increasing water demands exacerbated by a combination of climate change, the introduction of alien species, 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, endangering 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.
The overall projected degradation of inland waters and the services they provide casts uncertainty over the prospects for food production from freshwater ecosystems. This is important, because approximately 10% of wild harvested fish are caught from inland waters, and frequently make up large fractions of dietary protein for riverside or lake communities.
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 the 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.

Alternative pathways: 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.
Marine and coastal ecosystems to 2100
Current path: Demand for seafood continues to grow as population increases and more people have sufficient income to include it in their diet. Wild fish stocks continue to come under pressure, and aquaculture expands. Progressively fishing down the marine food web comes at the expense of marine biodiversity (continuing decline in marine trophic index in many areas). Climate change causes fish populations to redistribute towards the poles, and tropical oceans become 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.
Impacts on people: The decline of fish stocks and their redistribution towards the poles has major implications for food security and nutrition in poor tropical regions, as communities often rely on fish protein to supplement their diet. The impact of sea level rise, by reducing the area of coastal ecosystems, will increase hazards to human settlements, and the degradation of coastal ecosystems and coral reefs will have very negative impacts on the tourism industry.
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 deterioration 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.

Alternative Pathways: 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.
In the case of other coastal ecosystems, 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.

TOWARDS A STRATEGY FOR REDUCING BIODIVERSITY LOSS
Well-targeted policies focusing on critical areas, species and ecosystem services can help to avoid the most dangerous impacts on people and societies from biodiversity loss in the near-term future, which it will be extremely challenging to avoid. In the longer term, biodiversity loss may be halted and then reversed, if urgent, concerted and effective action is applied in support of an agreed long-term vision. The 2010 review of the strategic plan for the Convention on Biological Diversity provides an opportunity to define such a vision and set time-bound targets to stimulate the action required to achieve it.^²³⁹
A key lesson from the failure to meet the 2010 biodiversity target is that the urgency of a change of direction must be conveyed to decision-makers beyond the constituency so far involved in the biodiversity convention. The CBD has very nearly universal participation from the world’s governments, yet those involved in its implementation rarely have the influence to promote action at the level required to effect real change.
Thus, while the activities of environmental departments and agencies in tackling specific threats to species, and expanding protected areas, has been and continues to be extremely important, they are easily undermined by decisions from other ministries that fail to apply strategic thinking on policies and actions that impact on ecosystems and other components of biodiversity.
Mainstreaming therefore needs to be seen as the genuine understanding by government machinery as a whole that the future well-being of society depends on defending the natural infrastructure on which we all depend. To some extent, this approach is already working its way through some government systems on the question of climate change, with “climate-proofing” of policies becoming a more common practice. Some trade-offs between conservation and development are inevitable, and it is important that decisions are informed by the best available information and that the tradeoffs are clearly recognized up-front.
Systematic proofing of policies for their impact on biodiversity and ecosystem services would ensure not only that biodiversity was better protected, but that climate change itself was more effectively addressed. Conservation of biodiversity, and, where necessary restoration of ecosystems, can be cost-effective interventions for both mitigation of and adaptation to climate change, often with substantial co-benefits.
It is clear from the scenarios outlined above that addressing the multiple drivers of biodiversity loss is a vital form of climate change adaptation. Looked at in a positive way, this understanding gives us more options. We do not need to resign ourselves to the fact that due to the time lags built into climate change, we are powerless to protect coastal communities against sea level rise, dry regions against fire and drought, or river-valley dwellers against floods and landslides. Although it will not address all climate impacts, targeting ecosystem pressures over which we have more immediate control will help to ensure that ecosystems continue to be resilient and to prevent some dangerous tipping points from being reached.^²⁴⁰,^²⁴¹
If accompanied by determined action to reduce emissions – with the conservation of forests and other carbon-storing ecosystems given due priority in mitigation strategies – then biodiversity protection can help buy time, while the climate system responds to a stabilizing of greenhouse gas concentrations.
Important incentives for the conservation of biodiversity can emerge from systems that ensure fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the use of genetic resources, the third objective of the Convention on Biological Diversity. In practice, this means drawing up rules and agreements that strike a fair balance between facilitating access to companies or researchers seeking to use genetic material, and ensuring that the entitlements of governments and local communities are respected, including the granting of informed 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.
Development of systems for access and benefit-sharing (ABS) has been slow, and negotiations on an international regime to regulate such agreements have been long and protracted.^²⁴² However, individual examples have shown the way that communities, companies and biodiversity can each benefit from ABS agreements. [See Box 22].

Box 22: Sharing the benefits of biodiversity access – examples from Africa
Vernonia (Vernonia galamensis), a tall weed endemic to Ethiopia, has shiny black seeds rich in oil. The oil is being investigated for its possible use as a “green chemical” in the production of plastic compounds that are currently only made from petrochemicals. In 2006, a British company, Vernique Biotech, signed a 10 year agreement with the Ethiopian Government to have access to Vernonia and to commercialize its oil. As part of the deal, Vernique Biotech will pay a combination of license fees, royalties and a share of its profits to the Ethiopian Government. In addition, local farmers will be paid to grow Vernonia on land which is otherwise unsuitable to grow food^²⁴³.
Uganda is one of the few African countries that has developed specific regulations on access to genetic resources and benefit-sharing. Introduced in 2005 as part of the National Environment Act, the regulations set out procedures for access to genetic resources, provide for the sharing of benefits derived from genetic resources; and promote the sustainable management and utilization of genetic resources, thereby contributing to conservation of biological resources in Uganda^²⁴⁴.

With the deadline for the 2010 target now here, the global community must consider what long-term vision it is seeking, and the type of medium-term targets that might set us on the road towards achieving it. These targets must also be translated into action at the national level though national biodiversity strategies and action plans, and treated as a mainstream issue across government.^²⁴⁵^,^²⁴⁶

From analysis of the failure so far to slow biodiversity loss, the following elements might be considered for a future strategy [See Figure 21]:

Where possible, tackle the indirect drivers of biodiversity loss. This is hard, because it involves issues such as consumption and lifestyle choices, and long-term trends like population increase. However, as the analysis conducted as part of The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB)^²⁴⁷ illustrates, public engagement with the issues combined with appropriate pricing and incentives (including the removal of perverse subsidies)^²⁴⁸. could reduce some of these drivers, for example by encouraging more moderate, less wasteful – and more healthy – levels of meat consumption. Awareness of the impact of excessive use of water, energy and materials can help to limit rising demand for resources from growing and more prosperous populations.

International and national rules and frameworks for markets and economic activities can and must be adjusted and developed in such a way that they contribute to safeguarding and sustainably using biodiversity, instead of threatening it as they have often done in the past. Using pricing, fiscal policies and other mechanisms to reflect the real value of ecosystems, powerful incentives can be created to reverse patterns of destruction that result from the under-valuation of biodiversity. An important step will be for governments to expand their economic objectives beyond what is measured by GDP alone, recognizing other measures of wealth and well-being that take natural capital and other concepts into account^²⁴⁹,.
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 much more efficient use of land, water, sea 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 essential. Specific measures such as addressing the pathways of invasive species transfers can prevent increased trade from acting as a driver of ecosystem damage.

Efficiency in the use of a natural resource must be balanced with the need to maintain ecosystem functions and resilience. This involves finding an appropriate level of intensity in the use of resources, for example increasing productivity of agricultural land while maintaining a diverse landscape, and reducing fishing intensity below the so-called maximum sustainable yield^²⁵⁰. An ecosystem-level approach will be required to establish this balance.

Where multiple drivers are combining to weaken ecosystems, aggressive action to reduce those more amenable to rapid intervention can be prioritized, while longer-term efforts continue to moderate more intractable drivers, such as climate change and ocean acidification. The many human pressures on coral reefs, mentioned above, provide an example of where this strategy can be applied.
Avoid unnecessarily tradeoffs resulting from maximizing one ecosystem service at the expense of another. Substantial benefits for biodiversity can often arise from only slight limits on the exploitation of other benefits – such as agricultural production. An example is that funds to reward protection of forest carbon stocks could dramatically improve species conservation, if targeted towards areas of high biodiversity value, with a tiny marginal increase in cost.
Continue direct action to conserve biodiversity, targeting vulnerable and culturally-valued species and habitats, and critical sites for biodiversity, combined with priority actions to safeguard key ecosystem services, particularly those of importance to the poor such as the provision of food and medicines. This should include the protection of functional ecological groups – that is, those species collectively responsible for the provision of ecosystem services such as pollination, maintenance of healthy predator- prey relationships, cycling of nutrients and soil formation.

Take full advantage of opportunities to contribute to climate change mitigation through conservation and restoration of forests, peatlands, wetlands and other ecosystems that capture and store large amounts of carbon; and climate change adaptation through investing in “natural infrastructure”, and planning for geographical shifts in species and communities by maintaining and enhancing ecological connectivity across landscapes and inland water ecosystems.
Use national programmes or legislation to create 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 [See Box 23].
Strengthen efforts to communicate better the links between biodiversity, ecosystem services, poverty alleviation and climate change adaptation and mitigation. Through education and more effective dissemination of scientific knowledge, a much wider section of the public and decision-makers could be made aware of the role and value of biodiversity and the steps needed to conserve it.
Increasingly, restoration of terrestrial, inland water and marine ecosystems will be needed to re-establish ecosystem functioning and the provision of valuable ecosystem services. A recent analysis of schemes to restore degraded ecosystems showed that, overall, such schemes are successful in improving the status of biodiversity^²⁵¹. Moreover, economic analysis conducted by the Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB), shows that ecosystem restoration may give good economic rates of return when considering the long-term provision of ecosystem services. However the levels of biodiversity and ecosystem services remained below the levels of the pristine ecosystems, reinforcing the argument that, where possible, avoiding degradation through conservation is preferable (and even more cost-effective) than restoration after the event. Restoration can take decades to have a significant impact, and will be more effective for some ecosystems than for others. In some cases, restoration of ecosystems will not be possible as the impacts of degradation are irreversible.

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 unrecognized, 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.

Addressing biodiversity loss at each of these levels will involve a major shift in perception and priorities on the part of decision-makers, and the engagement of all sections of society, including the private sector. For the most part, we know what needs to be done, but political will, perseverance and courage will be required to carry out these actions at the necessary scale and address the underlying causes of biodiversity loss.

Continued failure to slow current trends has potential consequences even more serious than previously anticipated, and future generations may pay dearly in the form of ecosystems incapable of meeting the basic needs of humanity. The rewards for coherent action, on the other hand, are great. Not only will the stunning variety of life on Earth be much more effectively protected, but human societies will be much better equipped to provide healthy, secure and prosperous livelihoods in the challenging decades ahead.
The overall message of this Outlook is clear. We can no longer see the continued loss of biodiversity as an issue separate from the core concerns of society: to tackle poverty, to improve the health, prosperity and security of present and future generations, and to deal with climate change. Each of those objectives is undermined by current trends in the state of our ecosystems, and each will be greatly strengthened if we finally give biodiversity the priority it deserves.
In 2008-9, the world’s governments rapidly mobilized hundreds of billions of dollars to prevent collapse of a financial system whose flimsy foundations took the markets by surprise. Now we have clear warnings of the potential breaking points towards which we are pushing the ecosystems that have shaped our civilizations. For a fraction of the money summoned up instantly to avoid economic meltdown, we can avoid a much more serious and fundamental breakdown in the Earth’s life support systems.
PHOTOGRAPH CAPTIONS
P. 8: 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^²⁵².
P.17: 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 9,600 square kilometres of arctic ecosystems^²⁵³.
P. 21: 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.
P. 26: 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^²⁵⁴.
P.31: Cultivation of Podophyllum hexandrum in Zhongdian,Yunnan Province, China. The species was scientifically validated to contain anti-cancerous 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^²⁵⁵.
P. 31: Medicinal plants market in Arunachal Pradesh. 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 constitutes an important basis for the development of society^²⁵⁶.

P. 42: 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^²⁵⁷.

P. 44: 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 offered by improved salmon fishing, greater carbon sequestration, nutrient removal and recreation have offset the US$ 46 million cost of the project^²⁵⁸.
P. 52: 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 Project, initiated by the Royal Botanic Gardens Kew and its partners worldwide, which now includes 37,000 accessions of 20,000 plant species, mainly from drylands; and the Svalbard Global Seed Vault, which has been constructed in Norway, close to the Arctic Circle, to provide the ultimate safety net against accidental loss of diversity in traditional gene banks. The vault has capacity to conserve 4.5 million seed samples^²⁵⁹^,^²⁶⁰.
P. 52: 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^²⁶¹.
P.54: 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^²⁶². 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^²⁶³^,^²⁶⁴^.
P.56: 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.
P. 53: Wild species are being over-exploited for a variety of purposes in terrestrial, inland water and marine and coastal ecosystems. Bushmeat hunting, which provides a significant proportion of protein for many rural households in forested regions such as Central Africa, 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^²⁶⁵.
P. 53: 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 2005^²⁶⁶. A wide variety of other wild species have also declined in the wild as a result of overexploitation, ranging from high profile 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^²⁶⁷.

1 For reasons of readability, the printed versions of Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 (GBO-3) do not contain references. These references are instead included here. Numerous additional sources of information were consulted in preparing GBO-3 which are not explicitly referenced in this document. These include the more than 110 fourth national reports provided to the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity by Parties, information provided by the Biodiversity Indicators Partnership as well as numerous additional scientific articles.

2 See part III of this Outlook: “Biodiversity Futures for the 21^st Century” and Leadley, P., Pereira, H.M., Alkemade, R., Fernandez-Manjarrés, J.F., Proença, V., Scharlemann, J.P.W., Walpole, M.J. (2010) Biodiversity Scenarios: Projections of 21st century change in biodiversity and associated ecosystem services. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal. Technical Series no. 50. https://www.cbd.int/help/error404.shtml?aspxerrorpath=/doc/publications/cbd-ts-50-en.pdf

3 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: current state and trends: findings of the Condition and Trends Working Group / edited by Rashid Hassan, Robert Scholes, Neville Ash. Island Press. http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/Condition.aspx

4 TEEB – The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for National and International Policy Makers – Summary: Responding to the Value of Nature 2009. http://www.teebweb.org/

5 Baumgartner, S. (2007). The Insurance Value of Biodiversity in the Provision of Ecosystem Services. Natural Resource Modeling, 20(1), 87-127. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119819199/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

6 Rockström, J., W. Steffen, K. Noone, Å. Persson, F. S. Chapin, III, E. Lambin, T. M. Lenton, M. Scheffer, C. Folke, H. Schellnhuber, B. Nykvist, C. A. De Wit, T. Hughes, S. van der Leeuw, H. Rodhe, S. Sörlin, P. K. Snyder, R. Costanza, U. Svedin, M. Falkenmark, L. Karlberg, R. W. Corell, V. J. Fabry, J. Hansen, B. Walker, D. Liverman, K. Richardson, P. Crutzen, and J. Foley. 2009. Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecology and Society 14(2): 32. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art32/

7 Article 2 of the Convention on Biological Diversity. http://www.cbd.int/convention/articles.shtml?a=cbd-02

8 Article 1 of the Convention on Biological Diversity. http://www.cbd.int/convention/articles.shtml?a=cbd-01

9 Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. http://www.cbd.int/convention/parties/list/

10 Decision VI/26. (http://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=7200

11 Convention on Biological Diversity (2010). 2010 Biodiversity Target. https://www.cbd.int/2010-target/

12 Decision VII/30. http://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=7767

13 Information from the fourth national reports (www.cbd.int/4nr) summarized in: SCBD (2010) Preliminary analysis of information in the fourth national reports. Document prepared for the Third meeting of the Ad hoc working group on review of implementation of the convention, Nairobi, Kenya, 24-28 May 2010. UNEP/CBD/WGRI/3/INF/1. http://www.cbd.int/doc/?meeting=WGRI-03

14 Decision VIII/15. http://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=11029

15 Dobson, A. (2005). Monitoring global rates of biodiversity change: challenges that arise in meeting the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) 2010 goals. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 360(1454), 229–241. http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/360/1454/229.full.pdf

16 Mace, G. M., & Baillie, J. E. M. (2007). The 2010 biodiversity indicators: challenges for science and policy. Conservation Biology: The Journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 21(6). http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118487885/abstract

17 Balmford, A., Crane, P., Dobson, A., Green, R. E., & Mace, G. M. (2005). The 2010 challenge: data availability, information needs and extraterrestrial insights. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 360(1454), 221-228. http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/360/1454/221

18 Walpole, M., Almond, R. E. A., Besancon, C., Butchart, S. H. M., Campbell-Lendrum, D., Carr, G. M., et al. (2009). Tracking Progress Toward the 2010 Biodiversity Target and Beyond. Science, 325(5947), 1503-1504. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/325/5947/1503

19 Baillie, J. E. M., Collen, B., Amin, R., Akcakaya, H. R., Butchart, S. H. M., Brummitt, N., et al. (2008). Toward monitoring global biodiversity. Conservation Letters, 1(1). http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/120695939/abstract

20 Pereira, H. M., & Cooper, H.D (2006). Towards the global monitoring of biodiversity change. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 21(3), 123-129. http://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/abstract/S0169-5347(05)00337-X.

21 Butchart, S. H. M., Walpole, M., Collen, B., van Strien, A., Scharlemann, J. P. W., Almond, R. E. A., Baillie, J. E. M., et al. (2010). Global Biodiversity: Indicators of Recent Declines. Science, science.1187512. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/science.1187512

22 Convention on Biological Diversity (2010). Fourth National Reports. http://www.cbd.int/reports/search/?type=nr-04

23 Rodrigues, A. S. L. (2006). Are Global Conservation Efforts Successful? Science, 313(5790), 1051-1052. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/313/5790/1051

24 Convention on Biological Diversity (2010). National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans http://www.cbd.int/nbsap/

25 Secretariat of the Convention on Biological diversity (2008), Mainstreaming Biodiversity: Workshops on national biodiversity strategies and action plans. SCBD, Montreal, Canada. http://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-brochure-nbsap-ws-en.pdf

26 Balmford, A., & Bond, W. (2005). Trends in the state of nature and their implications for human well-being. Ecology Letters, 8(11), 1218-1234. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118669259/abstract

27 Sachs, J. D., Baillie, J. E. M., Sutherland, W. J., Armsworth, P. R., Ash, N., Beddington, J., et al. (2009). Biodiversity Conservation and the Millennium Development Goals. Science, 325(5947), 1502-1503. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/325/5947/1502

28 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: current state and trends: findings of the Condition and Trends Working Group / edited by Rashid Hassan, Robert Scholes, Neville Ash. Island Press. http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/Condition.aspx

29 Collen, B., Loh, J., Whitmee, S., McRae, L., Amin, R. & Baillie, J. E. M. (2009). Monitoring Change in Vertebrate Abundance: the Living Planet Index. Conservation Biology, 23, 317-327. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bsc/cbi/2009/00000023/00000002/art00017

30 Biodiversity Indicators Partnership (2010). Living Planet Index. http://www.twentyten.net/lpi

31 WWF (2008). Living Planet Report. WWF–World Wide Fund for Nature, Gland, Switzerland. http://assets.panda.org/downloads/living_planet_report_2008.pdf

32 McGeoch, M. A., Butchart, S. H. M., Spear, D., Marais, E., Kleynhans, E. J., Symes, A., et al. (2010). Global indicators of biological invasion: species numbers, biodiversity impact and policy responses. Diversity and Distributions, 16(1), 95-108. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/123243506/abstract

33 Rodrigues, A. S. L. (2006). Are Global Conservation Efforts Successful? Science, 313(5790), 1051-1052. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/313/5790/1051.

34 Butchart, S. H., Stattersfield, A. J., & Collar, N. J. (2006). How Many Bird Extinctions Have We Prevented? Oryx, 40(03), 266-278. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=467943.

35 Butchart, S. H. M., Akcakaya, H. R., Kennedy, E., & Hilton-Taylor, C. (2006). Biodiversity indicators based on trends in conservation status: strengths of the IUCN Red List Index. Conservation Biology: The Journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 20(2), 579-81. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118564150/abstract.

36 Butchart, S. H., Resit Akçakaya, H., Chanson, J., Baillie, J. E., Collen, B., Quader, S., et al. (2007). Improvements to the Red List Index. PLoS ONE, 2(1), e140. http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0000140.

37 Butchart, S. H. M., Stattersfield, A. J., Bennun, L. A., Shutes, S. M., Akçakaya, H. R., Baillie, J. E. M., et al. (2004). Measuring Global Trends in the Status of Biodiversity: Red List Indices for Birds. PLoS Biol, 2(12), e383. http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0020383.

38 Vié, J.-C., Hilton-Taylor, C. and Stuart, S.N. (eds.) (2009). Wildlife in a Changing World – An Analysis of the 2008 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. 9 http://data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/RL-2009-001.pdf

39 Butchart, S. H. M., Stattersfield, A. J., Baillie, J., Bennun, L. A., Stuart, S. N., Akçakaya, H. R., et al. (2005). Using Red List Indices to measure progress towards the 2010 target and beyond. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 360(1454), 255-268. http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/360/1454/255.short

40 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

The underlying data can be accessed from: http://www.cbd.int/gbo/gbo3/data/figure4data.xls

41 Biodiversity Indicators Partnership (2010 ). Red List Index. http://www.twentyten.net/rli

42 Vié, J.-C., Hilton-Taylor, C. and Stuart, S.N. (eds.) (2009). Wildlife in a Changing World – An Analysis of the 2008 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. http://data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/RL-2009-001.pdf

43 IUCN (2010). IUCN Red list Version 2010.1 Table 1: Numbers of threatened species by major groups of organisms (1996–2010). International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. http://www.iucnredlist.org/documents/summarystatistics/2010_1RL_Stats_Table_1.pdf

44Vié, J.-C., Hilton-Taylor, C. and Stuart, S.N. (eds.) (2009). Wildlife in a Changing World – An Analysis of the 2008 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. http://data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/RL-2009-001.pdf

45 Biodiversity Indicators Partnership (2010). Red List Index. http://www.twentyten.net/rli

46 Biodiversity Indicators Partnership (2010). Biodiversity for food and medicine. http://www.twentyten.net/foodandmedicine

47 Bélanger, J., & Johns, T. (2008). Biological Diversity, Dietary Diversity, and Eye Health in Developing Country Populations: Establishing the Evidence-base. EcoHealth. http://www.springerlink.com/content/j7603701878w2283/

48 Johns, T., & Eyzaguirre, P. B. (2007). Linking Biodiversity, Diet and Health in Policy and Practice. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 65(02), 182-189. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=814800

49 WHO. (2002). WHO traditional medicine strategy 2002–2005. WHO: Geneva. http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2002/WHO_EDM_TRM_2002.1.pdf.

50 Hamilton, A.C. (editor) (2008). Medicinal plants in conservation and development: case studies and lessons learnt. Plantlife International, Salisbury, UK.. http://www.plantlife.org.uk/portal/assets/News%20Sue%20Nottingham/Medicinal%20plants%20report%20Jan%202009.pdf.

51 Alves, R., & Rosa, I. (2007). Biodiversity, traditional medicine and public health: where do they meet? Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 3(1), 14. http://www.ethnobiomed.com/content/3/1/14

52 Hamilton, A.C. (editor) (2008). Medicinal plants in conservation and development: case studies and lessons learnt. Plantlife International, Salisbury, UK. http://www.plantlife.org.uk/portal/assets/News%20Sue%20Nottingham/Medicinal%20plants%20report%20Jan%202009.pdf.

53 Alves, R., & Rosa, I. (2005). Why study the use of animal products in traditional medicines? Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 1(1), 5. doi:10.1186/1746-4269-1-5. http://www.ethnobiomed.com/content/1/1/5

54 FAO (2010). Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome, Italy. http://www.fao.org/forestry/fra/fra2010/en/

55 FAO (2010). Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome, Italy. http://www.fao.org/forestry/fra/fra2010/en/

56 Brazilian National Space Research Institute (INPE) Programme for Calculation of Deforestation of the Amazon (PRODES). Historical annual data and cumulative deforestation. http://www.obt.inpe.br/prodes/index.html.

57 Rodrigues, A. S. L., Ewers, R. M., Parry, L., Souza, C., Verissimo, A., & Balmford, A. (2009). Boom-and-Bust Development Patterns Across the Amazon Deforestation Frontier. Science, 324(5933), 1435-1437. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/324/5933/1435

58 Nepstad, D., Soares-Filho, B. S., Merry, F., Lima, A., Moutinho, P., Carter, J., et al. (2009). The End of Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Science, 326(5958), 1350-1351. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/326/5958/1350

59 Brazilian Ministry of Environment, December (2008). National Climate Change Plan - Decree 6.263 of November 21, 2007. http://www.mma.gov.br/estruturas/smcq_climaticas/_publicacao/141_publicacao07122009030757.pdf

60 FAO (2010). Global Forest Resources Assessment – Key findings. http://foris.fao.org/static/data/fra2010/KeyFindings-en.pdf

61 Personal Communication (2009) UNEP-WCMC

62 Brazilian Ministry of Environment (2010). Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Deforestation and Fires in the Cerrado (PPCerrado). http://www.mma.gov.br/estruturas/182/_arquivos/ppcerrado_16_mar_182.pdf

63 Dewees, P. A., Campbell, B. M., Katerere, Y., Sitoe, A., Cunningham, A. B., Angelsen, A., et al. (2010). Managing the Miombo Woodlands of Southern Africa: Policies, Incentives and Options for the Rural Poor. Journal of Natural Resources Policy Research, 2(1), 57. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a918509051~db=all~jumptype=rss)

64 Syampungani, S., Chirwa, P. W., Akinnifesi, F. K., Sileshi, G., & Ajayi, O. C. (2009). The miombo woodlands at the cross roads: Potential threats, sustainable livelihoods, policy gaps and challenges. Natural Resources Forum, 33(2), 150-159. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122466607/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

65 The World Bank (in press). Managing the Miombo Woodlands of Southern Africa: Policies, incentives and options for the rural poor. The World Bank - Sustainable Development Department Environment and Natural Resources Management Unit Africa Region. http://www.profor.info/profor/node/82.

66 Jarvis, D. I., Brown, A. H. D., Cuong, P. H., Collado-Panduro, L., Latournerie-Moreno, L., Gyawali, S., et al. (2008). A global perspective of the richness and evenness of traditional crop-variety diversity maintained by farming communities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(14), 5326-31. http://www.pnas.org/content/105/14/5326.abstract

67 FAO. 2007. The State of the World’s Animal Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, edited by Barbara Rischkowsky & Dafydd Pilling. Rome. http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a1250e/a1250e00.htm

68 Food and Agriculture Organization – Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS) (2009). Rice-Fish Agriculture (China). http://www.fao.org/nr/giahs/pilot-systems/pilot/rice-fish-agriculture/rice-fish-agriculture-detailed/en/

69 Food and Agriculture Organization – Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS) (2009). Andean Agriculture (Peru). http://www.fao.org/nr/giahs/pilot-systems/pilot/andean-agriculture/andean-agriculture-detailed/en/

70 Ichikawa, K., Okubo, N., Okubo, S., & Takeuchi, K. (2006). Transition of the satoyama landscape in the urban fringe of the Tokyo metropolitan area from 1880 to 2001. Landscape and Urban Planning, 78(4), 398-410. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V91-4JD10XB-1&_user=10&_coverDate=11%2F28%2F2006&_rdoc=12&_fmt=high&_orig=browse&_srch=doc-info(%23toc%235885%232006%23999219995%23636707%23FLA%23display%23Volume)&_cdi=5885&_sort=d&_docanchor=&_ct=18&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=65b954817bf22c10d7e333c7740fb411.

71 Katoh, K., Sakai, S., & Takahashi, T. (2009). Factors maintaining species diversity in satoyama, a traditional agricultural landscape of Japan. Biological Conservation, 142(9), 1930-1936. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5X-4VY6FT4-2&_user=10&_coverDate=09%2F30%2F2009&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1283695510&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=9056a8a6a2d3c588314da8327815c752.

72 United Nations University (2010). The Satoyama Initiative. http://satoyama-initiative.org/en/

73 Blake S, Deem SL, Strindberg S, Maisels F, Momont L, et al. (2008) Roadless Wilderness Area Determines Forest Elephant Movements in the Congo Basin. PLoS ONE 3(10): e3546. http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0003546

74 Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., da Fonseca, G. A. B., & Kent, J. (2000). Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature, 403(6772), 853-858. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v403/n6772/abs/403853a0.html

75 Ribeiro, M. C., Metzger, J. P., Martensen, A. C., Ponzoni, F. J., & Hirota, M. M. (2009). The Brazilian Atlantic Forest: How much is left, and how is the remaining forest distributed? Implications for conservation. Biological Conservation, 142(6), 1141-1153. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5X-4VX9WJC-3&_user=10&_coverDate=06%2F30%2F2009&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1283706083&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=4bdfcc5ef2a57dd9001ad6d73071134c

76 Ferraz, G., Russell, G. J., Stouffer, P. C., Bierregaard, R. O., Pimm, S. L., & Lovejoy, T. E. (2003). Rates of species loss from Amazonian forest fragments. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 100(24). http://www.pnas.org/content/100/24/14069.abstract

77 Bai ZG, Dent DL, Olsson L and Schaepman ME 2008. Global assessment of land degradation and improvement. 1. Identification by remote sensing. Report 2008/01, ISRIC – World Soil Information, Wageningen. http://www.isric.org/isric/webdocs/docs/Report%202008_01_GLADA%20international_REV_Nov%202008.pdf

78 Biodiversity Indicators Partnership (2010). Protected area coverage. http://www.twentyten.net/pacoverage

79 Jenkins, C. N., & Joppa, L. (2009). Expansion of the global terrestrial protected area system. Biological Conservation, 142(10), 2166-2174. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5X-4WB37CX-2&_user=10&_coverDate=10%2F31%2F2009&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1283707331&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=1987df8d92187e6c8b5d28964b43d7a7

80 Biodiversity Indicators Partnership (2010). Overlays with biodiversity. http://www.twentyten.net/paoverlays

81 Jenkins, C. N., & Joppa, L. (n.d.). Expansion of the global terrestrial protected area system. Biological Conservation. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5X-4WB37CX-2&_user=10&_coverDate=10%2F31%2F2009&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1320503890&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=69225b41ebb27e828747cbb400c18efe

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9