scholarly journals A More Precise Living Planet Index (LPI)

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine Hébert
Keyword(s):  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Methodological Approach ◽  
Management Strategies ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Population Trends ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
The Public ◽  
Major Interest ◽  
Biodiversity Change ◽  
Global Biodiversity

Reliably measuring biodiversity change is of major interest both ecologically and politically. Thoroughly testing the reliability of biodiversity metrics, meaning their ability to present a precise, accurate, and unbiased measurement of biodiversity trends, is vital to avoid misinforming decision makers when selecting management strategies, and misleading the public’s view of biodiversity issues. Developed by Loh et al. (2005), the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), and the Zoological Society of London, the Living Planet Index (LPI) measures the overall global trend in vertebrate abundances since 1970 (Loh et al. 2005). The LPI has become a popular indicator of global biodiversity change due to its intuitive association with biodiversity targets, which makes it a powerful tool to communicate the status of biodiversity to the public, and to decision makers tasked with the management of biodiversity (Collen et al. 2009). Importantly, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) selected the LPI as one of four indices approved to monitor progress towards the Aichi Biodiversity Targets (CBD 2016). The LPI was also selected as an Essential Biodiversity Variable, which are essential tools for the harmonized study, reporting, and management of biodiversity change worldwide (Pereira et al. 2013). Due to the LPI’s pivotal role in policy, conservation, and communication, ensuring its reliability as a biodiversity change metric is crucial for both biodiversity science and management at a global scale. Despite the LPI’s influence on the global stage of biodiversity management, the index’s reliability as a measure of biodiversity loss has not been rigorously tested for limitations. The LPI’s capacity to accurately estimate global population trends depends in part on undetected errors in its supporting data, including process errors (i.e. random population fluctuations), and observation errors (i.e. poor detectability of certain species) (Clark and Bjørnstad 2004, Gotelli and Colwell 2001, Dennis et al. 2006, Buckland et al. 2004). These errors are often undocumented and cannot be directly assessed, making it difficult to determine their impact on LPI trends. Interpretation of an LPI trend also heavily relies on its precision, which establishes the uncertainty surrounding the estimated magnitude and direction of biodiversity change. If uncertainty is high, the LPI is a less reliable measure of biodiversity change, and must be interpreted with greater caution when communicating biodiversity trends to the public and when choosing management strategies (Hui et al. 2008). The LPI’s confidence interval progressively widens as uncertainty accumulates over time from the baseline in 1970 (WWF 2018, McRae et al. 2017, Collen et al. 2009). This growing imprecision could impede our ability to confidently interpret both the direction and magnitude of biodiversity change, which has serious implications for monitoring progress towards global biodiversity targets, and for maintaining public engagement in biodiversity issues. Here, we suggest a methodological approach to address this growing uncertainty, in order to improve the reliability of the LPI. We propose a methodology for integrating the covariation between population trends into the computation of the LPI, in order to bolster confidence in related trends and ultimately decrease imprecision. Rather than assuming all population trends are varying in isolation, we explicitly identify covariation between population trends, and weight populations according to this covariation. We then compare the confidence intervals of the reported LPI trend to the trend obtained using our proposed methodology, and consider the potential political, ecological, and communicational implications of this approach on the interpretation of biodiversity metrics.

The Main Results of the Ninth Conference of the Parties to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity

2008 ◽  
Vol 5 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 249-261 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthias Buck
Keyword(s):  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Biodiversity Loss ◽  
Benefit Sharing ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
Marine Biodiversity ◽  
Access And Benefit Sharing ◽  
Global Target ◽  
Critical Issues ◽  
Science Policy Interface ◽  
Global Biodiversity

AbstractThe Ninth Conference of the Parties to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (COP9) in May 2008 in Bonn was one of the major international environmental meetings in 2008. Its decisions significantly advance global biodiversity politics on a range of critical issues and thereby help achieving the global target of substantially reducing current rates of biodiversity loss by 2010. This article describes the main decision adopted by COP9 on biofuels, marine biodiversity, biodiversity and climate change, access and benefit-sharing and the science-policy interface of international biodiversity politics.

scholarly journals A global indicator of utilised wildlife populations: regional trends and the impact of management

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Louise McRae ◽  
Robin Freeman ◽  
Jonas Geldmann ◽  
Grace B. Moss ◽  
Louise Kjær-Hansen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Positive Impact ◽  
Sustainable Use ◽  
Population Trends ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Case Examples ◽  
Wildlife Population ◽  
Wildlife Populations ◽  
The Impact

AbstractThe sustainable use of wildlife is a core aspiration of multi-lateral conservation policy but is the subject to intense debate in the scientific literature. We use a global data set of over 11,000 population time-series to derive indices of ‘used’ and ‘unused’ species and assess global and regional changes in wildlife populations – principally for mammals, birds and fishes. We also assess whether ‘management’ makes a measurable difference to wildlife population trends, especially for the used species populations. Our results show that wildlife population trends globally are negative, but with used populations tending to decline more rapidly, especially in Africa and the Americas. Crucially, where used populations are managed, using a variety of mechanisms, there is a positive impact on the trend. It is therefore true that use of species can both be a driver of negative population trends, or a driver of species recovery, with numerous species and population specific case examples making up these broader trends. This work is relevant to the evidence base for the IPBES Sustainable Use Assessment, and to the development of indicators of sustainable use of species under the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework being developed under the Convention on Biological Diversity.

scholarly journals Scaling Biodiversity Conservation Efforts: An Examination of the Relationship Between Global Biodiversity Targets and Local Plans

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Rae Pierce ◽  
Sabrina Drill ◽  
Michael D. Halder ◽  
Mika Mei Jia Tan ◽  
Anushri Tiwari ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Biodiversity Conservation ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Critical Role ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Global Scale ◽  
Local Scale ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
Spheres Of Influence ◽  
Global Biodiversity ◽  
The Relationship

Cities have a critical role to play in meeting global-scale biodiversity targets. Urban socio-ecological systems connect human and ecological well-being. The outsized impact of cities reaches well-beyond their geographic borders through cultural, ecological, and economic interactions. Although cities account for just 2% of the earth's surface, they host over half of the human population and are responsible for 75% of consumption. The Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and others have acknowledged the important role cities can play in achieving global targets. In response, at least 110 cities have produced plans focused on biodiversity, but we do not know the extent to which these city plans align with global targets or what role they play in achieving these targets. Here, we explore the relationship between global biodiversity conservation targets and local biodiversity plans to identify how elements at the two scales align or diverge. We compared the CBD Strategic Plan 2011–2020 (Aichi Targets) with 44 local biodiversity plans (often called LBSAPs) from cities around the world. We analyzed more than 2,800 actions from the local plans to measure the relationship with these global targets. Our results show how local approaches to biodiversity conservation can inform post-2020 global frameworks to improve coordination between global and local scale processes. We identify actions particular to the local scale that are critical to conserve global biodiversity and suggest a framework for improved coordination between actors at different scales that address their respective roles and spheres of influence.

scholarly journals Wikipedia, a Tool for Knowledge Dissemination on Invasive Species

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Quentin Groom ◽  
Vanessa Lozano ◽  
Sofie Meeus ◽  
Carlos Olmedo Castellanos
Keyword(s):  
Invasive Species ◽  
General Public ◽  
Information Needs ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Public Awareness ◽  
Current Status ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
English Edition ◽  
The Public ◽  
Global Issue

One of the most important issues for controlling the spread of invasive species is public awareness (Dehnen-Schmutz et al. 2018). Passively, the public are responsible for the spread of invasive species, for example by moving dirty boats from one water body to another. But they also actively spread invasive species by releasing them in the wild. The spread of some invasive species could be slowed or even halted if the general public were more aware of the risks. Furthermore, this is a global issue, not restricted to one country or language, and hence needs to be tackled at an international level. The Convention on Biological Diversity has a specific target to identify pathways of introduction and manage invasive species (Convention on Biological Diversity 2014). As part of this awareness-raising, the public needs information on how to identify invasive species, as well as how to know their regulatory status, distribution and transmission. They also need to be aware of how invasive species impact biodiversity, ecosystem services and health. This information needs to be up-to-date, reliable and unbiased, but also supported by evidence. Many information platforms exist on invasive species and new information is being generated all the time on this dynamic issue. However, pre-eminent among information sources on the internet is Wikipedia. Consistently ranked in the top ten of most visited websites, with more than 15 billion page views a month across 300 language editions, it is the go-to website on many subjects (Wikimedia 2019). Invasive species such as the zebra mussel and water hyacinth receive over 500 daily page views, just on the English edition alone. Wikipedia is arguably one of the largest citizen science projects, containing information on every area of science and connecting, through its citations, scientific literature with the general public. Wikipedia has been criticized about many aspects of its content and editorship, including its quality and neutrality (Kumar et al. 2016, Wagner et al. 2016, Hargittai and Shaw 2014). Nevertheless, its dominance in the provision of information cannot be ignored and addressing Wikipedia's problems by direct engagement might be more productive than ignoring it. Increasingly, different disciplines are engaging with Wikipedia for communication, recognizing that it can be a productive communication channel (Murray 2018). Invasive species are a global problem and tackling them is a global issue. We have been investigating the current status of invasive species information on Wikipedia, whether it contains relevant information on impacts and control, and whether the information is consistent across different language versions. We will present what we have found and make recommendations on what to improve and how we can engage with Wikipedia.

scholarly journals The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)’s Post-2020 target on invasive alien species – what should it include and how should it be monitored?

NeoBiota ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 62 ◽  
pp. 99-121 ◽  
Author(s):  
Franz Essl ◽  
Guillaume Latombe ◽  
Bernd Lenzner ◽  
Shyama Pagad ◽  
Hanno Seebens ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Biological Invasions ◽  
Alien Species ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Invasive Alien Species ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Biodiversity Policy ◽  
Global Biodiversity ◽  
Main Components

The year 2020 and the next few years are critical for the development of the global biodiversity policy agenda until the mid-21st century, with countries agreeing to a Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Reducing the substantial and still rising impacts of invasive alien species (IAS) on biodiversity will be essential if we are to meet the 2050 Vision where biodiversity is valued, conserved, and restored. A tentative target has been developed by the IUCN Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG), and formally submitted to the CBD for consideration in the discussion on the Post-2020 targets. Here, we present properties of this proposal that we regard as essential for an effective Post-2020 Framework. The target should explicitly consider the three main components of biological invasions, i.e. (i) pathways, (ii) species, and (iii) sites; the target should also be (iv) quantitative, (v) supplemented by a set of indicators that can be applied to track progress, and (vi) evaluated at medium- (2030) and long-term (2050) time horizons. We also present a proposed set of indicators to track progress. These properties and indicators are based on the increasing scientific understanding of biological invasions and effectiveness of responses. Achieving an ambitious action-oriented target so that the 2050 Vision can be achieved will require substantial effort and resources, and the cooperation of a wide range of stakeholders.

scholarly journals Projected pH reductions by 2100 might put deep North Atlantic biodiversity at risk

2014 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. 8607-8634 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Gehlen ◽  
R. Séférian ◽  
D. O. B. Jones ◽  
T. Roy ◽  
R. Roth ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ocean Acidification ◽  
North Atlantic ◽  
Deep Sea ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Management Strategies ◽  
Co2 Concentration ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
Resource Exploitation ◽  
Atlantic Sector ◽  
The Impact

Abstract. This study aims at evaluating the potential for impacts of ocean acidification on North Atlantic deep-sea ecosystems in response to IPCC AR5 Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP). Deep-sea biota is likely highly vulnerable to changes in seawater chemistry and sensitive to moderate excursions in pH. Here we show, from seven fully-coupled Earth system models, that for three out of four RCPs over 17% of the seafloor area below 500 m depth in the North Atlantic sector will experience pH reductions exceeding −0.2 units by 2100. Increased stratification in response to climate change partially alleviates the impact of ocean acidification on deep benthic environment. We report major potential consequences of pH reductions for deep-sea biodiversity hotspots, such as seamounts and canyons. By 2100 and under the high CO2 scenario RCP8.5 pH reductions exceeding −0.2, (respectively −0.3) units are projected in close to 23% (~ 15%) of North Atlantic deep-sea canyons and ~ 8% (3%) of seamounts – including seamounts proposed as sites of marine protected areas. The spatial pattern of impacts reflects the depth of the pH perturbation and does not scale linearly with atmospheric CO2 concentration. Impacts may cause negative changes of the same magnitude or exceeding the current target of 10% of preservation of marine biomes set by the convention on biological diversity implying that ocean acidification may offset benefits from conservation/management strategies relying on the regulation of resource exploitation.

scholarly journals Four Steps for the Earth: mainstreaming the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
E.J. Milner-Gulland ◽  
Prue Addison ◽  
William Arlidge ◽  
Julia Baker ◽  
Hollie Booth ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
Human Needs ◽  
Mitigation Hierarchy ◽  
Indigenous Groups ◽  
Conservation Actions ◽  
Global Biodiversity ◽  
National Governments ◽  
City Of London ◽  
The City

The upcoming meeting of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, and future adoption of the new Global Biodiversity Framework, represent an opportunity to transform humanity's relationship with nature. Restoring nature while meeting human needs requires a bold vision, but this will only succeed if biodiversity conservation can be mainstreamed in society. Here, we present an overarching framework that could support this mainstreaming: the Mitigation and Conservation Hierarchy. This novel framework places the well-established four-step Mitigation Hierarchy for mitigating and compensating the impacts of developments on biodiversity (1: Avoid, 2: Minimise, 3: Restore, 4: Offset, towards a target such as No Net Loss of biodiversity) within a broader framing that encompasses all conservation actions. We illustrate the potential application of the framework in four cases; national governments, sub-national levels (specifically the City of London, a fishery, and indigenous groups), companies, and the general public. The Mitigation and Conservation Hierarchy supports decisions about both the choice of actions to conserve and restore nature, and evaluation of the effectiveness of those actions, across sectors and scales. As such it can guide actions towards a sustainable future for people and nature in support of the CBD's vision.

scholarly journals Aichi Target 18 beyond 2020: mainstreaming Traditional Biodiversity Knowledge in the conservation and sustainable use of marine and coastal ecosystems

PeerJ ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. e9616
Author(s):  
Paola Fajardo ◽  
David Beauchesne ◽  
Alberto Carbajal-López ◽  
Rémi M. Daigle ◽  
L. Denisse Fierro-Arcos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Biodiversity Conservation ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Biodiversity Loss ◽  
Natural World ◽  
Coastal Ecosystems ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
Marine Biodiversity ◽  
Biodiversity Knowledge ◽  
Global Biodiversity

Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs) have inhabited coastal areas, the seas, and remote islands for millennia, and developed place-based traditional ancestral knowledge and diversified livelihoods associated with the biocultural use of marine and coastal ecosystems. Through their cultural traditions, customary wise practices, and holistic approaches to observe, monitor, understand, and appreciate the Natural World, IPLCs have been preserving, managing, and sustainably using seascapes and coastal landscapes, which has been essential for biodiversity conservation. The international community has more than ever recognized the central role of IPLCs in the conservation of biodiversity-rich ecosystems, in particular, for the achievement of the Global Biodiversity Targets determined by the Parties to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity to tackle biodiversity loss. However, much remains to be done to fully recognize and protect at national levels IPLCs’ Traditional Biodiversity Knowledge (TBK), ways of life, and their internationally recognized rights to inhabit, own, manage and govern traditional lands, territories, and waters, which are increasingly threatened. At the 2018 4th World Conference on Marine Biodiversity held in Montréal, Canada, eight themed working groups critically discussed progress to date and barriers that have prevented the achievement of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets agreed for the period 2011–2020, and priority actions for the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. Discussions in the “Application of Biodiversity Knowledge” working group focused on Targets 11 and 18 and the equal valuation of diverse Biodiversity Knowledge Systems (BKS). This Perspective Paper summarizes the 10 Priority Actions identified for a holistic biodiversity conservation, gender equality and human rights-based approach that strengthens the role of IPLCs as biodiversity conservation decision-makers and managers at national and international levels. Furthermore, the Perspective proposes a measurable Target 18 post-2020 and discusses actions to advance the recognition of community-based alternative conservation schemes and TBK to ensure the long-lasting conservation, customary biocultural use, and sustainable multi-functional management of nature around the globe.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document