Environmental Degradation

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/318673089
Loss of Biodiversity
Chapter · December 2016
CITATIONS READS
0 11,019
3 authors, including:
Pia Sethi Yatish Lele

Centre for Ecology Development and Research The Energy and Resources Institute
17 PUBLICATIONS 211 CITATIONS 36 PUBLICATIONS 22 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Mainstreaming Community-Conserved Areas for Biodiversity Conservation in Nagaland View project
Conservation of Protected Areas through Carbon Finance: Implementing a Pilot Project for Dudhwa Tiger Reserve View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Yatish Lele on 25 July 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

4
Loss of Biodiversity
Biodiversity can’t be maintained by protecting a few species in a zoo, or by preserving greenbelts or national parks.
To function properly, nature needs more room than that. It can maintain itself, however, without human expense,
without zookeepers, park rangers, foresters or gene banks. All it needs is to be left alone.
Donella Meadows
4.1 Introduction using a more conservative background rate of 2E/MSY or

2 extinctions per 100 years per 10,000 species, found that
Biological diversity, or biodiversity, appears to be in trouble,
the present extinction rate for vertebrates is far higher than
despite numerous initiatives at the global, regional, national,
it was in the past. The average rate of vertebrate species
and local levels to halt its loss. The Convention on Biological
loss in the past century is 100 times higher than this very
Diversity (CBD) defines biodiversity as “the variability
conservative background rate (Figure 4.1) and the observed
among living organisms from all sources, including
extinction rate between 1500 AD and 1900 AD would have
terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the
only occurred over a time scale of several millennia if such
ecological complexes of which they are a part; this includes
a background rate had prevailed. Given such an elevated
diversity within species, between species, and of ecosystems”
extinction rate for species, Ceballos, Ehrlich, Barnosky, et al.
(CBD Article 2). Although the commonly applied metric for
(2015) argue that the earth is in a mass extinction spasm,
assessing biodiversity is in terms of species (or their loss), the
which is defined as the loss of more than 75% of species
impact of biodiversity loss on human well-being through
in a geologically short interval, a process that has occurred
the loss of “ecosystem-services” is of particular concern.
only five times in the past 540 million years (Jablonski and
Biodiverse ecosystems provide multiple goods and services,
Chaloner 1994; Barnosky, Matzke, Tomiya, et al. 2011).
such as climate regulation, carbon sequestration, pollination,
seed dispersal, flood control, and recreation values (Daily, While scientists dispute whether earth is actually on its
Alexander, Ehrlich, et al. 1997). Nevertheless, biodiverse sixth major extinction event, there is a general consensus that
ecosystems—important “livelihood assets” upon which species are disappearing at an unprecedented rate (Leadley,
human well-being is overtly dependent through a range of Krug, Alkemade, et al. 2014; Barnosky, Matzke, Tomiya,
“ecosystem services” (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment et al. 2011). The species that we see today are the products
2005; Turner and Daily 2008)—are under increasing of millions of years of evolution, but the recent rapid rate
threat. of extinction outstrips speciation. Recovery from mass
extinction events can take millions of years (Alroy 2008).
Recent studies underline the unprecedented scale and
Despite the looming crisis, the latest Global Environment
magnitude of biodiversity loss. The current rate of human-
Outlook (GEO 5) mentions that, “recent assessments of
induced species extinction is believed to be far higher than the
the status of biodiversity have shown little evidence of
commonly estimated background rate of extinction (0.1 to 1
improvement” (UNEP 2012), while according to Butchart,
species extinction per million species per year, also known as
Walpole, Collen, et al. (2010) most indicators of the state of
E/MSY). Ceballos, Ehrlich, Barnosky, et al. (2015), despite
biodiversity show a decline. Adding to this dismal scenario,
46 People, planet, and progress beyond 2015
Figure 4.1 Elevation of the modern vertebrate extinction rates over the background extinction rate
Note: Two scenarios have been developed: (i) conservative and (ii) highly conservative. The conservative scenario includes species in the IUCN category extinct
in the wild (EW) and possibly extinct (PE). The highly conservative scenario only includes the category extinct.
Source: Ceballos, Ehrlich, Barnosky, et al. (2015)
we still do not know the extent of biodiversity or the number the diminution of a service brought about; for example,
of species on the planet. Even the estimates that do exist vary through unsustainable harvests (Millenium Ecosystem
widely, are largely inconsistent, range between 0.5 million Assessment 2005).
and 10 million species, and show no sign of converging Loss of biodiversity, thus, has enormous implications
(Caley, Fisher, and Mengersen 2014). for a society, for poverty alleviation, and for meeting
Biodiversity is more than a mere list of species; it the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Curtailing
underpins ecosystem services and ecosystem functioning. biodiversity loss is important for ensuring the continued flow
While extinction of species can directly extinguish an of ecosystem services to humans. It also makes economic
important biological resource (for example, a particular sense. For example, if the deforestation rates are halved by
fuelwood species, plant, or non-timber forest product), loss 2030, the cost of avoided damage from climate change would
of native species diversity may affect the resilience of the amount to US$3.7 trillion in terms of Net Present Value
very ecosystem itself, particularly when confronted with new (NPV) (Eliasch 2009). Biodiversity and ecosystem services
emerging threats, such as climate change. At the same time, contribute significantly to the livelihoods of the poor; in
losing genetic diversity, particularly of domesticated plants India, for example, biodiversity and ecosystem services
and animals, has serious implications for the resilience and contribute to 57% of the gross domestic product (GDP)
adaptability of agricultural or livestock-based systems. This of the poor (TEEB 2010). Moreover, biodiversity provides
loss of genetic diversity can weaken the adaptive capacity many previously unrecognized, economically important
of crops to respond to changes in climate and the local services. Insect pollination, for example, provided services
environment. Consequently, the value of biodiversity is “far equivalent to US$153 billion, that is, 9.5% of the world’s
greater than the sum of its parts” (Chavas 2009). Recognizing agricultural output, in 2005 (Gallai, Salles, Settele, et al.
this complexity, and its importance for management of 2009). Often, the rate of biodiversity loss accelerates because
biodiversity, the CBD defines loss of biodiversity as “the of the failure to recognize the true economic value of these
long-term or permanent qualitative or quantitative reduction services (TEEB 2010). Studies suggest that some ecosystems
in components of biodiversity and their potential to provide have reached tipping points where their potential to provide
goods and services, to be measured at global, regional, and services to the human population is seriously impaired. Such
national levels” (CBD COP VII/30). Biodiversity loss may, ecosystems include dryland ecosystems, coral reefs, and
therefore, not only imply the extinction of a particular lakes (TEEB 2010). Situations as these can be prevented by
species or of genetic diversity, but can also equally refer to ensuring the sustainable use and protection of biodiversity
Loss of Biodiversity 47
and its integration into national green growth strategies. In population of vertebrates is now half of what it was 40 years
fact such actions are urgently required, particularly if SDGs ago (WWF 2014) as a result of threats (Figure 4.2), such
are to be attained, in general, and Targets 13, 14 and 15, in as exploitation followed by habitat degradation/change and
particular, namely, habitat loss (WWF, ZSL, 2014 as cited in WWF 2014).
• take urgent action to combat climate change and its Freshwater species appear to be the most affected with their
impacts; populations falling by 76% compared to marine at 39% and
• conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas, and terrestrial at 39%. Species are also often subject to multiple
marine resources for sustainable development; and threats as problems compound. For example, the vulnerable
round whipray (Himantura pastinacoides) is under threat
• protect, restore, and promote sustainable use of
in Indonesia owing to chemical pollution and loss of its
terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests,
native mangrove habitat to shrimp aquaculture, logging,
combat desertification, and halt and reverse land
and coastal development (Lenzen, Moran, Kanemoto,
degradation, and halt biodiversity loss.
et al. 2012).
In this chapter, we highlight the global and regional
Wildlife is being overexploited and populations
trends in biodiversity. This is discussed in the context of genes
threatened because of hunting, fishing (for food, sport,
and species, and also considering the state and alteration
and bycatch), and trade (WWF 2014). The fishing and
of ecosystems and production of ecosystem services for
forestry industries are causing biodiversity loss directly
human well-being. The causal processes for this loss are
through excessive and illegal resource use and indirectly
analysed from recent assessments, and the management
through bycatch (along with habitat loss). These impacts
responses to multiple stressors are discussed. The chapter
are being witnessed not only in developing countries such
attempts to present a critical assessment of the extent to
as the Philippines (affecting 420 species, of which 28 are
which actions have been taken to reach globally agreed goals
critically endangered) and Thailand (affecting 352 species,
along with underlining the major impediments to their
of which 28 are critically endangered) but also in the United
achievement. It concludes with a synthesis of management
States (affecting 450 species, of which 63 are critically
and policy prescriptions that may accelerate the achievement
endangered) (Lenzen, Moran, Kanemoto, et al. 2012). Such
of global biodiversity goals and, simultaneously, further
overexploitation has led to the world’s fish biomass being
implementation of the SDGs.
reduced by 90% when compared to the pre-industrial fish
4.2 Scale of the problem catch levels (Myers and Worm 2003). Wildlife trade involves
tens of thousands of species of which timber and seafood are
4.2.1 Defining the Issue particularly important in terms of both volume and value.
The main drivers of decline in biodiversity are habitat change In 2009, more than US$100 billion of fish and US$200
(land use change), invasive alien species, overexploitation billion of timber were traded. Medicinal plants are also of
of species, pollution, and, increasingly, climate change. importance and it is estimated that 70,000 plant species are
The impacts of these key five drivers have been increasing used for medicinal purposes alone. In 2009, according to
over the years despite global and national commitments to Trade Records Analysis of Flora and Fauna in Commerce
reduce biodiversity loss (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (TRAFFIC), the estimated value of global wildlife imports
2005). According to the Living Planet Index (LPI), the was over US$323 billion. But apart from legal trade in plants
Exploitation
4% 2%
5.10%
7.10% Habitat
degradation/change
37%
13.40% Habitat loss
Climate change
31.40%
Invasive species/genes
Pollution
Figure 4.2 Primary threat to LPI populations

Source: WWF, ZSL (2014) as cited in WWF (2014)
and animals, an illicit trade in wildlife also flourishes that Climate change is increasingly emerging as an important
has recently been on a spurt according to TRAFFIC (2015). threat to wildlife populations and has been projected as a
As many as 25,000 elephants were killed in 2013 owing significant driver of ecosystem change and biodiversity
to illegal ivory trade, with ivory reportedly priced at over loss by 2050. Projected temperature rise from 0.4°C to
US$2200 per kg on the streets of Beijing (UNEP 2014). The 2.6°C by 2055 and from 0.3°C to 4.8°C by 2090 (Leadley,
value of illegal, unreported, and unregulated fisheries has Krug, Alkemade, et al. 2014) will result in rising sea levels,
been estimated at US$10−23 billion per year (MRAG and precipitation changes, ocean acidification, and loss of summer
FERR 2008), while the value of illegal international timber Arctic sea ice; all of which will impact species, populations,
trade has been estimated at US$7 billion per year (Haken genes, and ecosystems. Climate change is already linked to
2011) to US$10−23 billion a year including processing the decline in population of Neotropical amphibian species
(UNEP 2014). The illegal wildlife trade is believed to and of caribou among mammals (Vors and Boyce 2009).
amount US$50−150 billion per year. Seabirds are apex predators. They are key indicators
Agriculture is also taking its toll on biodiversity as of the scale of climate change in the oceans and are highly
10%–20% of grassland and forestland is projected to prone to climate-induced changes (BirdLife International
be converted to agricultural land by 2050 (Millenium 2009). Species with restricted geographical range, such as
Ecosystem Assessment 2005). For example, in Papua New the Galápagos penguin (Spheniscus mendiculus), are most at
Guinea, coffee, cocoa, palm oil, and coconut plantations are risk of being extinct (Vargas, Lacy, Johnson, et al. 2007).
linked to nine critically endangered species including the Decrease in the population of krill, a key prey species
northern glider (Petaurus abidi), the black-spotted cuscus for seabirds, due to rising sea-surface temperature in the
(Spilocuscus rufoniger), and the eastern long-beaked echidna Antarctic accompanied by an increase in less favoured food
(Zaglossus bartoni), while in Malaysia palm oil, rubber and species such as salps are already taking their toll on seabird
cocoa, the main export products, have affected 135 species. population (Moline, Claustre, Frazer, et al. 2004).
Similarly, in Indonesia, crops including rubber, coffee, With human pressure on the environment so intense
cocoa, and palm oil are affecting 294 species including the and their ecological footprint on the planet so large, it
tiger, the Sumatran serow (Capricornis sumatraensis), and is estimated that 1.5 earths will be needed to meet the
Sir David’s long-beaked echidna (Zaglossus attenboroughi) demands that humankind makes on nature. And this
(Lenzen, Moran, Kanemoto, et al. 2012). demand has outstripped the planet’s biocapacity—the
Pollution is an important threat to wildlife population. amount of biologically productive land and sea area available
In China, pollution is responsible for one-fifth (304 out of to regenerate these resources—in just 40 years (Global
1526) of all threats (Lenzen, Moran, Kanemoto, et al. 2012). Footprint Network 2014) (Figure 4.3). China, the USA,
Plastic poses a newly emerging threat. In the oceans as many India, Russia, and Brazil are the top five countries with the
as 600 marine species that range from microorganisms to highest ecological footprint (Figure 4.4) while Singapore,
whales are impacted by plastic waste (SCBD and GEF Israel, UAE, Cyprus, and Lebanon have the highest
2012). A recent article in Proceedings of the National Academy ecological deficit (Figure 4.5).1
of Sciences highlights the severity of plastic pollution in the While the direct drivers of biodiversity cause species
oceans, with concentrations reaching 580,000 pieces per decline, extinction and decreased provision of ecosystem
km 2 (Barnes, Galgani, Thompson, et al. 2009; Wilcox, services, several indirect factors help in promoting and
Sebilleb, and Hardesty 2015). The authors predict that 99% exacerbating this loss. According to Millenium Ecosystem
of all species of seabirds will have ingested plastic by 2050 if Assessment (2005), the key indirect factors that pose a threat
the current trend continues. The highest impact is expected to biodiversity are demographic, economic, sociopolitical,
in the Tasman Sea of the South Pacific Ocean, situated cultural and religious, and scientific and technological in
between Australia and New Zealand, an area that was nature. For example, the latest LPI (WWF 2014) suggests
previously considered to have low anthropogenic pressure that given their higher ecological footprints, high-income
(Wilcox, Sebilleb, and Hardesty 2015). This is of particular countries may be exacerbating biodiversity loss in middle- or
concern because half of all the species of seabirds are in low-income countries by importing resources. High-income
decline not only in this area but globally (Croxall, Butchart, countries show an increase of 10% in biodiversity, while
Lascelles, et al. 2012). middle- and low-income countries show a decline of 18%
1
An ecological deficit occurs when the ecological footprint of a population exceeds the biocapacity of the area available to that population. A
national ecological deficit means that the nation is importing biocapacity through trade, liquidating national ecological assets, or emitting carbon
dioxide waste into the atmosphere.
Figure 4.3 Global ecological footprint by component (1961−2011)

Source: Global Footprint Network (2014)
Figure 4.4 Top five nations with highest ecological footprints till 2011
and 58% respectively; these trends may be related to patterns (Lenzen, Moran, Kanemoto, et al. 2012). Lenzen, Moran,
of production and export. Other evidence also suggests that Kanemoto, et al. (2012) linked 25,000 Animalia species
international trade chains accelerate habitat degradation in threat records from the IUCN Red List of more than 15,000
distant countries and act as major drivers of biodiversity loss commodities produced in 187 countries and evaluated
Percentage
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
Singapore Israel United Arab Cyprus Lebanon
Emirates
Countries
Figure 4.5 Top five countries with the highest ecological deficit (till 2011)
Note: An ecological deficit occurs when the ecological footprint of a population exceeds the biocapacity of the area available to that population. A national
ecological deficit means that the nation is importing biocapacity through trade, liquidating national ecological assets, or emitting carbon dioxide waste into
the atmosphere.
around 5 billion supply chains in terms of their biodiversity Sociopolitical issues are particularly important in
impacts. They found that excluding invasive species, 30% determining the pressure on natural resources including
of global species threats are because of international trade. biodiversity. For example, India ranks third in its total
Consequently, consumption of imported products such as ecological footprint when population is multiplied with per
coffee, tea, sugar, textile, fish, and other manufactured items capita demand. However, if population is excluded from the
causes a biodiversity footprint that is far larger in developing equation, it ranks 136th. Similarly, the USA ranks second
countries than in the developed world. Figure 4.6 indicates after China in its total ecological footprint given its high per
the complicated nature of this international trade. capita consumption rates.
0 70 Malaysian species threatened by foreign consumption

0 18 All species threats driven by German consumption
Figure 4.6 Flow map of threats to species

Note: Flow map of threats to species caused by exports from Malaysia (reds) and imports into Germany (blues). The lines directly link the producing countries,
where threats are recorded, and final consumer countries. Supply-chain links in intermediate countries are accounted for but not explicitly visualized.
Source: Lenzen, Moran, Kanemoto, et al. (2012)
4.3 Global trends in biodiversity loss are similar to birds in that they show a lower vulnerability
to extinction. Since the 1970s, 30% of vertebrates have
4.3.1 Species Extinctions shown population declines (Ponel, Orgeas, Samways, et al.
Although, as mentioned earlier, the scale of species loss is 2003). Unfortunately, no such estimates are available for
substantial, our understanding of global extinction rates invertebrate species, although freshwater invertebrate species
and predisposing traits is not extensive, possibly because appear to be at higher risk than others.
the focus of global research has been on large charismatic Hoffman, Knox, Larsen, et al. (2012) analysed the
vertebrates. However, invertebrates make up more than 70% global patterns of overall extinction risk for vertebrates
of the currently described species and dominate terrestrial (across birds, mammals and amphibians) using IUCN’S
and aquatic ecosystems (Figure 4.7). Collen, Böhm, Kemp, Red List Index (RLI). Their analysis shows that one-fifth
et al. (2012) carried out an assessment of 12,621 invertebrate
of global species are classified as threatened, and the number
species to determine their conservation status and the impact
is on the rise. On an average, 52 species of mammals, birds,
of anthropogenic activities. These species, comprising
less than 1% of all described invertebrates, span from and amphibians moved a category closer to extinction every
microscopic zooplankton to the Giant squid and are under year between 1980 and 2008. Southeast Asia, in particular,
anthropogenic pressure (Figure 4.8), particularly the species shows the most extreme pattern of increase in extinction risk
that are less mobile and have narrow ranges. Amphibians for vertebrates. IUCN’s latest assessment of 77,340 species
of the vertebrate world share these traits and, hence, are indicate 4520 species as critically endangered, 6814 species
similarly susceptible to extinction. In contrast, winged as endangered, and 10,235 species as vulnerable (IUCN
insects such as dragonflies, damselflies, and butterflies 2015). Among terrestrial species, 13% birds, 26% mammals,
8,000,000
7,000,000
6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
0
Catalogued Estimated
Invertebrates Vertebrates
Figure 4.7 Catalogued and estimated species richness of invertebrates and vertebrates
Source: Scheffers et al. (2012) as cited in Collen Böhm, Kemp, et al. (2012)
3%
EX
6%
6% CR
27%
EN
14% VU
NT
7% LC
DD
37%
Figure 4.8 Global status of invertebrates currently assessed on the IUCN Red List (12,621 species)
EX: Extinct, CR: Critically endangered; EN: Endangered, VU: Vulnerable, NT: Near threatened, LC: Least concern, DD: Data deficient
Source: Collen, Böhm, Kemp, et al. (2012)
41% amphibians, and 40% gymnosperms, respectively, are South Asia, Mesoamerica, and the Ural–Caspian Steppes is
threatened. In the case of freshwater taxa, 23% for mammals threatened with the loss of many internal branches.
and fishes and 39% of reptiles come under threatened The situation is dire, as exemplified by IUCN in its
species. In the case of reptiles, nearly one in five reptilian most recent assessment of vertebrates and invertebrate
species is threatened with extinction while another one in extinction status. Causal reasons vary significantly based on
five species is classified as data deficient (Böhm, Collen, taxonomic group, species, and ecosystem type. Acidification,
Baillie, et al. 2013). for example, is a major cause of coral decline. Experiments
Among vertebrates, amphibians are particularly in the Indo-pacific region have shown that much of the
vulnerable to population decline (Figure 4.9). Amongst diversity of corals, their structural diversity, and resilience
amphibians, 9% of the species are either threatened or are lost because of acidification which is the result of rising
endangered which suggests that as many as one-third of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Reef formation ceases
the world’s amphibian species are threatened (IUCN 2015). to exist below pH 7.7 (Fabricus 2011). In the case of the
In the last 20 years, about 159 species are believed to have taxonomically and functionally unique African forest
become extinct and at least 42% are reported to have elephant, it is poaching that is accelerating its decline. The
declining populations. Although habitat loss is implicated largest survey dataset, which included 80 foot-surveys,
as the main factor in these extinctions, two recent threats covering 13,000 km and 91,600 person-days of fieldwork,
identified are chytridiomycosis and climate change (Wake showed that from 2002 to 2011 the population size of forest
and Vredenburg 2008). elephant declined by circa 62%, and the taxon lost 30% of
In terms of phylogenetic diversity (PD),2 according to its geographical range. The existing population is less than
Huang, Davies, and Gittleman (2012), 14% of the threatened 10% of its potential size and occupies less than 25% of its
mammalian PD would be lost if all currently threatened potential range (Maisels, Strindberg, Blake, et al. 2014).
species become extinct. Areas in Southeast Asia and western Table 4.1 gives a list of threatened species and ecosystems if
Madagascar are particularly at high risk from losing PD no action is taken in the near future.
(Figure 4.10). The Amazon and Indonesia are highly Lack of accurate information on species number,
susceptible to loss of locally distinctive species such as the distribution patterns, conservation status, and traits that
pacarana (Dinomys branickii). Local mammalian diversity in enhance extinction vulnerability greatly exacerbates the
Figure 4.9 Red list status for all 6424 known amphibian species
Source: IUCN (2015)
2
Phylogenetic diversity represents the evolutionary history of a species assemblage and captures not only species richness but also potentially genetic
and functional diversity.
(a)
N
W E
S
PD to be lost
>25% total PD
0.01% total PD
m
00 0
0
0
00
00
00
0,
0,
0,
00
00
2,
4,
8,
(b)
N
W E
S
loss of IB > 95% random

loss of TB > 95% random
high loss in both IB and TB
m
0
0
00
00
00
0,
0,
0,
00
00
00
2,
4,
8,
Figure 4.10 Region-wise phylogenetic diversity predicted to be lost with extinction of currently threatened species
Note: Predicted PD to be lost within each 100 × 100 km grid cell. The colours in (a) represent the percentage of PD to be lost, from low (blue) to high
(red). The coloured areas in (b) indicate cells with risk of higher loss in PD than 95% random: higher loss in internal branch length (IB, red), higher loss in
terminal branch length (TB, blue), and a combination of both (black).
Table 4.1 Indication of species and ecosystems that will be lost by 2050 without management action
Animal species Key threats Trend till 2013 Future without action (2050)
Tiger HD, PC, ID Increasing Around 500 individuals may survive
African elephant HD, PC Increasing May be locally extinct in parts of Africa
Cod OF, CC Increasing Stocks likely to disappear
Polar bear CC, PU, ID Decreasing 50% of the total population
Forest ecosystem HD, CC Increasing 232 hectare would be lost and about 80 Gt of cumulative CO2 would be
emitted
Coral ecosystem CC, PU, ID, PC Decreasing 60% of the world’s coral reef will be lost by 2030
Freshwater CC, PU, ID, WE Decreasing Only 47 of the world’s large rivers would remain
ecosystem
HD: Habitat destruction, PC: Poaching, ID: Infra development, OF: Overfishing, CC: Climate change, PU: Pollution, WE: Water extraction
Source: As cited in WWF (2015)
challenge of reducing species loss. Projections of extinctions as measures had not been taken, then the rate of extinction
given by Pimm and Raven (2000) for tropical forests suggest would have been at least 20% higher than it is at present.
that at current rates of habitat destruction, extinctions will
hit a peak value of 50,000 extinctions per million species per 4.3.2 Status of Forest, Marine, and Wetland Ecosystems
decade by 2050. But following this, the rate of extinction 4.3.2.1 Forests: conversion to agriculture and pasturelands
will decline. These staggering numbers should not stymie
One of the major causal reasons for biodiversity loss is the
the efforts to reduce biodiversity loss. Hoffman, Knox,
conversion and alteration of habitats for other land uses.
Larsen, et al. (2012) argue that if the current conservation
Forests, grasslands, and savannah face numerous threats loss between 2000 and 2005. Lambin and Meyfroidt (2011)
particularly due to widespread agriculture and infrastructure suggest that much of the forest conversion during 2000−05
development (White, Murray, and Rohweder 2000). was likely due to expansion of agriculture in the tropics,
Deforestation, in particular, lies at the heart of biodiversity given increasing and often competing demands for food and
loss. The rate of annual net forest loss increased significantly energy. In the Brazilian Legal Amazon, pasture expansion
from 2.7 million ha between 1990 and 2000 to 6.3 million has been the dominant cause of deforestation (Lambin and
ha between 2000 and 2005 (FAO and JRC 2012). Meyfroidt 2011). The increase in demand for low carbon
Globally, decrease in deforestation is not uniform, fuels such as biofuels may also have had undesirable results as
with some countries continuing to lose or degrade forests land from forests were converted to grow biofuel crops, such
at an alarming rate. Overall, there was a net decrease in as oil palm or soya or sugarcane (UNEP 2012). In Southeast
global forest area of 1.7% between 1990 and 2005, at an Asia, the area under oil palm increased from 4.2 million ha
annual rate of change of 0.11%. However, the rate of annual to 7.1 million ha between 2000 and 2009, largely at the
net forest loss increased significantly from 2.7 million ha expense of tropical forests. Projections of the extent of land
between 1990 and 2000 to 6.3 million ha between 2000 and use change from forests to croplands and pastoral systems
2005 (FAO and JRC 2012). Regions particularly susceptible by 2050 (Figure 4.11) indicate that most of the conversion
to forest conversion were South America and Africa, and of forestlands for crops and livestock has already occurred
these two continents showed a net increase in annual forest in Latin America while the trend is declining in Asia (FAO
Figure 4.11 Predicted land-use system changes (2000−30): Remote forest and populated areas with
forest converted into rainfed cropland systems and pastoral systems
Source: FAO (2013)
2013). In Sub-Saharan Africa, this trend is expected to and Eurasia also had high rates of loss, although the highest
continue. These projections also indicate that while the rate rate of tropical forest loss occurred in the dry forests of South
at which forests are being replaced by pastures will decline America. Brazil made the maximum advancement in reducing
from 2020 to 2050, the expansion of rainfed croplands will annual forest loss from 40,000 km 2/year in 2003−04 to
continue. less than 20,000 km2/year in 2010−11. Indonesia, however,
Regions particularly susceptible to forest conversion had the highest increase in forest loss (1021 km2/year), an
were South America and Africa. Hansen, Potapov, Moore, increase from less than 10,000 km 2/year in 2000−03 to
et al. (2013), while quantifying global forest change, found
more than 20,000 km2/year in 2011−12 (Hansen, Potapov,
that the tropics were the only climate domain that exhibited
Moore, et al. 2013).
a statistically significant increase in annual forest loss, with
2101 km 2/year (Figure 4.12). The most susceptible were Recent expansion in the demand for chocolate has
tropical rainforests; they accounted for 32% of the global greatly expanded production of cacao in South America, and
forest cover loss, almost half of this occurring in the South Peru is now amongst the top ten cacao-producing countries
American rainforests. The dense tropical dry forests of Africa (Harris, Payne, and Mann 2015) (Figure 4.13) leading to
A C
Tree cover Forest gain

>80% >80%
0% 0%
B D
Tree Forest
Forest loss cover Loss + Gain
>80% >80%
0% 0%
Figure 4.12 Tree cover, forest loss, and forest gain

Note: A: Tree cover, B: forest loss, and C: forest gain. A colour composite of tree cover in green, forest loss in red, forest gain in blue and forest loss and
gain in magenta is shown in (D) with loss and gain enhanced for improved visualization.
Source: Hansen, Potapov, Moore, et al. (2013)
Production (tonnes)
1,600,000
1,400,000
1,200,000
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
0
Cameroon
Dominican
Brazil
Ghana
Indonesien
Nigeria
Mexico
Cote d’lvoire
Ecuador
Peru
Republic
Countries
Figure 4.13 Countries dominating cacao production in 2013

Source: Harris, Payne, and Mann (2015)
diversion of biodiverse Amazonian rainforests and doubling Walpole, Collen, et al. 2010; Waycott, Duarte, Carruthers,
the carbon footprint of chocolate. et al. 2009).
Overfishing has emerged as a major threat in
4.3.2.2 Aquatic and marine resources and ecosystems
maintaining ocean stocks. Globally, over half a billion
Marine and aquatic ecosystems are also facing numerous people depend directly or indirectly on fisheries for food and
challenges as large swathes of aquatic and marine habitats livelihood (FAO 2010). Since the 1970s and 1980s, exploitation
have been degraded. Approximately, 20% of mangrove of wild fish stocks has increased exponentially owing to new
cover was lost between 1980 (18,794,000 ha) and 2005 fishing technologies and considerable investments in the
(15,231,000 ha), equal to nearly 3.6 million ha. This was fishing sector (Delgado, Narrod, and Tiongco 2003). Over
mainly due to conversion of mangrove areas to aquaculture, the years, the sector’s revenue increased due to population
agriculture, infrastructure and tourism, a result of increasing growth, high income and urbanization, resulting in doubling
high human population pressure in the coastal areas (FAO of the world’s per capita fish consumption. Globally, fish
2007). The maximum destruction of mangroves during supply has increased at an average annual rate of 3.2% (FAO
this period took place in Asia, followed by North America 2014). In a span of just 5 years, fish production increased
and Central America. At present, a decreasing trend is from 140 million tonnes in 2007 to 158 million tonnes in
observed in all the regions (Figure 4.14). Similarly, the loss 2012 (Figure 4.15) with the largest increase occurring in
of 20% of seagrasses has occurred since 1970 (Butchart, China and the largest decrease in Peru (Figure 4.16). Per
Area (million hectares)

20
15
10
0
Africa Asia North and Central Oceania South World
America America
Countries
1980 1990 2000 2005
Figure 4.14 Estimated change in extent of mangrove cover by region and worldwide from 1980 to 2005
Production (million tonnes)

160
155
150
145
140
135
130
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Years
Figure 4.15 Global fish production from (2007−12)

Source: FAO (2014)
Figure 4.16 Major marine fishery producing countries

Source: FAO (2014)
capita fish consumption rose from 17.6 kg to 19.2 kg in the The FAO (2014) report on the state of the world’s
same period (Figure 4.17). Fuelling this growth was the rise fisheries indicates that the proportion of assessed stocks
in the consumption levels. fished within or at biologically sustainable limits has declined
An analysis of 23 species and genera for which catches from 90% to 71.2% between 1974 and 2011 (Figure 4.18).
exceeded an average of half a million tonnes in 2011 and 2012 As much as 28.8% of fish stocks have been overfished, while
indicates that there was a drop in the numbers for almost 12 as much as 61.3% have been fully exploited. Only 9.9% of
species. A significant drop of almost 43% was observed in fish stocks are being fished below sustainable levels. In the
Peruvian Anchoveta (Engraulis ringens) from 2011 to 2012 past 30 years, poor fisheries management has cost around
(FAO 2014). In the 1970s, the Peruvian coastal anchovy US$50 billion annually and US$2 trillion in the form of lost
fisheries had experienced a crash because of overfishing and economic potential (World Bank 2015).
this had impacted the country’s economy (Hudson 1992). The marine LPI suggests that from 1970 onwards marine
Apart from anchovy fisheries, the Californian pilchard populations have declined by 39%. Apart from overfishing,
(Sardinops caeruleus) witnessed a 43% drop and for Chilean marine resources are a victim of multiple threats, including
jack mackerel (Trachurus murphyi) a 29.5% drop in catch coastal development, pollution, acidification, and climate
was observed (FAO 2014). change. Coral reefs, impacted by climate change and ocean
30
25
20
17.9 18.1 18.5 18.7 19.2

15 17.6
10
5
6.7 6.8 6.8 6.9 7 7.1
0
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Years
Population (billion) Per capita fish supply (kg)
Figure 4.17 Global per capita fish supply compared with the growing human population
Source: FAO (2014)
Figure 4.18 Decline in fish stocks fished within biologically sustainable limits between 1974 and 2011
Source: FAO (2014)
acidification, have seen a 38% global decline since 1980 that there is much scope for improvement (Figure 4.19).
(Butchart, Walpole, Collen, et al. 2010). The Ocean Health Moreover, index scores for countries vary widely from a low
Index,3 which measures the overall condition of marine of 41 to a high of 94 (Ocean Health Index 2015).
ecosystems within exclusive economic zones (EEZ) using 10 Figure 4.19 compares the goal scores and overall
public goals, has a value of 67 out of a possible 100 indicating average score (year-to-year) for 220 ocean regions. The
Figure 4.19 Goal score comparison (2012−14)

Source: Ocean Health Index (2015)
3
Ten public goals are used in this estimate, namely, (i) artisanal fishing opportunities, (ii) biodiversity, (iii) coastal protection, (iv) carbon storage,
(v) clean waters, (vi) food provision, (vii) coastal livelihoods and economies, (viii) natural products, (ix) sense of place, and (x) tourism and
recreation.
fastest decline in populations, however, is being witnessed (MDGs) and more recently the SDGs (UNDESA and UN
in freshwater ecosystems—rivers, lakes, and wetlands— 2015). Initiatives have been undertaken by global, national,
due to land use change, eutrophication, hydrological and local stakeholders to ensure responsible management
disturbance, climate change, overexploitation, and invasive of biodiversity. National biodiversity conservation strategies
species (Jansen, Weijters, Westerbeek, et al. 2015). These often focus on protected areas. Protected areas now cover
trends are projected to continue, at even higher rates than more than 15.4% of the land area (UNEP-WCMC 2014).
in terrestrial and marine habitats (Loh and Wackernagel These strategies are supported by additional initiatives
2012). Wetlands are frequently drained for other land uses. such as the Global Invasive Species Programme (GISP),
According to one estimate, over 60% of wetland area has The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB)
been converted worldwide since 1900 (Davidson 2014).
initiative, the creation of the Critical Ecosystem Partnership
Dams impact freshwater resources by blocking migration
Fund (CEPF) to manage key hot spots, and actions taken
routes and impeding flows. It is believed that 70% of
by local governments, NGOs, and local communities. The
the world’s rivers have been impacted by dams (Lehner,
following sections provide the key management and response
Liermann, Revenga, et al. 2011). A global model for
aquatic biodiversity, GLOBIO-aquatic, has been recently options undertaken to prevent biodiversity loss along with
used to assess the impact of human modification on the an appraisal of their progress and success in achieving their
world’s freshwater resources, including land-use change goals. In a later section, the CBD is discussed in detail.
(including eutrophication), hydrological disturbance, and
climate change. To determine the impact on biodiversity 4.5 Key global conventions that
with reference to the original state of ecosystems, the Mean protect biodiversity and ecosystem
Species Abundance (MSA) of originally occurring species services
(Alkemade, Van Oorschot, Miles, et al. 2009) has been Apart from the CBD, various other key agreements focus on
used. The results suggest that there is a significant negative the important components of biodiversity such as wetlands,
relation between biodiversity intactness and these stressors endangered species, and migratory species. Figure 4.20
in all types of freshwater ecosystems. In heavily managed provides a chronological sequence of some of the key
catchments, standing waterbodies lost about 80% of their conventions.
biodiversity intactness and running waters about 70%. Severe
hydrological disturbance has resulted in losses of about 4.5.1 Reduction in the International Trade in
80% in running waters and more than 50% in floodplain Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
wetlands (Jansen, Weijters, Westerbeek, et al. 2015).
Convention on the International Trade in Endangered
4.4 Management and response options Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) is the main
for biodiversity with an appraisal international treaty that ensures international trade in wild
of progress animals and plants does not threaten their survival. Under
CITES, about 30,000 species of plants and 5600 species
Human beings have always depended on biodiversity of animals are protected from overexploitation through
and ecosystems for their survival. But global competition international trade. In 2013, almost 1 million national and
for development and resources has led to unsustainable international trade transactions were recorded by CITES
exploitation of biodiversity. To mitigate the loss of which is almost twice the transactions recorded in 2001
biodiversity and manage its impact, regulations and (Figure 4.21). Consequently, progress is being made in
management measures have been formulated to ensure recording the number of transactions and in reducing the
human welfare and sustainable development. The need threat to wildlife due to international trade (CITES 2015).
for global action to reduce biodiversity loss led to the But e-commerce is emerging as a new threat to CITES
enforcement of the CBD at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. listed species and making it difficult to track and quantify.
The objective of the CBD is the protection and sustainable For example, when international transactions in CITES-
use of biodiversity, and to translate the principles of Agenda listed cacti were tracked over Internet auction sites and
21 into reality. cross-checked with CITES listed trade data, there were
Several measures have been taken over the years both significant discrepancies between what was observed and
for sustainable use of biodiversity, in particular, and for the what was reported (Table 4.2) and only 10% of the traded
promotion of sustainable development, in general, such as plants were found to be potentially legal (Sajeva, Augugliaro,
the United Nations 2015 Millennium Development Goals Smith, et al. 2013).
1952 1972 1975 1975 1979 1993 2001
Figure 4.20 Timeline of various conventions
Table 4.2 Sales of cacti listed on CITES Appendix I on an Internet auction site and permits issued by CITES parties in 2010
Cacti auction site sales CITES trade reported*
Number of live plants 1000 3973
Number of live plants for which CITES permits matched a trade database 107(10.7%)
Number of species 54 29
Number of exporting countries 11 8
Number of importing countries 44 11
*On the basis of export permits issued by national CITES authorities.
Source: Sajeva, Augugliaro, Smith, et al. (2012)
Number of trade
transactions
1,200,000
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Years
Figure 4.21 The number of transactions recorded by CITES from 2001 to 2013
Source: CITES (2015)
4.5.2 Protection of Heritage Sites It is often difficult to measure the success of these

As of 2014, 191 states were signatories to the World Heritage conventions in achieving their goals and targets because
Convention (WHC) that seeks to conserve areas of natural there are few indicators to track their progress. Moreover,
significance. The mission of the WHC is to identify and the impacts of these conventions at policy level depend
conserve the world’s cultural and natural heritage by drawing on the will of the parties to the convention (Millenium
up a list of sites. Till now over 197 properties, across the Ecosystem Assessment 2005) and developing synergies
world, have been declared as world natural heritage sites and between the conventions (such as between the CBD and the
the region-wise share of the areas is given in Figure 4.23. Kyoto Protocol), which can help enhance their individual
The WHC regularly monitors the conservation status of effectiveness. For example, the Kyoto Protocol can increase
the existing heritage. Based on these reports the committee biodiversity by suggesting multi-species plantation of
provides its views, recommendations, and necessary course native trees that sequester carbon (Millenium Ecosystem
of action. In 2015, over 50 properties were evaluated. The Assessment 2005). Links to important legal institutions
number of properties examined between 1999 and 2015 has such as the World Trade Organization which may impact
remained constant although maximum sites were examined biodiversity also need to be strengthened (Millenium
in 2001 (60) and the least in 2002 (38) (Figure 4.22) Ecosystem Assessment 2005). While efforts to gauge the
(UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2015). Europe followed effectiveness of these global agreements to protect nature
by Asia and the Pacific have the highest number of heritage may be difficult to quantify, undoubtedly these conventions
sites examined over the years (Figure 4.23). have helped mitigate biodiversity loss. Threats still prevail
Other than these, details of four important conventions nonetheless. Strong management initiatives need to be
targeted at biodiversity conservation are provided in ensured, and awareness of biodiversity needs to be generated
Table 4.3.
Sites
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
01
11
13
02
03
12
00
10
08
06
9
09
04
14
05
15
07
9
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
19
20
20
20
20
Years
Figure 4.22 Year-wise share of natural heritage areas
23%
30% Europe
3%
Latin America and Caribbean
Asia and the Pacific
28% 16% Arab States
Africa
Figure 4.23 Number of natural heritage properties examined over the years (last updated July 2015)
Table 4.3 Important conventions

Name of convention Date the Key objectives of the convention Status/progress/recent activities
convention came
in force
International Plant 3 April 1952 Protects world plant resources, including cultivated • Setting of International Standards for
Protection Convention and wild plants by preventing the introduction and Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs).
(IPPC) spread of plant pests and promoting appropriate • Regular conduct of workshops on
measures for their control. phytosanitary standards and capacity
building of stakeholders.
Ramsar 2 February 1975 Aspects of wetland conservation, recognizing • As of April 2015, there are over 2100
wetlands as ecosystems that are extremely designated Ramsar Sites covering more
important for biodiversity conservation in general than 208 million hectares.
and for the well-being of human communities. • Progress on developing the fourth
Ramsar Strategic Plan 2016−24.
Convention on the 23 June 1979 Conserve terrestrial, marine, and avian migratory • Designing action plans for the
Conservation of species throughout their range. Till now around conservation of several faunal species.
Migratory Species of 541 species of wild animals are protected under • Formulation of strategic plan for
Wild Animals (CMS) the convention. migratory species (2015−23).
The International 3 November 2001 Conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic • Publication of statistics on germplasm
Treaty on Plant resources for food and agriculture and the fair and flows in multilateral systems.
Genetic Resources for equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of their
Food and Agriculture use, in harmony with the CBD, for sustainable
(ITPGRFA) agriculture and food security.
Sources: The Ramsar Convention (2014); UNEP/CMS Secretariat (2014); FAO, The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food
and Agriculture (2015)
at global, regional, and local levels among the diverse of protected areas was recognized by national governments
stakeholders. To achieve this, UNEP (2015) has provided in Article 8 of the CBD and through the Programme of
guidelines or national focal points where cooperation Work on Protected Areas (PoWPA) (CBD 2004). The
between various countries or stakeholders could be improved IUCN definition is broader, namely, “a protected area is
to strengthen the process of biodiversity conservation. Along a clearly defined geographical space, recognised, dedicated
with these, mainstreaming of biodiversity should be carried and managed, through legal or other effective means, to
out into the key production sectors to ensure conservation achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated
of biodiversity and sustainable development. ecosystem services and cultural values” (IUCN 2008).
These protected areas are at local and regional levels, such
4.6 O t h e r g l o b a l , r e gi o n a l , a n d as national parks, sanctuaries, community conserved areas,
local initiatives and various reserves.4 Protected areas have traditionally
been an important strategy to conserve biodiversity, protect
Apart from the international conventions that represent areas of cultural importance, and promote ecosystem-based
global commitments to halt biodiversity loss, several other management.
initiatives have been implemented. These measures have The number of protected areas has grown exponentially
been developed at global, regional, and local levels by over the years; more than doubling between 2003 and 2014
private, governmental, and non-governmental stakeholders. (figure 4.24). Today, 15.4% of the world’s terrestrial and
Some of the core global strategies and activities that have inland water areas, 5.4% of all marine areas within national
had significant impacts are discussed below. jurisdiction, and 10.9% of all coastal waters, come under
4.6.1 Protected Areas protected areas. Only 0.25% of the marine areas beyond
national jurisdiction fall within protected areas (figure 4.25)
A protected area is defined as “a geographical area which (UNEP-WCMC 2014). Although the pace of creating
is designated or regulated and managed to achieve specific marine protected areas has accelerated in recent years, it
conservation objectives” (Article 2, CBD). The importance continues to lag behind terrestrial and inland water areas
4
The UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserves were not included in the calculation, as many of their buffer areas do not meet the IUCN protected
area definition.
Figure 4.24 Progress in the creation of protected areas between 1962 and 2014
Source: UNEP-WCMC (2014)
Figure 4.25 Region-wise percentage of marine areas (0−200 nautical miles) covered by protected areas
ATA − Antarctic Treaty Area
Note: The target represents the Aichi global target for protected areas (10% coverage).
(Figure 4.25). Central and South America have the most just expanding protected areas will not be enough to achieve
protected areas (Figure 4.26). Target 115 or to halt the loss of habitats and species within
Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 can be achieved only when and outside the protected areas (UNEP-WCMC 2014).
almost 2% of terrestrial and inland water areas and 2% of The protected areas must effectively ensure conservation
marine areas are designated as protected areas. However, of biodiversity. More studies are required to gauge whether
5
Aichi Biodiversity Target 11: By 2020, at least 17% of terrestrial and inland water areas, and 10% of coastal and marine areas, especially areas of
particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services, are conserved through effectively and equitably managed, ecologically representative
and well-connected systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, and integrated into the wider landscapes and
seascapes.
Figure 4.26 Region-wise percentage of terrestrial areas covered by protected areas

ATA − Antarctic Treaty Area
the protected areas achieve this objective since evidence of above-mentioned studies, however, conclude that protected
this is currently mixed. Furthermore, many protected areas areas do have positive impacts on conservation but evidence
are beset by human−animal conflicts, deprivation of local on this is still weak, and there is no clear understanding of
livelihoods, and lack of involvement of local communities in the factors that promote success or failure.
their management, resulting in the creation of mere ‘‘paper Assessments by Millenium Ecosystem Assessment
parks’’. (2005) have shown that at the global and regional scale,
Studies on the effectiveness of protected areas indicate the current number of protected areas is insufficient in
that almost 40% of the areas show some deficiency in conserving the full range of biodiversity. Protected areas,
management while almost 14% display deficiencies across however, need to be made more directly relevant in the era
several management effectiveness indicators (Leverington‚ of climate change. They must meet society’s expectations
Costa‚ Courrau, et al. 2010). Geldmann, Barnes, Coad, et al. which include sustainable livelihoods, provision of ecosystem
(2013) carried out one of the most comprehensive reviews to services, and ensuring climate mitigation, resilience and
date of the effectiveness of protected areas for two conservation adaptation (Ervin 2011). The protected areas need to be better
outcomes: habitat cover and species populations. They found located, designed, and managed so that they can deal with
that most studies on the effectiveness of protected areas rarely several associated problems such as lack of representativeness,
evaluate the causal connections between management inputs impacts of human settlement within protected areas, and so
and conservation outcomes. While their review indicates on. According to Butchart, Walpole, Collen, et al. (2010),
that protected areas have conserved forest habitat, evidence more than half of the sites that support highly threatened
was inconclusive on the effectiveness of protected areas in species lie outside the protected area network as do almost
maintaining species populations. This is contrary to the half of the important bird areas. Moreover, much of the
recent LPI report (WWF 2014) which found that although recent growth in protected areas is attributable to coverage
populations in protected areas showed an 18% decline of low-productivity lands (Ervin 2011). Despite the
since the 1970s, they appeared to be doing better than existence of trade-offs between biodiversity conservation,
terrestrial populations as a whole. Terrestrial populations the original mandate of creating protected areas, and the
correspondingly declined by 39%. This improved status management for climate change, protected areas provide
of populations in protected areas may of course be due to overwhelming societal, economic, and ecological benefits
reasons other than protection. For example, improved status that make them a natural and cost-effective investment in
may be due to targeted conservation intervention. All the mitigating climate change. Hence, the role of protected areas
in ensuring conservation as well as carbon-resilience must be of community conservation. However, national recognition
emphasized given that they already store about 15% of the of the tenure and customary rights of community-conserved
global terrestrial carbon stocks (Campbell, Kapos, Lysenko, areas is inconsistent across the world (Kothari, Menon,
et al. 2008). and O’Reilly 2010); much more must be done globally to
provide legal and tenure security to local communities in
4.6.2 Cultural, Spiritual, and Indigenous Management the ownership and management of their resource base.
of Natural Resources
Traditional communities have for centuries managed their Box 4.1 The case of a community conserved area in the
forests and biodiversity through traditional practices, many Sukhai village of Nagaland
of which have cultural or spiritual dimensions such as sacred Nagaland, the north-eastern Indian state, has about 410
groves and other sacred natural sites. These community community conserved areas according to a TERI study
management initiatives frequently support traditional (2015). Traditionally, the tribes of Nagaland have had an
knowledge of local resources and their uses, provide intimate relationship with nature, based on a foundation of
important ecosystem services, and encompass wise-use the interconnectedness of God, people, and nature. Despite
fragmentation of traditional, cultural, and spiritual wise-use
practices that strengthen their adaptive capacity in the face
practices over the years, community conservation is witnessing
of emerging threats such as climate change. Sacred groves, a revival in Nagaland as tribes come together to protect their
for example, help to protect native varieties of plants, and natural resources. A prime example is Sukhai village of the
are reservoirs of medicinal plants. Sema tribe which has formed a community conserved area,
Indigenous and community conserved areas (ICCAs) the Kastuqa forest, out of lands that were traditionally under
are increasingly being recognized as important ways to shifting cultivation.
protect and regenerate a range of values and are defined as, The Sema people’s agricultural calendar was once attuned
“natural and/or modified ecosystems containing significant to nature, guided by the movement of the stars or of birds
biodiversity values and ecological services, voluntarily and their migration patterns, breeding seasons, and songs.
conserved by (sedentary and mobile) indigenous and local For example, the sowing of paddy was initiated only when
communities, through customary laws or other effective the constellation of Orion (Phogwosiilesipfemi) is at its zenith
or after the Kasupapo, a species of cuckoo was heard calling
means” (World Parks Congress Recommendation V26
(Hutton 1921a). Various taboos and practices encouraged wise-
2003). Indeed, many protected areas are being managed
use of plants and animals that helped them maintain viable
by indigenous and local communities. Nearly half of populations. The underlying principle of sustainable utilization
Australia’s natural reserve area is managed by indigenous appeared to embody interactions between people and nature in
communities (42 areas in 2011) while Guyana created its the past. Killing was not taken lightly. In recent years, traditional
first Amerindian-owned protected area in 2006, which is hunting and fishing patterns using traps and snares have given
the largest in the country covering more than 1 million way to the use of guns, electric currents, and dynamite. With
acres of rainforest and including about 3% of Guyana’s time the local biodiversity has dwindled. It is increasingly
geographical area. This protected area is managed by the difficult for the villagers to land a catch, especially big fish from
Wai-Wai people in South Guyana who have volunteered Tizü River which once flourished in aquatic biodiversity. The
to protect this area from various threats including mining, current state of aquatic wildlife in Sukhai village is attributable
logging, and wildlife trade. The Wai-Wai community to the adoption of unsustainable hunting practices such as use of
explosives, chemicals, and electric currents for fishing. The local
protects key habitats which are home to several important
people now recognize how precarious the situation is for both
species such as the cock-of-the-rock (Rupicola rupicola), the fish and for wildlife populations. Moreover, areas for conserving
jaguar (Panthera onca), the harpy eagle (Harpia harpyja), the wildlife are now easier to set aside as the village requires less
blue poison frog (Dendrobates tinctorius), and the emerald jhum (shifting cultivation) land than before. In addition, the
tree boa (Corallus caninus). According to Deguignet, Juffe- local people want this area to become an important centre of
Bignoli, Harrison, et al. (2014), governance of protected ecotourism and hope that this community conserved area will
areas by indigenous people and local communities is most in the long run help generate local livelihoods from ecotourism
widely reported in South America and Oceania, and to a including bird and wildlife watching.
lesser extent in Central America. Source: TERI (2015)
Although few recent and precise figures are available,
according to one estimate, about 11% of the world’s forests
4.6.3 Reduced Deforestation, Conservation Agriculture,
are under community ownership or administration (Molnar,
and Sustainable Forest Management
Scherr, and Khare 2004). Box 4.1 provides an example of
a recently created community-conserved area in the north- The large-scale conversion of some of the world’s most
eastern Indian state of Nagaland which is witnessing a revival biodiverse tropical forests, which is the primary cause
of biodiversity loss, may be reduced by putting in place 4.6.4 Management of Invasive Species

appropriate systems and policies that support conservation The Global Invasive Species Programme (GISP) was
agriculture. There is a need to reduce deforestation while founded in 1997 as a small, mainly voluntary partnership
continuing to meet the needs of burgeoning populations.
programme, by three international organizations, IUCN,
DeFries and Rosenzweig (2010), for example, provide
CAB International (CABI), and the Scientific Committee
statistics to support the thesis that deforestation-linked
enhanced agricultural expansion actually contributes very on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE), to facilitate and
little to food production at a global scale. They argue that coordinate the implementation of the Global Strategy on
synergies between reduced forest diversion and enhanced Invasive Alien Species (McNeely, Mooney, Neville, et al.
agricultural production are possible through agricultural 2001). The mission of the GISP is to conserve biodiversity
intensification including the use of already cleared or and sustain human livelihoods by minimizing the spread
marginal lands, enhanced livestock, crop management, and impact of invasive alien species (Diversitas 2011). The
and incorporation of agroforestry. In the case of cacao Global Invasive Species Database (GISD) developed by
cultivation, deforestation can be avoided by planting trees on GISP is managed by the Invasive Species Specialist Group
degraded land or intensifying plantation on existing cacao (ISSG) of the Species Survival Commission (SSC) of IUCN
lands (Harris, Payne, and Mann 2015). Eco-agriculture to reduce threats to natural ecosystems and their native
holds much promise in meeting the food needs of a growing species by increasing awareness of invasive alien species, and
planet sustainably by linking biodiversity with agriculture
of ways to prevent, control, or eradicate them. Till now the
and rural development. For example, application of an
group has identified thousands of species and helped spread
ecological approach to agriculture with community support
has benefitted more than 2 million small and marginal awareness about invasive species (ISSG 2008).
farmers in Andhra Pradesh and Bihar (Prasad, Killi, Raidu, Despite these efforts, invasive species continue to be a
et al. 2015). In Andhra Pradesh, as much as 35% of farmers’ huge global problem. In the US alone it is estimated that
total cultivation expenditure used to be spent on chemical 42% of the species are either threatened or at risk because of
fertilizers and pesticides (Kumar, Raidu, Killi, et al. 2009). invasive species and more than US$1 billion in the US and
To avoid this, an approach which combined chemical-free US$ 1.5 trillion globally are lost annually due to invasive
agriculture with the use of ecologically friendly methods species (Fitzpatrick 2010).
was applied that helped reduce the need for credit through
decreased cultivation costs. 4.6.5 Tracking the Conservation Status of the World’s
Certification of forests is an important indicator of Species
natural or semi-natural forests that are responsibly managed
The IUCN Global Species Programme working with
for the production of timber and non-timber forest products,
the IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC) has been
and forest plantations. The area under certified forest has
assessing the conservation status of species, subspecies,
increased from 3.24 million ha in 1995 to 180.44 million ha
varieties, and even selected subpopulations on a global scale
in 2013. After a first peak in 1999 of more than 50%, the
share of boreal forest area dropped to 30% in 2003, but since in order to highlight taxa threatened with extinction, and,
then it has increased and stabilized at the 50% level. The share thereby, promote their conservation. Till now 76,000 species
of (sub) tropical forest area has been rather stable since 2003, have been assessed while a target is set to assess 160,000
fluctuating between 11% and 15%. Nearly two-thirds of the species by 2020 (IUCN 2015). The sheer importance of this
certified forest area is within natural forests (65%), more exercise is evident from the very large number of studies and
than a quarter (28%) in semi-natural and mixed (plantation estimations of biodiversity loss derived from the IUCN’s
and natural) forests, and less than a tenth in plantations Red List data, and because the number of threatened and
(8%) (Biodiversity Indicators Partnership 2015). The area endangered species provides the most readily understood
of Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and Programme for indicator of biodiversity loss.
the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) certified
forests has increased from 53 million ha in 2000 to 407 4.6.6 Prioritization of Areas Rich in Biodiversity
million ha in 2012. Figure 4.27 gives the total area under Initiatives such as WWF’s 200 Eco regions6 (Olson and
certification in boreal, temperate, and tropical regions. Dinerstein 1997), Endemic Bird Areas7 (Stattersfield,
6
The most biologically distinct terrestrial, freshwater, and marine ecoregions of the planet which include those with exceptional levels of biodiversity,
such as high species richness or endemism, or those with unusual ecological or evolutionary phenomena.
7 An area which encompasses the overlapping breeding ranges of restricted-range bird species, such that the complete range of two or more restricted-
range species are entirely included within the boundary.
Area (million
hectares)
500 Boreal Temperate Tropical
PEFC PEFC PEFC
400 FSC FSC FSC
300
200
100
0
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
Years
Figure 4.27 Total area of forestry under FSC and PEFC certification in boreal, temperate, and tropical regions
Source: FSC (2013), PEFC (2013) as cited in Biodiversity Indicators Partnership (2015)
Crosby, Long, et al. 1998), Important Bird Areas (IBAs)8 suggest that protecting biodiversity hot spots and other such
(BirdLife International 2015), and the Alliance for Zero prioritized areas may help to maximize benefit accrual.
Extinction (AZE)9 (Ricketts, Dinerstein, Boucher, et al. Another positive spin-off of the hot spot concept is
2005) aim at prioritization and conservation of the world’s that it helped to harness and target funding such as the
most biodiversity rich areas. One of the earliest initiatives US$235 million Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund and
was identifying biodiversity hot spots that are biogeographic the US$100 million Global Conservation Fund (GCF). The
regions with significant reservoirs of endemic biodiversity latter additionally targets high biodiversity wilderness areas.
which are under threat from human population (Myers Myers, Mittermeier, Mittermeier, et al. (2000) estimate that
1990). A total of 35 biodiversity hot spots have been the concept led to provision of more than US$1 billion
identified at present. These biodiversity hot spots harbour to these regions, thus focusing resources on areas where
a variety of endemic flora and fauna but face constant threat protection will ensure maximal impact for biodiversity
and disturbance from anthropogenic activities (Mittermeier, conservation.
Mittermeier, Brooks, et al. 2003; Myers, Mittermeier, Butchart, Walpole, Collen, et al. (2012) showed that
Mittermeier, et al. 2000). species occurring in some globally prioritized sites (IBAs
But how effective have these prioritization initiatives and AZE sites) with better protected area coverage showed
been in identifying critical areas and, hence, in conserving smaller increases in extinction risks. The increase was half
biodiversity? Do these hot spots maximize both biodiversity as large for bird species with 50% of the IBAs in which
and ecosystems services or are there trade-offs in the provision they occur completely covered by protected areas, and a
of these services? A recent study in Costa Rica suggests that third lower for birds, mammals and amphibians restricted
there is dovetailing of hot spots with the provision of other to protected AZEs (compared to unprotected or partially
important ecosystem services such hydrological services protected sites). This suggests that the efficacy of these
(Locatelli, Imbach, and Wunder 2013). Similarly, Bai, prioritization exercises may be improved through protected
Zhuang, Ouyang, et al. (2011) found positive correlation and area coverage. However, while protected area coverage of
considerable overlap between the hot spots of biodiversity these important sites has increased over time, the proportion
and three ecosystem services (water yield, soil retention, and of protected area covering important sites has actually
carbon sequestration) in a watershed in China. These studies declined (by 0.45%–1.14% annually since 1950 for IBAs
8
These are sites critical for the conservation of the world’s birds.
9
AZEs hold 95% of the global population of any critically endangered or endangered species, and, hence, are locations at which species extinctions are
imminent unless appropriate measures are taken for their protection. Currently there are 587 sites for 920 species of mammals, birds, amphibians,
reptiles, conifers, and reef-building corals.
and 0.79%–1.49% annually for AZEs) (Butchart, Walpole, policies based on economic values of ecosystems might fail to
Collen, et al. 2012). protect biodiversity and food security in tropical ecosystems.
Table 4.4 provides a list of such prioritization exercises A meta-analysis of 30 studies on ecosystem service values
and their importance in halting biodiversity loss, and the in tropical forests using TEEB dataset, de Groot, Brander,
need to link these related, important initiatives to gain the van der Ploeg et al. (2012), van der Ploeg and de Groot
most “bang for the buck”. (2010), and Carrasco, Nghiem, Sunderland, et al. (2014)
show that there is lack of congruence between biodiversity
4.6.7 Use of Economic Arguments to Prevent the Loss and economic value of ecosystem services where the value
of Biodiversity of a service is influenced by its accessibility and economic
The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity is a global conditions (Figure 4.28). Consequently, many biodiverse
initiative focused on “making nature’s values visible”. TEEB habitats are unable to realize the full use of ecosystem services
aims to achieve this goal by following a structured approach due to low population density, remoteness, or poor liveable
to valuation that helps decision-makers recognize the wide conditions. Their results indicate that the provision of
range of benefits provided by ecosystems and biodiversity, ecosystem services is detached from economic value because
demonstrate their values in economic terms, and, where of the spatial mismatch between demand and supply. Hence
appropriate, suggest how to capture those values in decision- the euphoria over win–win conservation strategies that link
making and through payment for ecosystem services. Despite ecosystem services with biodiversity might be overstated. We
the projection of economics as a powerful tool for biodiversity must temper this conclusion, however, with the realization
conservation (Ring, Hansjürgens, Elmqvist, et al. 2010), that these are only economic values. The reliance for food and
Carrasco, Nghiem, Sunderland, et al. (2014) warn that livelihood security of local beneficiaries on biodiverse forests
Table 4.4 Significance of prioritized areas, consequences of their loss, and the need for dovetailing protection strategies
Priorities Biodiversity significance and anticipated losses Reference
Biodiversity The hot spots harbour more than half of all the plant species, 43% of all terrestrial vertebrates as Mittermeir, Turner,
hot spots endemics, a greater proportion of threatened species, and a substantial fraction of higher taxonomic Larsen, et al. (2011)
diversity. Recent information has revealed that this phenomenal concentration of biodiversity
into habitats covering a combined 2.3% of the world’s land area coincides with disproportionate
concentration of ecosystem services in many of the regions where local communities directly
depend on the natural environment on a daily basis.
Deforestation of these hot spots would mean the loss of nearly half of all terrestrial species as
well as large contributions to greenhouse gas emissions and extensive human suffering resulting
from loss of ecosystem services upon which the human populations of the hot spots ultimately
depend.
Zero Only 23% of the extinction sites (595 sites which harbour 794 endangered species) are covered by American Bird
extinction sites protected areas. As many as 83% of these sites are within hot spots; hence they are closely linked Conservancy (2013)
with biodiversity hot spots.
Centres of 19% of the centres of plant diversity sites have been classed as severely threatened, 32% as WWF and IUCN
plant diversity threatened, and 18% as vulnerable or at risk. These are mainly in the tropics. 1994–1997,
Switzerland.
High High biodiversity wilderness areas were designated by Mittermeier, Mittermeier, Brooks, Mittermeier,
biodiversity et al. (2003) and include major tropical wilderness areas that hold globally significant levels of Mittermeier, Brooks,
wilderness biodiversity. et al. (2003)
areas 24 wilderness areas, all >1 million hectares, are >70% intact and have human densities of
less than or equal to five people per km 2. These wilderness areas cover 44% of all land but are
inhabited by only 3% of people. Given this sparse population, wilderness conservation is cost-
effective, especially if ecosystem service values are incorporated. However, most wilderness areas
are not speciose: only 18% of plants and 10% of terrestrial vertebrates are endemic to individual
wildernesses, the majority restricted to Amazon, Congo, New Guinea, the Miombo–Mopane
woodlands, and the North American deserts. Global conservation strategies must target these five
wilderness areas while continuing to prioritize threatened biodiversity hot spots.
Frontier forests Only one-fifth of the world’s original forests remain intact of which 70% lies in boreal regions Byrant, Nielsen, and
of Canada, Russia, and Alaska. Outside boreal region, 11 countries, including Finland, Sweden, Tangley (1997)
Vietnam, Guatemala and Thailand, are on the verge of losing their frontier forests. These countries
maintain less than 5% of their original forest as frontiers, and all of it is threatened.
Figure 4.28 Total ecosystem service values by tropical forests in America, Africa, Oceania based on a meta-analysis of TEEB data
Source: Carrasco, Nghiem, Sunderland, et al. (2014)
is high. In developing tropical and subtropical countries as 4.7 The Convention on Biological
much as one-fifth of the household income is estimated to be Di v e r si t y a n d p r o g r e ss i n
derived from forest products (Angelsen, Jagger, Babigumira, implementation
et al. 2014). Moreover, as mentioned earlier, other studies The CBD, known informally as the Biodiversity
such as from Costa Rica (Locatelli, Imbach, and Wunder Convention, is one of the three ‘‘Rio Conventions’’,
2013) highlight the congruence between biodiversity and emerging from the UN Conference on Environment and
other ecosystem services and the value of biodiversity hot Development in 1992, that represents an important global
spots in providing a bundle of ecosystem services. And commitment to the protection and sustainable utilization
valuation exercises do influence policy (see Box 4.2). of biodiversity. The CBD focused on three goals including
the conservation of biodiversity along with sustainable use
Box 4.2. Wetland restoration in Rwanda is influenced by of its components, and the fair and equitable sharing of the
economic valuation studies
benefits arising from genetic resources. The convention is
In Rwanda, the economic valuation of the Rugezi wetland to be implemented at national level. It requires countries to
influenced the policymakers’ attitude towards environment. prepare a national biodiversity strategy and ensure that the
Studies indicated the importance of restoring the wetland
strategies are mainstreamed into the planning and activities
as cost was being incurred because of wetland degradation
which led to reduced water flows and decrease in electricity of all the important sectors whose activities could have an
production. People of Rwanda were spending US$65,000 per impact on biodiversity. National Biodiversity Strategies and
day on diesel generators to meet electricity demands along Action Plans (NBSAPs) are the principal instruments for
with a 167% increase in the per capita cost of electricity due to implementing the convention at the national level. Till date,
reduced water levels in the lakes and the hydropower reservoirs a total of 184 of 196 (94%) parties have developed NBSAPs
downstream from the Rugezi wetland.
as required by Article 6 of the CBD (Figure 4.29).
These studies generated the required momentum at the
highest political levels to restore the Rugezi wetland. A large-
scale programme was put in place to resettle farmers and 4.8 Progress towards achieving the
introduce various sustainable farming techniques and other Strategic Plan (2011–20) and the
income generating activities. Within four years of the valuation Aichi Targets
study, the wetland had been restored and water levels were back
to original levels. The CBD adopted the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–
Source: UNDP-UNEP PEI (2010) as cited in IIED WCMC 2020 (CBD 2010c), including the Aichi Biodiversity Targets
(2015) (CBD 2010a), in October 2010 in Nagoya, Japan, following
Signing parties
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Parties NBSAP submitted
Figure 4.29 Status of National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans

Note: The area in red indicates the number of countries that are still to submit their NBSAPs
Source: SCBD (2015)
many regional consultations, expert workshops, and high-level The strategic plan endorsed important goals with specific
events organized in collaboration with numerous partners. targets and their target elements. It is envisaged that the plan
The plan contains five strategic goals and establishes targets would be implemented primarily through activities at the
for achieving the vision of “a world living in harmony with national or sub-national level, with supporting action at the
nature and where, by 2050, biodiversity is valued, conserved, regional and global levels. The strategic goals along with the
restored and wisely used, maintaining ecosystem services, targets and target elements are given in Annexe 4.1.
sustaining a healthy planet and delivering benefits essential An assessment was made by the CBD in the Global
for all people” (CBD 2010c Decision X/2). The Strategic Biodiversity Outlook (GBO-4) of the progress towards these
Plan and Aichi Targets signify a renewed attempt to halt goals (SCBD 2014) based on the Fifth National Reports
the rate of biodiversity loss, given that the attempts by the submitted by parties to the convention. The results are
parties to the CBD in 2002 to bring down biodiversity loss detailed in Figure 4.30.
by 2010 failed to have their intended impact (Butchart, This assessment indicates that almost 60% of the
Walpole, Collen, et al. 2010; SCBD 2010). target elements display progress towards the target but at
Figure 4.30 Overall progress towards achieving the Aichi 56 target elements based on national level reporting (64 reports)
Source: SCBD (2014)
an insufficient rate. Therefore, achieving these targets by In addition to assessing progress through national level
2020 appears to be unachievable at present. As many as reporting by parties to the convention, extrapolations of
18% of the target elements show no progress or are moving current trends towards the five goals of the strategic plan
away from the target (9%). Maximum progress has been according to a set of indicators have been carried out (for
made on Targets 11, 16 and 17, relating to protected areas, example, SCBD 2014, Leadley, Krug, Alkemade, et al.
the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-sharing, and 2014, Titensor, Walpole, Hill, et al. 2014). According to
national biodiversity strategies, and action plans. Least the GBO-4 (SCBD 2014), graphs showing extrapolation
progress, however, appears to have been made on Targets of trends in indicators (55) to 2020 (Figure 4.31) indicate
3 and 10, relating to reform of incentives and pressures that pressures on biodiversity are increasing (6 of 7 pressure
on ecosystems vulnerable to climate change and ocean indicators), while projections of the state of biodiversity
acidification. indicate increase in deterioration (13 of 16 state indicators)
Figure 4.31 Trends in indicators from 2000 and projected to 2020 for the five strategic goals
of the strategic plan for biodiversity (2011−20)
Note: State measures (the left column) are coloured orange, pressure measures (the middle column) are coloured red, and response measures (the right column)
are coloured green. For state and response indicators, a decline over time represents an unfavourable trend (falling biodiversity, declining response) whereas for
the pressure indicators a decrease over time represents a favourable trend (reducing pressure). The dashed line represents a non-significant trend, whereas the
solid line represents a significant projected change between 2010 and 2020. These graphs suggest generally negative trends for both the state of biodiversity
and pressures upon it, despite positive trends in the responses made to conserve and sustainably use biodiversity. Where indicators were not available for
extrapolation the graphs were left blank.
Source: Reproduced from SCBD (2014)
between 2010 and 2020.10 Nevertheless, responses to halt by humanity may take a long time to translate into visible
biodiversity loss are increasing (19 of 32 response indicators) positive impacts on pressures or the state of biodiversity.
although their impact as evidenced by the pressure and state Moreover, various actions have been taken by the global
indicators is limited. community to focus attention on biodiversity, such as the
Tittensor, Walpole, Hill, et al. (2014) in their mid-term Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem
analysis of the progress similarly indicate that the responses Services (IPBES) that seeks to strengthen the science−policy
to biodiversity loss show improvement (21 of 33 or 64% of interface for biodiversity and ecosystem services along the
response indicators are projected to increase significantly lines of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
by 2020 and the rest show an increasing mean trend) (IPCC). Another initiative is Diversitas, an international
programme of biodiversity science with a mission to promote,
including 88% of indicators for protected area coverage,
facilitate, and conduct integrative biodiversity science that
representativeness and management (Target 11) and four
links biological, ecological, and social disciplines along with
indicators of sustainable management (fisheries and forest
providing the sound scientific basis for decision-making
certification, organic farming and conservation agriculture-
to secure the planet’s variety of life, while contributing to
Targets 6 and 7) and two of three indicators for research
human well-being and poverty eradication (Diversitas 2011).
and data provision (Targets 2 and 19) and 66% of indicators Mainstreaming of biodiversity concerns in production
of awareness (percentage of people who have heard of sectors and inter-sectoral plans is picking up at various levels
biodiversity, percentage correctly defining biodiversity; (see Box 4.3) including through international cooperation.
Target 1).
For financial resources, while 7 of the 9 indicators did Box 4.3 Mainstreaming of biodiversity in cocoa
show positive mean trends, none of the indicators were plantations in Ghana
significant. The same was true for national legislation Better management practices (BMPSs) are being mainstreamed
to prevent or control invasive species. The pressures on to decrease the impact of production of agricultural outputs
biodiversity and the state of biodiversity, however, show (palm oil, soya, and cocoa) on biodiversity by the Biodiversity
worsening trends by 2020 relative to 2010 or no significant and Agricultural Commodities Programme (BACP) of the
improvements. For example, 71% of pressure indicators are International Finance Corporation. BACP works in countries
set to worsen including indicators of consumption (ecological that are major producers and exporters of this produce, namely,
Brazil, Indonesia, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, Ghana, Liberia,
and water footprints, global fishing trawl effort), pollution
Cameroon, Gabon, and Côte d’Ivoire. Cocoa production is a
(nitrogen surplus), and invasive species introductions. As major economic activity and land use in the Guinean Forests
many as 65% of state indicators also show worsening trends of the West Africa biodiversity hot spot. The industry employs
such as two indicators of habitat loss (wetland extent and sea about 70% of the labour force in rural areas, and is the source
ice extent), two of three indicators of population abundance of income and livelihood for about 25% of the population,
(Farmland Bird Index, LPI), all six indicators of species contributing about 7.5% to the gross domestic product (GDP).
extinction risk, and an indicator of domesticated breeds at The BACP project is helping to mainstream biodiversity at three
risk. By and large the picture is bleak. According to Tittensor, levels: (i) the market level, (ii) the national level, and (iii) the
Walpole, Hill, et al. (2014), “on current trajectories, the local level. At the market level, it works with cocoa traders to
support the efforts of farmers to adopt sustainable agricultural
rate of loss of natural habitats (Target 5) will not be halved
practices and to enhance their knowledge of links between
by 2020, all fish stocks will not be sustainably harvested biodiversity and productivity. At the national level, it supports
(Target 6), and the 10% marine area protection (Target 11) certification to ensure the adoption of biodiversity-friendly
will not be met.” agroforestry systems. At the local level, it supports farmers to
However, the take home message is positive. There is (i) adopt best practices that protect the local ecology and connect
recognition of the scale of the crisis, and most countries have forest fragment in the landscape while simultaneously enhancing
prepared NBSAPs and (ii) countries are enhancing their agricultural productivity.
responses to this problem of biodiversity loss, so much so Source: IFC (2003)
that, “many response indicators show a positively accelerating
rate of change; that is, a rapid or exponential growth rate” 4.9 Conclusion
(Tittensor, Walpole, Hill, et al. 2014). Another positive Our review of biodiversity loss clearly indicates that species
factor as suggested by ecological theory is the possibility and ecosystem losses and declines have accelerated, and
that changes in state or benefits may not be immediately pressures on biodiversity continue to grow despite increased
visible because of time lags. This means that positive action global awareness and actions taken to mitigate them. Multi-
10
Indicators are divided into three categories: (i) pressures on biodiversity, (ii) the state of biodiversity, and (iii) responses to halt biodiversity loss.
pronged strategies are required to ensure the continued Payments for ecosystem services, while not the panacea
provision of ecosystem services for humanity, including as often thought, nevertheless offers enormous potential to
the mainstreaming of biodiversity concerns into planning prevent biodiversity loss and maintain resilient ecosystems
and implementation, and the recognition and adoption while compensating ecosystem-based communities for their
of traditional knowledge and community management of role in protecting biodiversity.
natural resources. Policies that isolate communities most The interactions between multiple causal factors and
dependent on natural resources will be counter-productive decline and extinction of species and loss of habitats linked to
in the long run. There is a need to dovetail policies and demand for products in other countries, require a rethinking
global conventions, for example, between the CBD, the of our approach to biodiversity loss. Thus, according
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate to Lenzen, Moran, Kanemoto, et al. (2012), we need to
Change (UNFCCC) and the UN Convention to Combat examine biodiversity loss as a “global systemic phenomenon,
Desertification (UNCCD) since desertification, biodiversity instead of looking at the degrading or polluting producers
loss and climate change are all interlinked and actions taken in isolation.” These results suggest that more consumer
to halt climate change, for example, has positive spin-off for awareness of the impacts of trends in demand (for example
both biodiversity and the drylands. for cacao or chocolate given their recently documented health
Funding for biodiversity conservation needs to be benefits), in conjunction with better regulation, sustainable
enhanced. The cost of attaining the Aichi Biodiversity supply-chain certification, and consumer product labelling
Targets has been estimated at between US$150 billion (Lenzen, Moran, Kanemoto, et al. 2012) will do much to
and US$440 billion per year.11 At the domestic level, most slow the demand for unsustainable products that enhance
countries report stable or moderately increasing levels of biodiversity loss in other countries.
domestic funding over recent years (SCBD 2014) which is Addressing the challenge of biodiversity loss requires
estimated at US$20 billion a year or more (Parker, Cranford,
action on so many fronts and at different levels. It needs
Oakes, et al. 2012, Waldron, Mooers, Miller, et al. 2013).
ensuring adequate financial support for biodiversity
In terms of multilateral Overseas Development Assistance
conservation and ecosystem management, changing
(ODA), GEF funding for biodiversity focal areas has
perverse economic incentives, using a combination of market
remained flat in absolute terms since GEF-3 (SCBD 2014).
However, at the GEF-6 replenishment meeting, donor and regulatory actions, involving indigenous and local
countries pledged to provide US$4.43 billion to support communities, ensuring that protected areas are not merely
developing countries over a 4-year period in preventing the expanded but that they are also more socially inclusive,
degradation of the global environment, including US$1.30 developing targeted conservation plans for threatened species
billion for biodiversity (Global Environment Facility 2014). and effectively using data to monitor progress.
One estimate suggests that to downlist each of the 1115 Without this, the CBD’s 2050 vision of, “a world where
globally threatened IUCN bird species by one threat category biodiversity is valued, conserved, restored and wisely used,
would cost between US$0.875 billion and US$1.23 billion maintaining ecosystem services, sustaining a healthy planet
over the next decade. Only about 12% of this amount is and delivering benefits essential for all people,” may indeed
currently available (SCBD 2014). remain nothing but a mirage.
Annexe 4.1 The Aichi Targets

S. No Target Target elements
1. By 2020, at the latest, people are aware of the values of • People are aware of the values of biodiversity.
biodiversity and the steps they can take to conserve and
use it sustainably.
2. By 2020, at the latest, biodiversity values have been • Biodiversity values are integrated into national and local development
integrated into national and local development and poverty and poverty reduction strategies.
reduction strategies and planning processes and are being • Biodiversity values are incorporated into national accounting, as
incorporated into national accounting, as appropriate, and appropriate.
reporting systems. • Biodiversity values are incorporated into reporting systems.
Contd...
11
High-level Panel on Global Assessment of Resources for Implementing the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–20 (2012)
Annexe 4.1 contd...

3. By 2020, at the latest, incentives, including subsidies, • Incentives, including subsidies, harmful to biodiversity, eliminated,
harmful to biodiversity are eliminated, phased out or phased out or reformed in order to minimize or avoid negative
reformed in order to minimize or avoid negative impacts, impacts.
and positive incentives for the conservation and sustainable • Positive incentives for conservation and sustainable use of
use of biodiversity are developed and applied, consistent biodiversity developed and applied.
and in harmony with the Convention and other relevant
international obligations, taking into account national
socio-economic conditions.
4. By 2020, at the latest, governments, business and stakeholders At all levels, governments, business, and stakeholders have taken steps
at all levels have taken steps to achieve or have implemented to achieve, or have implemented, plans for sustainable production and
plans for sustainable production and consumption and have consumption and have kept the impacts of use of natural resources
kept the impacts of use of natural resources well within safe well within safe ecological limits.
ecological limits.
5. By 2020, the rate of loss of all natural habitats, including • The rate of loss of forests is at least halved and where feasible
forests, is at least halved and where feasible brought close brought close to zero.
to zero, and degradation and fragmentation is significantly • The loss of all habitats is at least halved and where feasible brought
reduced. close to zero.
• Degradation and fragmentation are significantly reduced.
6. By 2020, all fish and invertebrate stocks and aquatic plants • All fish and invertebrate stocks and aquatic plants are managed
are managed and harvested sustainably, legally and applying and harvested sustainably, legally and applying ecosystem-based
ecosystem based approaches, so that overfishing is avoided, approaches.
recovery plans and measures are in place for all depleted • Recovery plans and measures are in place for all depleted species.
species, fisheries have no significant adverse impacts on • Fisheries have no significant adverse impacts on threatened species
threatened species and vulnerable ecosystems and the and vulnerable ecosystems.
impacts of fisheries on stocks, species and ecosystems are
• The impacts of fisheries on stocks, species and ecosystems are
within safe ecological limits.
within safe ecological limits, that is overfishing avoided.
7. By 2020 areas under agriculture, aquaculture, and • Areas under agriculture are managed sustainably, ensuring
forestry are managed sustainably, ensuring conservation conservation of biodiversity.
of biodiversity. • Areas under aquaculture are managed sustainably, ensuring
conservation of biodiversity.
• Areas under forestry are managed sustainably, ensuring conservation
of biodiversity.
8. By 2020, pollution, including from excess nutrients, has • Pollutants (of all types) have been brought to levels that are not
been brought to levels that are not detrimental to ecosystem detrimental to ecosystem function and biodiversity.
function and biodiversity. • Pollution from excess nutrients has been brought to levels that are
not detrimental to ecosystem function and biodiversity
9. By 2020, invasive alien species (IAS) and pathways are • Invasive alien species identified and prioritized.
identified and prioritized, priority species are controlled or • Pathways identified and prioritized.
eradicated, and measures are in place to manage pathways • Priority species controlled or eradicated.
to prevent their introduction and establishment.
• Introduction and establishment of IAS prevented.
10. By 2015, the multiple anthropogenic pressures on coral • Multiple anthropogenic pressures on coral reefs are minimized, so
reefs, and other vulnerable ecosystems impacted by climate as to maintain their integrity and functioning.
change or ocean acidification are minimized, so as to • Multiple anthropogenic pressures on other vulnerable ecosystems
maintain their integrity and functioning. impacted by climate change or ocean acidification are minimized,
so as to maintain their integrity and functioning.
11. By 2020, at least 17% of terrestrial and inland water, • At least 17% of terrestrial and inland water areas are conserved.
and 10% of coastal and marine areas, especially areas • At least 10% of coastal and marine areas are conserved.
of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem • Areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem
services, are conserved through effectively and equitably services are conserved.
managed, ecologically representative and well-connected
• Protected areas are ecologically representative.
systems of protected areas and other effective area-based
conservation measures, and integrated into the wider • Protected areas are effectively and equitably managed.
landscapes and seascapes. • Protected areas are well connected and integrated into the wider
landscape and seascape.
Contd...
Annexe 4.1 contd...

12. By 2020 the extinction of known threatened species has • Extinction of known threatened species has been prevented.
been prevented and their conservation status, particularly of • The conservation status of those species most in decline has been
those most in decline, has been improved and sustained. improved and sustained.
13. By 2020, the genetic diversity of cultivated plants and • The genetic diversity of cultivated plants is maintained.
farmed and domesticated animals and of wild relatives, • The genetic diversity of farmed and domesticated animals is
including other socio-economically as well as culturally maintained.
valuable species, is maintained, and strategies have been • The genetic diversity of wild relatives is maintained.
developed and implemented for minimizing genetic erosion
• The genetic diversity of socio-economically as well as culturally
and safeguarding their genetic diversity.
valuable species is maintained.
• Strategies have been developed and implemented for
minimizing genetic erosion and safeguarding genetic diversity.
14. By 2020, ecosystems that provide essential services, Ecosystems that provide essential services, including services related
including services related to water, and contribute to health, to water, and contribute to health, livelihoods and well-being, are
livelihoods and well-being, are restored and safeguarded, restored and safeguarded taking into account the needs of women,
taking into account the needs of women, indigenous and indigenous and local communities, and the poor and vulnerable.
local communities, and the poor and vulnerable.
15. By 2020, ecosystem resilience and the contribution of • Ecosystem resilience and the contribution of biodiversity to carbon
biodiversity to carbon stocks has been enhanced, through stocks have been enhanced through conservation and restoration.
conservation and restoration, including restoration of at • At least 15% of degraded ecosystems are restored, contributing
least 15% of degraded ecosystems, thereby contributing to to climate change mitigation and adaptation, and to combat
climate change mitigation and adaptation and to combat desertification.
desertification.
16. By 2015, the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic • The Nagoya Protocol is in force.
Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits • The Nagoya Protocol is operational, consistent with national
Arising from their Utilization is in force and operational, legislation.
consistent with national legislation.
17. By 2015 each Party has developed, adopted as a policy • Submission of NBSAPs to Secretariat by (end of) 2015.
instrument, and has commenced implementing an • NBSAPs adopted as effective policy instrument.
effective, participatory and updated national biodiversity • NBSAPs are being implemented.
strategy and action plan.
18. By 2020, the traditional knowledge, innovations and • Traditional knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous
practices of indigenous and local communities relevant and local communities are respected.
for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, • Traditional knowledge, innovations and practices are fully integrated
and their customary use of biological resources, are and reflected in implementation of the Convention with the full
respected, subject to national legislation and relevant and effective participation of indigenous and local communities
international obligations, and fully integrated and
reflected in the implementation of the Convention with
the full and effective participation of indigenous and
local communities, at all relevant levels.
19. By 2020, knowledge, the science base and technologies • Knowledge, the science base and technologies relating to
relating to biodiversity, its values, functioning, status and biodiversity, its values, functioning, status, trends, and the
trends, and the consequences of its loss, are improved, consequences of its loss are improved.
widely shared and transferred, and applied. • Biodiversity knowledge, the science base and technologies are
widely shared and transferred and applied.
20. By 2020, at the latest, the mobilization of financial Mobilization of financial resources for implementing the Strategic
resources for effectively implementing the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–20 from all sources has increased
Plan for Biodiversity 2011−20 from all sources, and in substantially from 2010 levels.
accordance with the consolidated and agreed process in
the Strategy for Resource Mobilization, should increase
substantially from the current levels. This target will
be subject to changes contingent to resource needs
assessments to be developed and reported by Parties.
Source: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2014)
References
Alkemade, R, M Van Oorschot, L Miles, C Nellemann, M Butchart, S H M, M Walpole, B Collen, A van Strien, J P W
Bakkenes, and B Ten Brink. 2009. GLOBIO3: a framework Scharlemann, R E A Almond, J E M Baillie, B Bomhard, C
to investigate options for reducing global terrestrial biodiversity Brown, J Bruno, K E Carpenter, G M Carr, J Chanson, et al.
loss. Ecosystems 12: 374–390 2010. Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science
Alroy, J 2008. Dynamics of origination and extinction in the 328: 1164–1168.
marine fossil record. Proceedings of the National Academy of Caley, M J, R Fisher, and K Mengersen. 2014. Global species
Sciences 105: 11536–11542 richness estimates have not converged. Trends in Ecology &
American Bird Conservancy. 2013. Alliance for zero extinction. Evolution 29: 187−188
Details available at www.zeroextinction.org.http://www. Campbell, A, V Kapos, I Lysenko, J P W Scharlemann, B Dickson,
zeroextinction.org/index.html; last accessed on 3 September H K Gibbs, M Hansen, and L Miles. 2008. Carbon Emissions
2015 from Forest Loss in Protected Areas. Cambridge: United Nations
Angelsen, A, P Jagger, R Babigumira, B Belcher, N Hogarth, Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring
S Bauch, B Börner, C Smith-Hall, and S Wunder. 2014. Centre (UNEP-WCMC)
Environmental income and rural livelihoods: a global Carrasco, L R, T P L Nghiem, T C H Sunderland, and L P Koh.
comparative analysis. World Development 64 (1): S12–S28 2014. Economic valuation of ecosystem services fails to capture
Bai, Y, C Zhuang, Z Ouyang, H Zheng, and B Jiang. 2011. Spatial biodiversity value of tropical forests. Biological Conservation
characteristics between biodiversity and ecosystem services 178: 163−170
in a human-dominated watershed. Ecological Complexity 8: Ceballos, G, P R Ehrlich, A D Barnosky, A García, R M Pringle,
177–183 and T M Palmer. 2015. Accelerated modern human–induced
Barnes, D K, F Galgani, R C Thompson, and M Barlaz. 2009. species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction. Science
Accumulation and fragmentation of plastic debris in global Advances 1: 1−5
environments. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. Chavas, J-P 2009. On the productive value of biodiversity.
364(1526): 1985–1998 Environmental and Resource Economics 2: 109–131
Barnosky, A D, N Matzke, S Tomiya, G O U Wogan, B Swartz, CITES. 2015. Details available at http://dashboards.cites.org/
T B Quental, C Marshall, J L McGuire, E L Lindsey, K C Collen, B, M Böhm, R Kemp, and J E M Baillie. 2012. Spineless:
Maguire, B Mersey, and E A Ferrer. 2011. Has the Earth’s sixth Status and Trends of the World’s Invertebrates. Zoological
mass extinction already arrived? Nature 471: 51–57 Society of London, United Kingdom
Biodiversity Indicators Partnership. 2015. Area of Forest under Croxall, J P, S H M Butchart, B Lascelles, A J Stattersfield, B
Sustainable Management-Certification.2008-2013 UNEP- Sullivan, A Symes, and P Taylor. 2012. Seabird conservation
WCMC. Details available at http://www.bipindicators.net/ status, threats and priority actions: A global assessment. Bird
forestcertification; last accessed on 14 September 2015 Conservation International 22: 1–34
BirdLife International. 2009. Seabirds are key indicators of the Daily, G C, S Alexander, P R Ehrlich, L Goulder, J
impact of climate change on the world's oceans. Details available Lubchenco, P A Matson, H A Mooney, S Postel, S H Schneider,
at http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/sowb/casestudy/279; last D G Tilman, and G M Woodwell. 1997. Ecosystem services:
accessed on 02 September 2015 benefits supplied to human societies by natural ecosystems.
BirdLife International. 2012. BirdLife is working to mainstream Issues in Ecology 2: 1−16
soaring bird conservation along the Rift Valley/Red Sea flyway. Davidson, N C. 2014. How much wetland has the world lost?
Details available at http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/sowb/ Long-term and recent trends in global wetland area. Mar.
casestudy/509; last accessed on 17 September 2015 Freshwater Res. 65: 934–941
BirdLife International. 2015. Important bird and biodiversity DeFries, R and C Rosenzweig. 2010. Toward a whole-landscape
areas programme. Details available at http://www.birdlife. approach for sustainable land use in the tropics. Proceedings of
org/worldwide/programmes/important-bird-and-biodiversity- the National Academy of Sciences 107: 19627−19632
areas-ibas; last accessed on 3 September 2015 de Groot, R, L Brander, S van der Ploeg, R Costanza, F Bernard,
Bohm, M, B Collen, J E M Baillie, J Chanson, N Cox, G L Braat, M Christie, N Crossman, A Ghermandi, L Hein, S
Hammerson, M Hoffmann, S R Livingstone, M Ram, A G J Hussain, P Kumar, A McVittie, R Portela, L C Rodriguez, P
Rhodin, S N Stuart, P P van Dijk, et al. 2013. Conservation ten Brink, and P van Beukering. 2012. Global estimates of
status of the world’s reptiles. Biological Conservation 157: the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units.
372–385 Ecosystem Services 1: 50−61
Bryant, D, D Nielsen, and L Tangley. 1997. The Last Frontier Deguignet M, D Juffe-Bignoli, J Harrison, B MacSharry, N
Forests: Ecosystems and Economies on the Edge. Washington, Burgess, and N Kingston. 2014. 2014 United Nations List of
D.C.: World Resources Institute Protected Areas. Cambridge, UK: UNEP-WCMC
Delgado, C, C A Narrod, and M M Tiongco. 2003. Policy, int/doc/meetings/fin/hlpgar-sp-01/official/hlpgar-sp-01-01-

Technical, and Environmental Determinants and Implications report-en.pdf
of the Scaling-up of Livestock Production in Four Fast-Growing Hoffmann, M, D Knox, F W Larsen, J F Lamoreux, C Loucks, I
Developing Countries: A Synthesis. Rome: Food and Agriculture May, J Millett, D Molloy, P Morling, M Parr, T H Ricketts,
Organization N Seddon, B Skolnik, S N.Stuart, A Upgren, and S Woodley.
Eliasch, J. 2009. Climate Change: Financing Global Forests. 2012. Protecting important sites for biodiversity contributes to
London: UK Government meeting global conservation targets. PLoS ONE 7(3): e32529
Ervin, J. 2011. Integrating protected areas into climate planning. Huang, S, T J Davies, and J L Gittleman. 2012. How global
Biodiversity 12: 2−10 extinctions impact regional biodiversity in mammals. Biology
Fabricus, K E. 2011. Losers and winners in coral reefs acclimatized letters DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2011.0752.
to elevated carbon di oxide concentrations. Nature Climate IIED and WCMC. 2015. Biodiversity and Development
Change 1: 165−169 Mainstreaming: A State of Knowledge Review - Discussion
FAO. 2007. The world’s mangroves 1980-2005. FAO Forestry Paper. International Institute for Environment and Development
Paper 153. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization and World Conservation Monitoring Centre. Details available
FAO. 2010. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010. Main Report. at http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/G03673.pdf.
Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United IFC. 2013. Details available at http://www1.ifc.org/wps/wcm/
Nations connect/topics_ext_content/ifc_external_corporate_site/
FAO. 2013. World Livestock 2013 – Changing Disease Landscapes. ifc+sustainability/sustainable+business+advisory+service
Rome: FAO s/ environmental%2C+social%2C+and+trade+standards/
biodiversity_bacp; last accessed on 14 September 2015
FAO. 2014. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture-
opportunities and Challenges. Rome: FAO IUCN. 2003. World Parks Congress 2003, Durban. Details
available at http://www.forestpeoples.org/sites/fpp/files/
FAO and JRC. 2012. Global forest land-use change 1990-2005.
publication/2010/10/wpcrecs526eng.pdf
FAO Forestry Paper NO. 169. Rome: Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations and European Commission IUCN. 2015. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Ver
Joint Research Centre 15.2. Details available at http://www.iucnredlist.org/about/
summary-statistics#How_many_threatened; last accessed on
Fitzpatrick, L. 2010. Brief history: invasive species. Time, February
2 September 2015
22
Jablonski, D and W G Chaloner. 1994. Extinctions in the fossil
Gallai, N, J-M Salles, J Settele, and B E Vaissière. 2009. Economic
record [and Discussion]. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
valuation of the vulnerability of world agriculture confronted
Society B Biological Sciences 344: 11−17
with pollinator decline. Ecological Economics 68(3): 810−821
Janse, J H, M J Weijters, E P Westerbeek, M H J L Jeuken, M
Global Environment Facility. 2014. Record funding for the global
Bakkenes, W M Mooij, and J T A Verhoeven. 2015. GLOBIO-
environment. Details available at http://www.thegef.org/gef/
Aquatic, a global model of human impact on the biodiversity
Record-Funding-for-Global-Environment
of inland aquatic ecosystems. Environmental Science & Policy
Global Footprint Network. 2014. National Footprint Accounts, 48: 99−114
2014 Edition. Details available at www.footprintnetwork.org.
Kothari, A, M Menon, and S O’Reilly. 2010. Territories and Areas
Haken, J. 2011. Transnational crime in the developing world. Conserved by Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities
Global Financial Integrity. Details vailable at http:// (ICCAs): How Far Do National Laws and Policies Recognize
w w w.gf integrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/gf i_ Them? International Union for Conservation of Nature
transnational_crime_high-res.pdf. (IUCN) Commission on Environmental, Economic and Social
Hansen, M C, P V Potapov, R Moore, M Hancher, S A Policy-World Commission on Protected Areas (CEESPWCPA),
Turubanova, A Tyukavina, D Thau, S V Stehman, S J Goetz, T Theme on Indigenous and Local Communities, Equity, and
R Loveland, A Kommareddy, A Egorov, L Chini, C O. Justice, Protected Areas (TILCEPA) and Kalpavriksh, Pune.
and J R G Townshend. 2013. High-resolution global maps of Kumar, V T, D V Raidu, J Killi, M Pillai, P Shah, V Kalavadonda,
21st-century forest cover change. Science 342: 850−853 and S Lakhey. 2009. Ecologically Sound, Economically Viable:
Harris, N, O Payne, and S Mann. 2015. How much rainforest Community Managed Sustainable Agriculture in Andhra Pradesh,
is in that chocolate bar? World Resources Institute. Details India. Washington, DC: The World Bank
available at http://www.wri.org/blog/2015/08/how-much- Lambin, E F and P Meyfroidt. 2011. Global land use change,
rainforest-chocolate-bar. economic globalization, and the looming land scarcity. PNAS
High-level Panel on Global Assessment of Resources for 108: 3465–3472
Implementing the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020. Leadley, P W, C B Krug, R Alkemade, H M Pereira, U R Sumaila,
2012. Resourcing the Aichi Biodiversity Targets: A First Assessment M Walpole, A Marques, T Newbold, L S L Teh, J van Kolck,
of the Resources Required for Implementing the Strategic Plan For C Bellard, S R Januchowski-Hartley, and P J Mumby. 2014.
Biodiversity 2011-2020. Details available at https://www.cbd.
Progress towards the Aichi Biodiversity Targets: An Assessment of Olson, D M and E Dinerstein. 1997. The Global 200: a representation
Biodiversity Trends, Policy Scenarios and Key Actions. Secretariat approach to conserving Earth’s distinctive ecoregions. World
of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, Canada. Wildlife Fund, Washington, D.C.
Technical Series 78 Parker, C, M Cranford, N Oakes, M Leggett (ed.). 2012. Thee
Lehner, B, C R Liermann, C Revenga, C Vo¨ ro¨smarty, B Fekete, Little Biodiversity Finance Book. Oxford: Global Canopy
P Crouzet, P Do¨ ll, M Endejan, K Frenken, J Magome, C Programme
Nilsson, J C Robertson, R Ro¨ del, N Sindorf, and D Wisser. Pimm, S L and P Raven. 2000. Biodiversity: extinction by
2011. High-resolution mapping of the world’s reservoirs and numbers. Nature 403: 843−845
dams for sustainable river-flow management. Front. Ecol. Ponel, P, J Orgeas, M J Samways, V Andrieu-Ponel, J L De
Environ. 9: 494–502 Beaulieu, M Reille, P Roche, and T Tatoni. 2003. 110 000
Lenzen, M, D Moran, K Kanemoto, B Foran, L Lobefaro, and A years of Quaternary beetle diversity change. Biodiversity and
Geschke. 2012. International trade drives biodiversity threats Conservation 12: 2077−2089
in developing nations. Nature 486: 109–112 Prasad, V, J Killi, D V Raidu, B Rajsekhar, A K Chaudhary,
Locatelli, B, P Imbach, and S Wunder. 2013. Synergies and trade- D Behera, V K Vutukuru, M Kumar, and P Shah. 2015.
offs between ecosystem services in Costa Rica. Environmental Environmentally-sound and economically-viable agriculture
Conservation 41 (1): 27–36 through small and marginal farmers’ institutions in Andhra
Loh, J and M Wackernagel. 2012. Living Planet Report. Gland: Pradesh and Bihar, India. In Shades of Green. Multi-stakeholder
WWF. initiatives to reduce the environmental footprint of commercial
McNeely, J A, H A Mooney, L E Neville, P Schei, and J K Waage agriculture, M Sewadeh and S Jaffee (eds), pp. 55−64.
(eds). 2001. A Global Strategy on Invasive Alien Species. Gland Washington, DC: EcoAgriculture Partners and the World
and Cambridge: IUCN Bank
Maisels, F, S Strindberg, S Blake, G Wittemyer, J Hart, et al. 2013. Ricketts, T H, E Dinerstein, T Boucher, T M Brooks, and S
Devastating decline of forest elephants in Central Africa. PLoS H M Butchart. 2005. Pinpointing and preventing imminent
ONE 8(3): e59469 extinctions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102:
Mittermeier, R A, C G Mittermeier, T M Brooks, J D Pilgrim, W R 18497–18501
Konstant, G A B da Fonseca, and C Kormos. 2003. Wilderness Ring, I, B Hansjürgens, T Elmqvist, H Wittmer, and P Sukhdev.
and biodiversity conservation. Proceedings of National Academy 2010. Challenges in framing the economics of ecosystems
of Sciences 100: 10309–10313 and biodiversity: the TEEB initiative. Current Opinion in
Mittermeier, R A, W R Turner, F W Larsen, T M Brooks, P L Environmental Sustainability 2(1-2): 15−26
Banos, and C Gascon. 2011. Global biodiversity conservation: Sajeva, M, C Augugliaro, M J Smith, and E Oddo. 2013.
The critical role of hotspots. In Biodiversity Hotspots: Distribution Regulating Internet Trade in CITES Species. Conservation
and Protection of Conservation Priority Areas, J C Habel and F E Biology 27: 429–430
Zachos (Eds.), pp 3−22. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (SCBD).
Molnar, A, S Scherr, and A Khare. 2004. Who Conserves the 2014. Global Biodiversity Outlook 4
World’s Forests: Community Driven Strategies to Protect Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the
Forests and Respect Rights. Washington, DC: Forest Trends & Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel (SCBD)–GEF. 2012.
Ecoagriculture Partners Impacts of Marine Debris on Biodiversity: Current Status and
Moline, M A, H Claustre, T K Frazer, O Schofield, and M Vernet. Potential Solutions (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological
2004. Alteration of the food web along the Antarctic Peninsula Diversity, Montreal), CBD Technical Series No. 67
in response to a regional warming trend. Global Change Biology Stattersfield, A J, M J Crosby, A J Long, and D C Wege. 1998.
10: 1973–1980 Endemic Bird Areas of the World: Priorities for Biodiversity
MRAG and FERR. 2008. The global extent of illegal fishing. Conservation (BirdLife Conservation Series) (no. 7). Cambridge:
Marine Resource Assessment Group and Fisheries Ecosystems BirdLife International
Restoration Research, Fisheries Centre, University of British TEEB. 2010. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity:
Columbia. Details available at http://www.imcsnet.org/imcs/ Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A synthesis of the
docs/mrag_2008_extentglobal_illegalfishing.pdf approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB
Myers, N, R A Mittermeier, C G Mittermeier, G A B da Fonsceca, TERI. 2015. A People’s Biodiversity Register (PBR) of Village
and J Kent. 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation Sükhai, Zunheboto, Nagaland. New Delhi: The Energy and
priorities. Nature 403: 853−858 Resources Institute
Myers, R A and B Worm. 2003. Rapid worldwide depletion of Tittensor, D P, M Walpole, S L L Hill, D G Boyce, G L Britten,
predatory fish communities. Nature 423: 280–283 N D Burgess, S H M Butchart, P W Leadley, E C Regan, R
Ocean Health Index. 2015. Details available at http://www. Alkemade, R Baumung, C Bellard, L Bouwman, et al. 2014. A
oceanhealthindex.org/; last accessed on 3 September 2015 mid-term analysis of progress toward international biodiversity
targets. Science 346: 241−244
TR AFFIC. 2015. Details available at http://www.traffic.org/ Targeting global conservation funding to limit immediate
trade/ biodiversity declines. PNAS 110: 12144–12148
Turner, R K and G C Daily. 2008. The ecosystem services Waycott, M, C M Duarte, T J B Carruthers, R J Orth, W C
framework and natural capital conservation. Environmental Dennison, S Olyarnik, A Calladine, J W Fourqurean, K L
Resource Economics 39: 25−35 Heck, A R Hughes, G A Kendrick, W J Kenworthy, F T
UNDP-UNEP PEI. 2010. Improved monitoring of poverty- Short, and S L Williams. 2009. Accelerating loss of seagrasses
environment objectives in Tanzania. United Nations across the globe threatens coastal ecosystems. Proceedings of
Development Programme – United Nations Environment
the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
Programme Poverty-Environment Initiative. UNDP and
106(30): 12377–12381
UNEP, Nairobi, Kenya. Details available at http://www.
unpei.org/knowledge-resources/country-success-stories/23- White, R P, S Murray, and M. Rohweder. 2000. Pilot Analysis of
tanzania/237- improved-monitoring-of-poverty-environment- Global Ecosystems: Grassland Ecosystems. Washington, D C.:
objectives-in-tanzania World Resources Institute
UNEP. 2012. The Fifth Global Environmental Outlook Report. Wilcox, C, E V Sebilleb, and B D Hardesty. 2015. Threat
Chapter 5. Biodiversity. Nairobi: United Nations Environment of plastic pollution to seabirds is global, pervasive, and
Programme increasing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112:
UNEP. 2014. UNEP Year Book 2014. Details available at http:// 11899–11904
www.unep.org/yearbook/2014/PDF/chapt4.pdf
WWF and IUCN (1994–97) Centres of Plant Diversity: a guide
UNEP-WCMC. 2014. Protected Planet Report 2014. Cambridge, and strategy for their conservation. Gland, Switzerland and
UK: UNEP-WCMC
Cambridge, UK: World Wide Fund for Nature and IUCN. 3
Vargas, F H, R C Lacy, P J Johnson, A Steinfurth, R J M Crawford, volumes: Volume 1: Europe, Africa, South West Asia and the
P D Boersma, and D W MacDonald. 2007. Modelling the
Middle East (1994), Volume 2: Asia, Australasia and the Pacific
effect of El Niño on the persistence of small populations: the
(1995), Volume 3: The Americas (1997)
Galápagos Penguin as a case study. Biological Conservation 137:
138–148 WWF. 2014. Living Planet Report 2014: Species and Space, People
Vors, L S and M S Boyce. 2009. Global declines of caribou and and Places. World Wildlife Fund
reindeer. Global Change Biology 15: 2626–2633 W WF. 2015. Details available at http://wwf.panda.org/
Wake, D B and V T Vredenburg. 2008. Are we in the midst of the a b o u t _ o u r _ e a r t h /a l l _ p u b l i c a t i on s / l i v i n g _ p l a n e t _
sixth mass extinction? a view from the world of amphibians. report/2013_infographic/; last accessed on 03 September
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United 2015
States of America 105: 11466−11473 World Bank. 2015. Oceans, fisheries and coastal economies. Details
Waldron, A, A O Mooers, D C Miller, N Nibbelink, D Redding, available at http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/environment/
T S Kuhn, J Timmons Roberts, and J L Gittleman. 2013. brief/oceans; last accessed on 03 September 2015
View publication stats

Environmental Degradation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Environmental Degradation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Chapter · December 2016

Pia Sethi Yatish Lele

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Mainstreaming Community-Conserved Areas for Biodiversity Conservation in Nagaland View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

4.1 Introduction using a more conservative background rate of 2E/MSY or

Figure 4.2 Primary threat to LPI populations

Figure 4.3 Global ecological footprint by component (1961−2011)

0 70 Malaysian species threatened by foreign consumption

Figure 4.6 Flow map of threats to species

loss of IB > 95% random

Tree cover Forest gain

Figure 4.12 Tree cover, forest loss, and forest gain

Figure 4.13 Countries dominating cacao production in 2013

Area (million hectares)

Production (million tonnes)

Figure 4.15 Global fish production from (2007−12)

Figure 4.16 Major marine fishery producing countries

17.9 18.1 18.5 18.7 19.2

Figure 4.19 Goal score comparison (2012−14)

1952 1972 1975 1975 1979 1993 2001

Figure 4.20 Timeline of various conventions

4.5.2 Protection of Heritage Sites It is often difficult to measure the success of these

Figure 4.22 Year-wise share of natural heritage areas

Table 4.3 Important conventions

Figure 4.26 Region-wise percentage of terrestrial areas covered by protected areas

of biodiversity loss, may be reduced by putting in place 4.6.4 Management of Invasive Species

Figure 4.29 Status of National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans

Annexe 4.1 The Aichi Targets

Annexe 4.1 contd...

Annexe 4.1 contd...

Delgado, C, C A Narrod, and M M Tiongco. 2003. Policy, int/doc/meetings/fin/hlpgar-sp-01/official/hlpgar-sp-01-01-

View publication stats

You might also like