Missed targets

Back in 2002, when the UN-sponsored, intergovernmental Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) set targets aiming to reduce the loss of biodiversity by 2010, that date must have looked very distant, providing ample time to change the world and turn the tides on the loss of wild nature. However, the time has come — probably sooner than everybody expected — and the CBD’s third Global Biodiversity Outlook report, which was released in May (http://gbo3. cbd.int/), comes to the conclusion that the targets that it set for saving biodiversity have not been met. “There are multiple indications of continuing decline in biodiversity in all three of its main components: genes, species, and ecosystems,” the report finds. Areas of concern highlighted in the report include the risk of extinction facing many species of amphibians, corals, and plants, the decline in the abundance of vertebrate species especially in the tropics and in freshwater biotopes, loss of habitats such as coral reefs and salt marshes, fragmentation of forests, and loss of genetic diversity in agriculture. However, the report also brings good news in the shape of many examples of local action that have helped to stop loss of biodiversity. “Many actions in support of biodiversity have had significant and measurable results in particular areas and amongst targeted species and ecosystem,” the report states. Examples include measures against deforestation in the tropics and to control invasive species. So what is to be done to ensure that the success stories that have been localised exceptions so far become the global rule in the new decade? “A key strategic goal of the review,” says Dr James Burton, research manager at Earthwatch Institute, “is to find strong messages and benefits to persuade people that we need widespread change.” And nothing persuades people more easily than money. A key feature of this CBD report is that the economic value of “ecosystem services,” i.e. the usefulness of wild nature for our industries and societies is mentioned frequently, both as an additional motivation to save biodiversity, and as a powerful political argument for positive action. This economics-focused approach to conservation is gaining wide interest and is being driven forward by the TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity) study group and economists like Pavan Sukhdev (see Curr. Biol. 20, R217–R218). “The value of biodiversity has been studied for many years,” comments Burton, “but back in 2002 valuation was still in its infancy, so it has become more fashionable since then.” Part of the problem is that the value of biodiversity is difficult to quantify – the foundations of carbon trading are relatively simple in comparison. Nevertheless, Ben Caldecott from Climate Change Capital, writing in The Guardian, has called for biodiversity credits modelled on carbon trading schemes. Burton agrees with this assessment and adds: “We need to move on with this quickly, because measuring biodiversity and valuing it is more complex than carbon, so there is a lot of work to be done before funds get to protect biodiversity through this system.” While, for many people of green convictions, nature represents an obvious value in itself and may be appreciated mainly on aesthetic grounds, Burton says, “one needs different arguments for different people.” The economic argument has the advantage that it speaks the language that politicians and business leaders understand. Many of the projects that have successfully maintained biodiversity at a local scale have succeeded by convincing local people that intact nature is a valuable resource protecting Biodiversity 2010: Michael Gross and Nigel Williams look at assessments of two decades’ efforts. Missed targets