Global Biodiversity Outlook 3

Executive Summary

 Kay Muldoon Ibrahim

Message from the Executive Secretary

The news is not good. We continue to lose biodiversity at a rate never before seen in history extinction rates may be up to 1,000 times higher than the historical background rate. The assessment of the state of the world's biodiversity in 2010, as contained in GBO-3 based on the latest indicators, over 110 national reports submitted to the Convention Secretariat, and scenarios for the 21st Century should serve as a wake-up call for humanity. Business as usual is no longer an option if we are to avoid irreversible damage to the life-support systems of our planet. The Convention's new Strategic Plan, to be adopted at the 2010 Nagoya Biodiversity Summit must tackle the underlying causes of biodiversity loss. And the linked challenges of biodiversity loss and climate change must be addressed with equal priority and close cooperation. Joint action is needed to implement the Conventions on Biodiversity, Climate Change and to Combat Desertification the three conventions born of the 1992 Rio Conference. The Rio+20 Summit offers an opportunity to adopt a work plan to achieve this.

Ahmed Djoghlaf Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 2

Executive Secretary, Convention on Biological Diversity

Foreword by the United Nations Secretary-General

In 2002, the worlds leaders agreed to achieve a significant reduction in the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010. Having reviewed all available evidence, including national reports submitted by Parties, this third edition of the Global Biodiversity Outlook concludes that the target has not been met. Moreover, the Outlook warns, the principal pressures leading to biodiversity loss are not just constant but are, in some cases, intensifying. The consequences of this collective failure, if it is not quickly corrected, will be severe for us all. Biodiversity underpins the functioning of the ecosystems on which we depend for food and fresh water, health and recreation, and protection from natural disasters. Its loss also affects us culturally and spiritually. This may be more difficult to quantify, but is nonetheless integral to our well-being. Current trends are bringing us closer to a number of potential tipping points that would catastrophically reduce the capacity of ecosystems to provide these essential services. The poor, who tend to be most immediately dependent on them, would suffer first and most severely. At stake are the principal objectives outlined in the Millennium Development Goals: food security, poverty eradication and a healthier population. The conservation of biodiversity makes a critical contribution to moderating the scale of climate change and reducing its negative impacts by making ecosystems -- and therefore human societies -more resilient. It is therefore essential that the challenges related to biodiversity and climate change are tackled in a coordinated manner and given equal priority.

In several important areas, national and international action to support biodiversity is moving in a positive direction. More land and sea areas are being protected, more countries are fighting the serious threat of invasive alien species, and more money is being set aside for implementing the Convention on Biological Diversity. However, these efforts are too often undermined by conflicting policies. To tackle the root causes of biodiversity loss, we must give it higher priority in all areas of decision-making and in all economic sectors. As this third Global Biodiversity Outlook makes clear, conserving biodiversity cannot be an afterthought once other objectives are addressed it is the foundation on which many of these objectives are built. We need a new vision for biological diversity for a healthy planet and a sustainable future for humankind.

BaN Ki-moon Secretary-General, United Nations

Message from the Executive Director of UNEP

Humanity has fabricated the illusion that somehow we can get by without biodiversity or that it is somehow peripheral to our contemporary world: the truth is we need it more than ever on a planet of six billion heading to over nine billion people by 2050. Global Biodiversity Outlook-3 contains sobering facts and figures while pinpointing the key reasons as to why the challenge of conserving and indeed enhancing biodiversity remains unmet. One key area is economics: most economies remain blind to the huge value of the diversity of animals, plants and other life-forms and their role in healthy and functioning ecosystems from forests and freshwaters to soils, oceans and even the atmosphere. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity, hosted by UNEP aims to enhance understanding , and drive action in this area. Mainstreaming the economics of biodiversity and the multi-trillion dollar services of the ecosystems which it supports into development, decision-making can make 2010 the UNs International Year of Biodiversity a success.

Achim Steiner Executive Director, United Nations Environment Programme

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 3

Executive Summary

Jeffthemon... | Dreamstime.com

The Convention on Biological Diversity

The word biodiversity, a contraction of the synonymous phrase biological diversity, is defined by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) as the variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems. This is the definition used throughout this document. The CBD is one of the three Rio Conventions, emerging from the UN Conference on Environment and Development, also known as the Earth Summit, held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. It came into force at the end of 1993, with the following objectives: The conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources, including by appropriate access to genetic resources and by appropriate transfer of relevant technologies, taking into account all rights over those resources and to technologies, and by appropriate funding. There are currently 193 Parties to the Convention (192 countries and the European Union). In April 2002, the Parties to the Convention committed themselves to achieve by 2010 a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss at the global, regional and national level as a contribution to poverty alleviation and to the benefit of all life on Earth. This target was subsequently endorsed by the World Summit on Sustainable Development (the Rio + 10 summit) in Johannesburg, 2002, and by the United Nations General Assembly. It was also incorporated as a new target under one of the Millennium Development Goals Ensure Environmental Sustainability. The 2010 biodiversity target Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 4 is therefore a commitment from all governments, including those not party to the CBD.

The target agreed by the worlds Governments in 2002, to achieve by 2010 a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss at the global, regional and national level as a contribution to poverty alleviation and to the benefit of all life on Earth, has not been met [See Table].
There are multiple indications of continuing decline in biodiversity in all three of its main components genes, species and ecosystems [See Figure] including: Species which have been assessed for extinction risk are on average moving closer to extinction. Amphibians face the greatest risk and coral species are deteriorating most rapidly in status. Nearly a quarter of plant species are estimated to be threatened with extinction. The abundance of vertebrate species, based on assessed populations, fell by nearly a third on average between 1970 and 2006, and continues to fall globally, with especially severe declines in the tropics and among freshwater species. Natural habitats in most parts of the world continue to decline in extent and integrity, although there has been significant progress in slowing the rate of loss for tropical forests and mangroves, in some regions. Freshwater wetlands, sea ice habitats, salt marshes, coral reefs, seagrass beds and shellfish reefs are all showing serious declines. Extensive fragmentation and degradation of forests, rivers and other ecosystems have also led to loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Crop and livestock genetic diversity continues to decline in agricultural systems. The five principal pressures directly driving biodiversity loss (habitat change, overexploitation, pollution, invasive alien species and climate change) are either constant or increasing in intensity. The ecological footprint of humanity exceeds the biological capacity of the Earth by a wider margin than at the time the 2010 target was agreed. The loss of biodiversity is an issue of profound concern for its own sake. Biodiversity also underpins the functioning of ecosystems which provide a wide range of services to hu-

man societies. Its continued loss, therefore, has major implications for current and future human well-being. The provision of food, fibre, medicines and fresh water, pollination of crops, filtration of pollutants, and protection from natural disasters are among those ecosystem services potentially threatened by declines and changes in biodiversity. Cultural services such as spiritual and religious values, opportunities for knowledge and education, as well as recreational and aesthetic values, are also declining. The existence of the 2010 biodiversity target has helped to stimulate important action to safeguard biodiversity, such as creating more protected areas (both on land and in coastal waters), the conservation of particular species, and initiatives to tackle some of the direct causes of ecosystem damage, such as pollution and alien species invasions. Some 170 countries now have national biodiversity strategies and action plans [See Box]. At the international level, financial resources have been mobilized and progress has been made in developing mechanisms for research, monitoring and scientific assessment of biodiversity. Many actions in support of biodiversity have had significant and measurable results in particular areas and amongst targeted species and ecosystems. This suggests that with adequate resources and political will, the tools exist for loss of biodiversity to be reduced at wider scales. For example, recent government policies to curb deforestation have been followed by declining rates of forest loss in some tropical countries. Measures to control alien invasive species have helped a number of species to move to a lower extinction risk category. It has been estimated that at least 31 bird species (out of 9,800) would have become extinct in the past century, in the absence of conservation measures. However, action to implement the Convention on Biological Diversity has not been taken on a sufficient scale to address the pressures on biodiversity in most places. There has been insufficient integration of biodiversity issues into broader policies, strategies and programmes, and the underlying drivers of biodiversity loss have not been addressed significantly. Actions to promote the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity receive a tiny fraction of funding compared to activities aimed at promoting infrastructure and industrial developments. Moreover, biodiversity considerations are often ignored when such

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 5

developments are designed, and opportunities to plan in ways that minimize unnecessary negative impacts on biodiversity are missed. Actions to address the underlying drivers of biodiversity loss, including demographic, economic, technological, socio-political and cultural pressures, in meaningful ways, have also been limited. Most future scenarios project continuing high levels of extinctions and loss of habitats throughout this century, with associated decline of some ecosystem services important to human well-being. For example: Tropical forests would continue to be cleared in favour of crops and pastures, and potentially for biofuel production. Climate change, the introduction of invasive alien species, pollution and dam construction would put further pressure on freshwater biodiversity and the services it underpins. Overfishing would continue to damage marine ecosystems and cause the collapse of fish populations, leading to the failure of fisheries. Changes in the abundance and distribution of species may have serious consequences for human societies. The geographical distri-

bution of species and vegetation types is projected to shift radically due to climate change, with ranges moving from hundreds to thousands of kilometres towards the poles by the end of the 21st century. Migration of marine species to cooler waters could make tropical oceans less diverse, while both boreal and temperate forests face widespread dieback at the southern end of their existing ranges, with impacts on fisheries, wood harvests, recreation opportunities and other services. There is a high risk of dramatic biodiversity loss and accompanying degradation of a broad range of ecosystem services if ecosystems are pushed beyond certain thresholds or tipping points. The poor would face the earliest and most severe impacts of such changes, but ultimately all societies and communities would suffer. Examples include: The Amazon forest, due to the interaction of deforestation, fire and climate change, could undergo a widespread dieback, with parts of the forest moving into a self-perpetuating cycle of more frequent fires and intense droughts leading to a shift to savanna-like vegetation. While there are large uncertainties associated with these scenarios, it is known that such dieback becomes much more likely to occur if deforestation exceeds 20 30% (it is currently above 17% in the Brazilian Ama-

David Coates

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 6

zon). It would lead to regional rainfall reductions, compromising agricultural production. There would also be global impacts through increased carbon emissions, and massive loss of biodiversity. The build-up of phosphates and nitrates from agricultural fertilizers and sewage effluent can shift freshwater lakes and other inland water ecosystems into a long-term, algaedominated (eutrophic) state. This could lead to declining fish availability with implications for food security in many developing countries. There will also be loss of recreation opportunities and tourism income, and in some cases health risks for people and livestock from toxic algal blooms. Similar, nitrogeninduced eutrophication phenomena in coastal environments lead to more oxygen-starved dead zones, with major economic losses resulting from reduced productivity of fisheries and decreased tourism revenues. The combined impacts of ocean acidification, warmer sea temperatures and other humaninduced stresses make tropical coral reef ecosystems vulnerable to collapse. More acidic water brought about by higher carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere decreases the availability of the carbonate ions required to build coral skeletons. Together with the bleaching impact of warmer water, elevated nutrient levels from pollution, overfishing, sediment deposition arising from inland deforestation, and other pressures, reefs worldwide increasingly become algae-dominated with catastrophic loss of biodiversity and ecosystem functioning, threatening the livelihoods and food security of hundreds of millions of people. There are greater opportunities than previously recognized to address the biodiversity crisis while contributing to other social objectives. For example, analyses conducted for this Outlook identified scenarios in which climate change is mitigated while maintaining and even expanding the current extent of forests and other natural ecosystems (avoiding additional habitat loss from the widespread deployment of biofuels). Other opportunities include rewilding abandoned farmland in some regions, and the restoration of river basins and other wetland ecosystems to enhance water supply, flood control and the removal of pollutants. Well-targeted policies focusing on critical areas, species and ecosystem services are essential to avoid the most dangerous impacts

on people and societies. Preventing further human-induced biodiversity loss for the nearterm future will be extremely challenging, but biodiversity loss may be halted and in some aspects reversed in the longer term, if urgent, concerted and effective action is initiated now in support of an agreed long-term vision. Such action to conserve biodiversity and use its components sustainably will reap rich rewards through better health, greater food security, less poverty and a greater capacity to cope with, and adapt to, environmental change. Placing greater priority on biodiversity is central to the success of development and poverty-alleviation measures. It is clear that continuing with business as usual will jeopardize the future of all human societies, and none more so than the poorest who depend directly on biodiversity for a particularly high proportion of their basic needs. The loss of biodiversity is frequently linked to the loss of cultural diversity, and has an especially high negative impact on indigenous communities. The linked challenges of biodiversity loss and climate change must be addressed by policymakers with equal priority and in close co-ordination, if the most severe impacts of each are to be avoided. Reducing the further loss of carbonstoring ecosystems such as tropical forests, salt marshes and peatlands will be a crucial step in limiting the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. At the same time, reducing other pressures on ecosystems can increase their resilience, make them less vulnerable to those impacts of climate change which are already unavoidable, and allow them to continue to provide services to support peoples livelihoods and help them adapt to climate change. Better protection of biodiversity should be seen as a prudent and cost-effective investment in risk-avoidance for the global community. The consequences of abrupt ecosystem changes on a large scale affect human security to such an extent, that it is rational to minimize the risk of triggering them - even if we are not clear about the precise probability that they will occur. Ecosystem degradation, and the consequent loss of ecosystem services, has been identified as one of the main sources of disaster risk. Investment in resilient and diverse ecosystems, able to withstand the multiple pressures they are subjected to, may be the best-value insurance policy yet devised. Scientific uncertainty surrounding the precise connections between biodiversity and human

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 7

well-being, and the functioning of ecosystems, should not be used as an excuse for inaction. No one can predict with accuracy how close we are to ecosystem tipping points, and how much additional pressure might bring them about. What is known from past examples, however, is that once an ecosystem shifts to another state, it can be difficult or impossible to return it to the former conditions on which economies and patterns of settlement have been built for generations. Effective action to address biodiversity loss depends on addressing the underlying causes or indirect drivers of that decline. This will mean: Much greater efficiency in the use of land, energy, fresh water and materials to meet growing demand. Use of market incentives, and avoidance of perverse subsidies, to minimize unsustainable resource use and wasteful consumption. Strategic planning in the use of land, inland waters and marine resources to reconcile development with conservation of biodiversity and the maintenance of multiple ecosystem services. While some actions may entail moderate costs or tradeoffs, the gains for biodiversity can be large in comparison. Ensuring that the benefits arising from use of and access to genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge, for example through the development of drugs and cosmetics, are equitably shared with the countries and cultures from which they are obtained.

Communication, education and awarenessraising to ensure that as far as possible, everyone understands the value of biodiversity and what steps they can take to protect it, including through changes in personal consumption and behaviour. The real benefits of biodiversity, and the costs of its loss, need to be reflected within economic systems and markets. Perverse subsidies and the lack of economic value attached to the huge benefits provided by ecosystems have contributed to the loss of biodiversity. Through regulation and other measures, markets can and must be harnessed to create incentives to safeguard and strengthen, rather than to deplete, our natural infrastructure. The re-structuring of economies and financial systems following the global recession provides an opportunity for such changes to be made. Early action will be both more effective and less costly than inaction or delayed action. Urgent action is needed to reduce the direct drivers of biodiversity loss. The application of best practices in agriculture, sustainable forest management and sustainable fisheries should become standard practice, and approaches aimed at optimizing multiple ecosystem services instead of maximizing a single one should be promoted. In many cases, multiple drivers are combining to cause biodiversity loss and degradation of ecosystems. Sometimes, it may be more effective to concentrate urgent action on reducing those drivers most responsive to policy changes. This will reduce the pressures on biodiversity and protect its value for human societies in the short to medium-term, while the more intractable drivers are addressed over

Johnanders... | Dreamstime.com

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 8

a longer time-scale. For example the resilience of coral reefs and their ability to withstand and adapt to coral bleaching and ocean acidification can be enhanced by reducing overfishing, land-based pollution and physical damage. Direct action to conserve biodiversity must be continued, targeting vulnerable as well as culturally-valued species and ecosystems, combined with steps to safeguard key ecosystem services, particularly those of importance to the poor. Activities could focus on the conservation of species threatened with extinction, those harvested for commercial purposes, or species of cultural significance. They should also ensure the protection of functional ecological groups that is, groups of species that collectively perform particular, essential roles within ecosystems, such as pollination, control of herbivore numbers by top predators, cycling of nutrients and soil formation. Increasingly, restoration of terrestrial, inland water and marine ecosystems will be needed to re-establish ecosystem functioning and the provision of valuable services. Economic analysis shows that ecosystem restoration can give good economic rates of return. However the biodiversity and associated services of restored ecosystems usually remain below the levels of natural ecosystems. This reinforces the argument that, where possible, avoiding degradation through conservation is preferable (and even more cost-effective) than restoration after the event. Better decisions for biodiversity must be made at all levels and in all sectors, in particular the major economic sectors, and government has a key enabling role to play. National programmes or legislation can be crucial in creating a favourable environment to support effective bottom-up initiatives led by communities, local authorities, or businesses. This also includes empowering indigenous peoples and local communities to take responsibility for biodiversity management and decision-making; and developing systems to ensure that the benefits arising from access to genetic resources are equitably shared. We can no longer see the continued loss of and changes to biodiversity as an issue separate from the core concerns of society: to tackle poverty, to improve the health, prosperity and security of our populations, and to deal with climate change. Each of those objectives is undermined by current trends in the state of our

ecosystems, and each will be greatly strengthened if we correctly value the role of biodiversity in supporting the shared priorities of the international community. Achieving this will involve placing biodiversity in the mainstream of decision-making in government, the private sector, and other institutions from the local to international scales. The action taken over the next decade or two, and the direction charted under the Convention on Biological Diversity, will determine whether the relatively stable environmental conditions on which human civilization has depended for the past 10,000 years will continue beyond this century. If we fail to use this opportunity, many ecosystems on the planet will move into new, unprecedented states in which the capacity to provide for the needs of present and future generations is highly uncertain.

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 9

Table: Status of agreed subsidiary targets to 2010 biodiversity target Table 1: Status of agreed subsidiary targets to 2010 biodiversity target Goal 1. Promote the conservation of the biological diversity of ecosystems, habitats and biomes 1.1: At least 10% of each of the world's ecological regions effectively conserved. 1.2: Areas of particular importance to biodiversity protected. Goal 2. Promote the conservation of species diversity 2.1: Restore, maintain, or reduce the decline of populations of species of selected taxonomic groups. 2.2: Status of threatened species improved. Goal 3. Promote the conservation of genetic diversity 3.1: Genetic diversity of crops, livestock, and of harvested species of trees, sh and wildlife and other valuable species conserved, and associated indigenous and local knowledge maintained. Goal 4. Promote sustainable use and consumption 4.1: Biodiversity-based products derived from sources that are sustainably managed, and production areas managed consistent with the conservation of biodiversity. 4.2: Unsustainable consumption, of biological resources, or that impacts upon biodiversity, reduced. 4.3: No species of wild ora or fauna endangered by international trade. Not achieved globally but progress for some components of biodiversity such as forests and some sheries. Globally, sustainable use does not account for a large share of total products and production areas. Not achieved globally. Information on genetic diversity is fragmentary. Progress has been made towards conserving genetic diversity of crops through ex situ actions, however agricultural systems continue to be simplied. While the genetic diversity of wild species is more difcult to ascertain, the overall decline of biodiversity presented in this report strongly suggests that genetic diversity is not being maintained. Genetic resources in situ and traditional knowledge are protected through some projects, but continue to decline overall. Not achieved globally as many species continue to decline in abundance and distribution. However, some efforts have resulted in the recovery of targeted species. Not achieved globally, as species are on average at increasing risk of extinction. However some species have moved to lower risk categories as a result of actions taken. Not achieved globally, but more than half of terrestrial eco-regions meet the 10% target. However, management effectiveness is low for some protected areas. Marine and inland water systems lack protection, though this is increasing. Not achieved globally, but an increasing proportion of the sites of importance for conserving birds, and those holding the last remaining populations of threatened species, are being protected.

Not achieved globally. Unsustainable consumption has increased and continues to be a major cause of biodiversity loss. Not achieved globally. Wild ora and fauna continue to decline as a result of international trade, but successes achieved particularly through implementation of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

Goal 5. Pressures from habitat loss, land use change and degradation, and unsustainable water use, reduced 5.1: Rate of loss and degradation of natural habitats decreased. Goal 6. Control threats from invasive alien species 6.1: Pathways for major potential alien invasive species controlled. 6.2: Management plans in place for major alien species that threaten ecosystems, habitats or species. Not achieved globally as the introduction of invasive alien species continues to increase as a result of greater transport, trade, and tourism. However, national action related to global agreements on plant protection and ballast water promises to reduce the risk of new invasions in some countries and ecosystems. Not achieved globally, though some management plans are in place. Most countries lack effective management programmes. Not achieved globally as many biodiversity-sensitive regions continue to decline, but some progress in reducing the rate of loss in some areas.

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 10

Table 1: Status of agreed subsidiary targets to 2010 biodiversity target Goal 7. Address challenges to biodiversity from climate change, and pollution 7.1: Maintain and enhance resilience of the components of biodiversity to adapt to climate change. 7.2: Reduce pollution and its impacts on biodiversity. Not achieved globally, as limited action has been taken to reduce other pressures and thus enhance the resilience of biodiversity in the face of climate change. However, the establishment of biodiversity corridors in some regions may help species to migrate and adapt to new climatic conditions. Not achieved globally but mixed results. Measures to reduce the impacts of pollution on biodiversity have been taken, resulting in the recovery of some previously heavily degraded ecosystems. However, many previously pristine areas are being degraded. Nitrogen deposition continues to be major threat to biodiversity in many regions.

Goal 8. Maintain capacity of ecosystems to deliver goods and services and support livelihoods 8.1: Capacity of ecosystems to deliver goods and services maintained. 8.2: Biological resources that support sustainable livelihoods, local food security and health care, especially of poor people. Not achieved globally, given the continuing and in some cases escalating pressures on ecosystems. However, there have been some actions taken, to ensure the continued provision of ecosystem services. Not achieved globally, as many of the biological resources which sustain livelihoods, such as sh mammals, birds, amphibians and medicinal plants, are in decline, with the worlds poor being particularly affected.

Goal 9. Maintain socio-cultural diversity of indigenous and local communities 9.1: Protect traditional knowledge, innovations and practices. 9.2: Protect the rights of indigenous and local communities over their traditional knowledge, innovations and practices, including their rights to benet sharing. Not achieved globally, as long-term declines in traditional knowledge and rights continue, despite the actions taken to protect them in some areas. Not achieved globally but an increasing number of co-management systems and community-based protected areas have been established, with the greater protection of the rights of indigenous and local communities.

Goal 10. Ensure the fair and equitable sharing of benets arising out of the use of genetic resources 10.1: All transfers of genetic resources are in line with the Convention on Biological Diversity, the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture and other applicable agreements. 10.2: Benets arising from the commercial and other utilization of genetic resources shared with the countries providing such resources. Not achieved globally but increasing number of material transfer agreements have been developed under the Treaty.

Not achieved globally. There are few examples of the benet arising from the commercial and other utilization of genetic resources being shared with the countries providing such resources. This can be partially attributed to the fact that the Access and Benet Sharing Regime was being developed from 2002, when the biodiversity target was adopted, until 2010, the deadline set by the CBD for nal agreement on this issue.

Goal 11. Parties have improved nancial, human, scientic, technical and technological capacity to implement the Convention 11.1: New and additional nancial resources are transferred to developing country Parties, to allow for the effective implementation of their commitments under the Convention, in accordance with Article 20. 11.2: Technology is transferred to developing country Parties, to allow for the effective implementation of their commitments under the Convention, in accordance with its Article 20, paragraph 4. Not achieved globally Not achieved globally. While resources continue to be lacking there have been modest increases in ofcial development assistance related to biodiversity.

Not achieved globally. From country reports it is clear that some developing countries have mechanisms and programmes in place for technology transfer. However, it is also clear that the limited access to technology is an obstacle to implementation of the Convention and reaching the 2010 biodiversity target in many developing countries.

Not achieved globally but some progress

Not achieved globally but signicant progress

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 11

STATE
100 80 60 40 FIGURE: Summary of biodiversity indicators 20 Living Planet Index 0 STATE 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 150 130 110 90 70 50 1970 1980 Terrestrial Wild Bird Index 1990 2000 Wetland 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 2010 0 1970 1980 Waterbird Population Status Index 1990 2000 2010 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 1970

Million km2 STATE Million km2 0.8 41 1000.8 1.0 0.25 1.0 3.5 90 Corals 0.8 100 150 0.8 150 Wetland Birds 1.0 100 150 Corals 1300.9 800.6 0.9 0.20 Wetland Birds 0.6130 Wetland 85 80 Mammals 130 0.6 0.9 0.6 80 130 1100.8 60 0.8 0.15 Mammals 60 0.4110 0.4 3.0 110 80 40 Terrestrial 0.8 60 110 900.7 40 0.7 0.4 Amphibians 0.4 0.10 Terrestrial Terrestrial 40 0.7 Amphibians 0.2 90 0.290 Waterbird Population Waterbird Population 40 90 75 700.6 20 0.6 0.2 0.05 0.2 WaterbirdList Index Status Index 20 70 Wild BirdPopulation d Bird Index Living Planet Index Red Index MarineStatus Index Trophic Index Water Quality Index 70 0.6 Forest extent 20 Wild Bird Index Living Planet Index 0 39 500.5 0 2.5 0 Status Index Wild Bird Index Planet Index Red List Index 0.5 70 0 70 Living Planet Index 0 00 50 50 0.5 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2000 2010 1970197019801980199019902000200020102010 1970197019801980199019902000200020102010 1970197019801980199019902000200020102010 197019701980 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 0 50 1970 1 1970 1970 1970 1980 1980 1990 1990 2000 2000 2010 2010 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1980 1990 1990 2000 2000 2010 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 2 Million km2 Million kmof live corals Million km2 km22 STATE Million km2 2 Per cent Million km Million STATEMillion km2 3.5 4150 0.25 0.25 41 90 Million km 0.25 STATE41 0.8 3.5 150 90 90 41 Seagrass extent 1.00.8 0.25 Corals 100 150 3.5 Birds Seagrass extent 0.201.0 90 0.20 PRESSURES Wetland 40 0.20 85 0.8 130 150 1.0 Wetland Indo-Pacic 0.9 0.20 0.6 Corals 85 8085 130 Birds Per cent 0.150.985 0.15 Mammals 0.6 Wetland 30 0.15 3.0 130 110 40 80 0.6 40 0.9 0.8 0.15 85 60 110 3.0 0.4 40 Mammals Caribbean 80 40 0.100.8 0.10 80 Terrestrial 20 0.10 3.0 80 0.8 90 110 Terrestrial 80 0.70.4 Amphibians 0.10 75 90 40 0.7 0.4 0.05 0.05 0.05 75 Terrestrial 10 0.2 Waterbird Population 75 Marine Trophic Index 75 0.7 Water Quality Index uality Index 70 90 Amphibians 0.60.2 Waterbird Population Forest extent Forest extent 0.05 Coral condition 75 70 Status Index Marine Trophic Index Water Quality Index Wild Bird Index et Index Red List Index 39 00.6 0 70 70 39 0 Trophic Index 2.5 20 0 WaterPlanet Index Quality Index 0.2 Waterbird Population ForestIndex extent Wild Bird Living MarineStatus Index Trophic Index 70 65 0 2.5 50 1970 1980 39 0.6 0.5 70 0 1980 39 2000 Bird 2010 1990 2000 List 2010 197019701980 1970 1980 1980 1990 1990 2000 2000 2010 2010 1970 2000 2010 19701970 1980 19901990 2000 20102010 1970 Status Index 0 070 50 1980 1990 Wild 2000Index 0.5 Planet2010 2.5 1980 Red 70 002000Index 1970 1980 1990 2010 1970 1 1970 1980 2000 Index 2010 2010 19701970 1980 19901990 2000 20102010 19700 19801980 1990 20002000 2010 Over or1970 exploited 1990 20002000 2010 1970 1980 19901990 602000 20102010 1970 fully 1980 19901990 2000 20102010 1980 1990 50 19801980 1990 20002000 2010 0.5 1970 1970 1970 2000 1970 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 19 2 Million km2 Million km 1970 1980 2010 depleted sh stocks 1990 2000 2010 Per cent of live corals 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Million cent of live corals 1990 55 2000 1970 1980 2000 2010 2 or Per km STATE50 Million km2 km2 50 Million 2 0.25 0.25 Million km2 Per 0.25 0.25 cent of live corals 41 50 90 2 Million km 1970 1980 1990 2010 Million km2 0.25 4150 2000 90 0.83.5 1.0 Seagrass extent PRESSURES 40 0.20 0.20 Corals PRESSURES Birds Indo-Pacic 41 90 0.20 0.25 PRESSURES 40 PRESSURES 0.20 85 0.20 Indo-Pacic Per cent cent 40 0.9 85 acic 30 0.15 0.6 Number of alien species Seagrass extent 0.15 Nitrogen deposition (Tg per year) Indo-Pacic Per cent Mammals 85 extent 0.15 0.20 Mangrove Per cent 30 85 0.15 0.15 Caribbean 1 200 0.8 120 85 30 80 2.0 40 20 0.10 1.5 0.10 Mangrove extent 85 80 Caribbean 80 0.43.0 40 0.10 0.15 Caribbean 20 80 Caribbean 100 10.10 000 80 0.10 75 0.7 40 Amphibians 20 10 80 0.05 0.05 75 1.5 75 0.05 0.10 10 75 Coral condition 1.0 800 0.2 Waterbird Population 70 7580 0.05 0.05 hic Index Water Quality Index 0.6 0 10 Coral condition Forest extent 0 75 0 70 ral Index 70 Marine Trophic Index Status Index Water Quality Index 65 rd condition Red List Index Forest extent Coral condition 60 39 0 0 0.05 70 1.0 1980 600 1970 1990 2000 1970 1980 1970 1980 1990 Forest extent 2000 2010 65 39 0 0 Trophic Index Water65 Quality 2010 Index 0.5 70 02.5 0 00 2000 2010 2010 1970 1970 20002000 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1980 1990 60 2000 1990 2000 2010 2010 or19700exploited 19901990 0.5 400 19801980 1990 60 2000 20102010 40 1970 1980 39 1980 70 exploited 1990 Over fully1970 or1970 1980 fully 1980 1990 2000 2000 2010 2010 1970 1970 1980 1990 55 2000 1990 2000 2010 2010 1970 1970 19 00 2010 Over1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2010 or fully explo 60 0.5 or depleted 1970 sh Over or1970 exploited 1990 fully or 200 stocks 20 2000 2010depleted sh stocks 1980 2000 2010 1980 European alien species Over 1990 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 55 2000 55 Ecological footprint or depleted sh stocks Nitrogen deposition Million km2 50 or depleted sh st Millioncent of live corals Per0km2 Million km2 Million km2 0 0 0 50 0.25 2000 50 1970 1980 1990 Million km2 2010 970 1980 1990 2000 2010 0.25 41 50graphs help to summarize the message from the available indicators1990 0.25 1980 1990 1970 2000 1980 2010 19901970200019802010 on biodiversity: that 1970 1980 1990 1970 2000 1980 2010 1990 1970 2000 2010 These 1970 2000 Seagrass extent PRESSURES the state of biodiversity is declining, the pressures upon it are increasing, and the benefits de- 0.20 0.25 PRESSURES alien species 0.20 40 0.20 Number of Number of alien species Nitrogen deposition (Tg per ear) Indo-Pacic Per cent rived by humans from biodiversity are diminishing, but that the responses to address its loss are 0.15 Nitrogen deposition (Tg per year) PRESSURES of alien species year) cent Number of alie 0.20 Per Nitrogen deposition (Tg per year) 1.5 Nitrogen de 2.0 30 1201.5 1 200 acic 0.15Number 0.15 Mangrove extent 85 increasing. They reinforce the conclusion that the 2010 biodiversity target has not been met. 1 200120 2.0 1 200 Per cent 85 bbean 40000 1.5 1 120 0.10 2.0 100 200 1 0000.15 1 20 80 85 Caribbean 120 RESPONSES 0.10 Mangrove extent 0.10 80 1.5 indicators of the state of biodiversity show negative trends, with no significant reduction 100 1 000 Most 100 Caribbean 11.5 000 75 80 801.0 800 Millions km2 of Forest Stewardship Council 1.0 100 800 0.05 0.10 75 in the rate of decline. 0.05 800 per cent protected 1080 0.05 cent of c 80 800 1.5 ondition 1.0 70 75condition Per certied forest 1.0 Million km2 ty Index 60 Mean 80 6000.05 600 Coral Forest extent 70 0 60 65 70 600 4 100 30 50 39400 no 0 1.0 ral condition There 060 evidence of a slowing in the increase of 0.5 600 0.5 060 is 40pressures upon biodiversity, based on the 400 1.0 1980 65 000 2010 19700 1990 2000 2010 1970 2000 2010 00 2010 trend shown by indicators 60 humanitys ecological1970 1980 1990 of 2000 1990 652000 2010 2010 0.5 1970 1980 1970 19 400 0.5 footprint, nitrogen1990 AZEs alien species 200 40 deposition, 400 1980 80 40 60 Over or fully exploited 200.5 20040 40 2000 1980 1990 2000 3 European alien species 2010 200 European footprint 55 stocks and the impact of climate change Impact Indicator Over or0.5 exploited fully Nitrogen deposition deposition 2010 Ecological alien C introductions, overexploited fish60 species or depleted sh stocks Climaticon biodiversity. 201970 55 20 0 60 0 020 0km 0 0 or fully Ecological footprint Over 200 20 Nitrogen deposition Million 30 2 exploited European alien species or depleted sh stocks Nitrogen deposition cal footprint 50 55 Climatic Impact footprint Ecological Indicator 0 0 sh stocks 1990 50 IBAs 2010 0 Invas 02 1980 0 19700 1980 19700 1980 2000 2010 19700 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 of 1990benefits1980 20100.25 1970 2000 2010 The limited indicators1990 1970 2000 2010 byor depleted 1980 the 2000 derived 1990 1970 from 1980 1990 also show negative humans 2000 biodiversity 2010 1990 2000 40 policy 20 1970 1970 1 19702000 2010 1990 1970 2000 1980 1990 2010 1990 2000 1970 1980 2000 2010 2010 2000 2010 1970 1980 1980 1990 2000 19802010 1980 1990 50 2000 2010 trends. 1970 10 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 PRESSURES 1 Sustainably managed 1970 1980 0.20 10 2000 1990 2010 20 Nitrogen deposition (TgProtected area extent Number of alien species per year) nt Site alien extent 0.15Nitrogen deposition (Tg per year) a positive Number offorestspecies In contrast, all indicators of the responses to address biodiversity loss are moving incoverage 200 0 120 Nitrogen deposition (Tg per year) 0 More areas are being protected for1biodiversity, of alien species and laws are being 1.5 0 Number more Mangrove extent direction. policies 2.0 1 200 120 RESPONSES 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1.5 0 RESPONSES 1970 1970 1980 1990 1980 1990 2000 100 120 10.101 1970 RESPONSES 1.5 introduced to avoid damage from 2000 RESPONSES invasive 2010 species, and more money is being spent 2010 alien000 200 in 100 1Millions km2 of Forest Stewardship Council 000 Millions km2 of Forest Stewardship Council support of the Convention on Biological Diversity and000 objectives. 801.5 km2 forest 800 cent cent km2 of with policies 0.051 itsper of countries Forest Stewardship Council1.0 Millions km Per 1.0 of count cent Per 100 Mean Millions protected certied forest certied Million Billions of dollars 80 800 2 Per cent of countries with 4 Mean per cent protected policies 100 certied fo 100 certied 30 4Mean per cent protected 50 800 60 600 Million km forest 3.2 1.0 Mean per Million km2 The 1.080 message from these indicators is that0despite the many efforts taken around the overall 60 4 600 4 30 50 50 0.5 100 400 responses so far have not been adequate 40 60 1970 1990 2010 30 50 world to conserve biodiversity and use it sustainably,80 800.5 40 40 AZEs 2000 600 1980 International 400 3 40 3 AZEs International Overto200.540 the scale of biodiversity loss or reduce the pressures. oraddress fully exploited 80 AZEs 200 400 0.5 3.0 40 60 3 30 60 3 200 20 Invasive European alien species ootprint or depleted40 stocks Nitrogen deposition Climatic Impact alien species sh from ButchartEcological Science 20 Source: Adapted etal. (2010). IBAs BAs European Indicator Invasive a alien Nitrogen deposition species footprint 0 30 0 200 0 220 2 20 60 30 IBAs IBAs 0 0 0 European alien species 30 Nitrogen deposition cal 40 0policy ado 20 40 2 policy adoption 2 19700 Invasive Climatic Impact Indicator 1980 alien species 1990 2000 2010 000 footprint 199019700 1980 2010 19700 1980 1990 2000 2010 1990 2000 2010 1980 2000 1980 2010 1990 10 1970 20 1970 1 2010 1970 policy adoption 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2.8 2000 2010 40 120 Sustainably managed 2000 10 National 2010 1 Sustainably managed 20 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 20 1 Sustai 2000 2010 1980 1990 2000 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 10 20 1970 10 1 Sustainably managed 10forest extent Site coverage te coverage Number 10 alien species Protected area extent forest extent National of Biodiversity aid 20 Site coverage Protected area extent 0 0 10 forest 0 0 0 0 2.6 Site coverage forest extent d area extent Protected area extent 1.5 1970 1980 1 200 1970 1980 0 00 0 19700 1980 1990 2000 2010 19700 1980 1980 1990 1990 2000 2000 2010 2010 1970 1980 1990 1990 2000 2000 2010 2010 19900 2000 2000 2010 19700 1980 2010 RESPONSES1970 1980 1990 1970 RESPONSES 1970 1 1970 1970 1980 1990 2000 2000 2010 2010 1970 1980 1980 1990 1990 2000 2000 2010 2010 2000 Global1Biodiversity Outlook1980 12 1990 2010 2000 2010 000 1970 3 | 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 Millions Billions of Council ons of dollars 800 RESPONSESkm2 of Forest Stewardshipdollars 1.0 Millions km2 ofwith policies Forest Stewardshipdollars Council Per cent of countries Mean per cent protected Billions of certied forest 2 Billions of dollars 3.2 Per cent of co Mean per cent protected Stewardship Council Millions km of Forest certied forest Million km2 4 100 Per cent of countries with3.2 50 600 Mean per cent protected 3.2 policies certied forest

STATE

STATE 150

STATE

Nitrogen deposition (Tg per year) 85 Per cent 2 30 0.15 2 Million km2 Wetland 0.6 Million Millions km of Forest Stewardship Council1 200km2 130 Million km 0.9 Billions of dollars Million cent of co STATE 0.9 Mean per cent protected 2 2.0 120 km 0.15 certied forest 0.6 Mammals 85 Million km2 Mammals Per 3.2 Caribbean 0.25 41 40 3.5 80 0.25 41 900.8 20 0.10 80 110 1 000 0.8 100 Seagrass extent 0.8 1.5 50 1500.4 30 0.10 1.0100 4 Corals 0.4 Birds 0.20 75 Terrestrial0.7 0.20 Amphibians 80 10 800 0.05 80 Wetland 90 75 85 40 0.7 3.0 Amphibians AZEs 130 0.05 3 0.9 Coral condition 0.6 1.0 0.2 Waterbird Population hic Index 0.15 70 Water Quality Index 60 Mammals 600 0.2 Forest extent Waterbird Population 0.15 0 0.6 0 20 70 Status Index 60 0.6 30 65 List Index 3.0 40 110 70 Bird Index 0.8 0Status Index Red IBAs 8039 Bird Index 40 40 Wild Living1970 Index Planet 1980 1990 2000 2010 0.4 400 ListInvasiv Red 1970 Index 198 0.10 60 2000 2 0 0.5 Terrestrial 50 2000 000 2010 1970 1980 19900 2010 1970 1980 1990 2.8 2000 2010 0.10 40 policy 1970 1980 1990 2010 0.5 20 0.5 Over 20 Amphibians 200 1980 1990 2000 2010 75 1970 000 2010 90 1970 1980 0.05 55 2000 1990 2010 0.7or fully exploited Nitrogen deposition 1970 1980 1990 2000Sustainably managed 1980 2010 1980 1990 10 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Ecological footprint or depleted sh stocks 1970 1990 2000 2 0.05 1 0.2 0 10 Waterbird Population Water Quality Index Marine Trophic Index 70 Million Forest extent Biodiversity aid 020 Water Quality Index 0.6 0 km2 50 Forest extent 2 Site Status 2 extent Red 2.6 2 Protected area extent 70 1970 2 1980 Wild 39 Bird Index 0Million kmcoverage 39 Index Million km 2.5 Million km 0.25 0 2000 1980 1990 1970Index 2010 1990 1970 forest 2010 1990 List Index 2010 0 1970 2000 1980 198 2000 Million km 0 0 0 2000 0.5 2000 1980 2010 19901970 2010 1990 1980 199050 41 0 1980 2000 2010 19901970 1970 2010 1990 2000 1970 20001980 20101990 0.25 2000 1970 1980 1970 1980 20001980 20101990 1970 41 90 PRESSURES1970 1980 Seagrass extent 20100.20 1970 1980 0.25 2000 2000 1980 Seagrass extent 1 1990 2010 1970 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1990 2000 1980 1990 2000 2010 0 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2010 0.20 Number of alien species 0.20 Nitrogen deposition Million km2 (Tg per year) Per Per cent of live corals Million km2 2 0.15 2 85 cent Million km Billions of dollarsMillion km 1.5 1 200 120 STATE502.0 Mangrove extent 85 0.25 0.15 0.25 ibbean 3.2 PReSSURe RESPONSES 0.25 41100 ReSPONSeS 90 40 0.10 beNeFITS 0.15 1 000 80 0.81.5 BENEFITS km2 PRESSURES80 Seagrass extent 1.0 0.2040 Corals PRESSURES 0.10 40 0.20 Millions 0.10 Birds 75 Indo-Pacic 0.20 Mean per cent protected 1.0 80 800 0.05 2 85 cent certied fores Million km Per Per cent 0.15 0.9 0.05 ondition 3.0 30 0.61.0 70 75 0.15 1.00 0.05 60 120 Mangrove600 4 85 30 50 Mammals 85 0.15 extent lity Index Marine Trophic Index M 0 Forest extent Water Quality Index 65 Forest extent Caribbean 0.8 40 80 40 0 Intern 0.10 20 80 400 000 2010 0.4 39 1970 1980 19900 2000 2010 0.100.5 80 39 70 0.95 AZEs 0.10 40 60 2000 100 trade 0.5 3 1980 1990 2010 0.7 1970 1980Amphibians 2.8 1990 2000 2010 000 2010 75 1970 75 1980 1990 2000 2010 1980 1990 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2 1970 1980 Over or fully exploited 0.05 1970 1990 20 2000 2010 200 2000 20 10 0.05 0.90 55 75 European alien species Ecological footprint or depleted sh stocks Nitrogen deposition C 0.05 30 70 Coral condition 0.2 0 Waterbird Population IBAs 70 0 0 80 0 km2 Index Foo Water Quality Index 0.6 Biodiversity aid 50 2 0Forest extent Million 0 0 0.85 tIndex corals 70 of live 65 Status Index 2010 39 1970 Million km2 65 2.6 Red List Index 2010 0 20 1970 198 1970 1980 1980 1990 1990 1970 2000 1980 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1980 0.25 1970 2000 1980 1990 2000 2010 1990 20101990 1970 2000 2010 1970 1980 0 0.25 0.5 10 2000 60 1 0 2010 1970 1980 1990 60 2000 1970 1980 Over or fully exploited 1990 2000 2010 1970 2010 1980 197060 1980 1990 2000 2010 2000 Index Red Lis 0.80 Sustaina 10 exploited 1990 Living Plant2010 Over or fully 1970 2010 0 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 PRESSURES 1980 or1990 2000stocks 0.20 55 for PRESSURES forest ex Protected 0.20 Site coverage depleted sh in trade Number of alien species 55 area extent or depleted sh stocks utilized vertebrate species Nitrogen Indo-Pacic deposition (Tg per year) 40 0.75 0 50 0 2 ent Million0km2 50 0.15km Million km2 Per cent Million1970 1.5 1970 1980 1 200 120 1980 0.15 2000 1990 2000 2010 2010 1970 1 1980 Mangrove extent RESPONSES 1990 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 2000 1980 2010 0.25 1970 1990 2000 2010 1990 Mangrove1970 extent 198 0.25 85 41100Caribbean 10.10 000 0.10 Seagrass extent BENEFITS km2 of Forest Stewardshipdollars 1.0 PRESSURES 80 0.20 Millions Council Corals Billions of Birds 1.0 80 Number of alien species 0.20 Meandeposition (Tg per year) 800 eposition (Tg per year) km2 Per cent of coun Number of alienforest 0.05 Nitrogen per cent protected certied species 75 Per cent 3.2 0.05 0.9 Million 0.15 4 1.5 1 200 100 60 1.5 2.030 condition 1 200 1.00 12050 Coral 600 120 Mammals 85 0.15 70 Mangrove extent 0 bean 0.8 40 40 Internationally 0 0.100.5 1 000 400 80 100 65 1970 1980 1990 20101 000 0.95 AZEs 2000 0.10 40 1980 1990 2000 2010 1980 1990 80 2000 2 100 traded species 1970 3.0 1.5 3 1.0 75 0.7 20 Amphibians Over or fully exploited 800 200 20 1.0 80 60 800 0.05 European alien species Over or fully exploited 60 ootprint or depleted sh stocks Nitrogen deposition Climatic Impact Indicator 0.90 0.05 30 dition IBAs ulation 55 70 Invasive a 600Forest extent 1.0 Index or depleted sh stocks 60 0 80 Food & medicine 0.6 0 600 0 0 2 2.8 Index 2010 39 1970 65 Red 2000 0 50 1970 1980 1990 1990 2000 2010 2010 0.540 policy ad 000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 400 0.85 1980 species 2000 19802010400 List Index 2010 4020 1990 0.5 0 1970 0 1980 1990 0.5 10 2000 1970 1980 1990 Living Plant Index 1990 2000 2000 2010 2010 1 Sustainably managed 1970 1980 1990 60 2000 2010 197060 1980 0 2010 0.5 Red 200 Biodiversity 0 2010 1970 1980 1990 55 2000 extentOver or fully exploited 2010 200 0.80 forestList Index for species utilized aid 20 2010 species Nitrogen deposition European alien species Protected footprint European alien stocks utilized vertebrate Climatic Impact Indicator extent food2.6 medicine area for Nitrogen Site coverage species deposition Ecological Clim in trade and and or depleted sh Number of alien species 0 r) 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0km2 40 Number of alien species 0 0.75 Million Nitrogen deposition (Tg per year) 50 Million2000 1980 1.5 1970 1980 199019702000198020101990 1970 1970 1980 1990 1990 2000 1980 2010 1970 2000198 1 1970 200km 2000 1980 1980 1990 1970 2000 2010 19901970 1980 2010 1980 1990 1970 2010 1990 2000 1980 2010 0.25 1970 1980 1990 1970 2000 RESPONSES 1980 1980 1990 2010 1990 2000 2010 1990 2000 2010 2010 1970 1.5 2000 120 1970 1980 1990 1970 2000 2010 2010 1 200 2000 0.25 1 000 2 Seagrass extent PRESSURES 100 0.20 Millions km of Forest000 1 Stewardship Council Billions of dollars 0.20800 deposition (Tg per year) 1.0 Number of alienforest Per cent of countries with policies Mean Nitrogen per cent protected certied species 1.0 80 800 3.2 0.15 100 1.5 1 200 4 120 0.15 50 Mangrove extent 600 BENEFITS RESPONSES 60 600 RESPONSES 100 40 10.10 0.5 000 400 80 2 AZEs International 0.10 0.5 Millions km of Forest Stewardship Council 400 40 3.0 Millions km2 of Forest Stewardship Council 3 120 1.00 1.0 Per cent 800 cent protected 80 0.05 200 certied forest Per cent of countrie Mean per cent protected 200 of countries with policies forest certied Million km2 60 30 European alien species 20 IBAs eposition 0.05 Internat Invasive alien species Nitrogen depositionClimatic Impact Indicator European alien species Ecological footprint 4 Climatic Impact Indicator 100 60 4 100 30 0 50 0 600 2 0.95 extent 0 2.8 0 0 0 100 policy adoption traded s 40 0 20 1980 1990 1990 2000 2000 2010 2010 0.5 International 1980 1990 2000 2010 400 1970 1980 000 2010 40 1970 1970 80 1970 1980 1990 2 1980 AZEs1970 2000 1990 2010 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 1 2000 2010AZEs 1970 80 40 0.90 2000 0 2010 1980 1990 3 2000 2010 Sustainably managed 320 National Over or fully exploited Food & 200 20 10 60 2.6 Biodiversity aid 80 European alien species Site coverage forest extent a extent tprint or depleted sh stocks Nitrogen deposition 60 30 Climatic Impact Indicator 0.85Invasive alie IBAs Invasive alien species0 0 s IBAs 2 0 0 0 0 Million km2 2 1970 1980 60 40 policy adoption 199019702000198020101990 2000 Index Living Plant 2010 0.80 Red adop 1980 1990 1990 2000 2000 2010 2010 1970 2000 2010 40 policy List In 000 2010 19901970 1980 1990 1990 2000 2000 2010 2010 20 1970 1980 1980 1990 0 1980 2010 0.25 1970 1980 1970 2010 10 2000 RESPONSES for 1 Sustainably managed in trade an 1 Sustainably managed RESPONSES National utilized vertebrate species 20 20 40 0.75 0.20 Millions km2 of Forest Stewardship Council 10 Site coverage ProtectedBillions of dollars forest extent 2 Site coverage of Forest Stewardship Council forest extent area extent Millions km Number of alien forest species Per 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 198 0 Mean per cent protected0 cent of countries with policies 0 3.2 0 1970 0 certied Per cent of countries with 0 policies certied forest km2 1.5 2000 1980 10.15 4 200 2000 1980 Mangrove extent 1980 100 1990 1970 2010 199019702000198020101990 1970 2000 2010 1980 1990 1970 2010 1990 1970 BENEFITS 1980 1990100 2000 2010 1970 1980 2010 4 50 2000 RESPONSES 10.10 000 80 2 International 3.0 Millions km of Forest Stewardshipdollars Billions of dollars 80 40 AZEs 3 Internationa Billions of Council 120 1.00 1.0 800 3 0.05 Per cent of countries with policies Mean certied forest 3.2 per cent protected 60 3.2 Internationally 60 s 30 Invasive alien species 4 IBAs 100 50 600 2 0.95 Invasive alien species 0 100 policy adoption 2 traded species 2.8 0.5 40 400 40 policy adoption 1970 1980 1990 20 2000 2010 80 40 AZEs International 0.90 3.0 1 Sustainably managed 3.0 3 20 National 1 Sustainably managed Food & medicine Biodiversity aid 80 200 National European 10 species alien sition 2.6 60 30 coverage Climatic Impact Indicator forest extent 0.85Invasive alien species20 species IBAs forest extent Protected area extent 0 Site coverage 0 0 2 0 2000 2.8 1980 1990 2010 Living Plant Index 0 0 1970 60 2.80 Red adoption 0.80policy List Index for species utilized 1970 0 1980 1990 1990 2000 2000 2010 2010 1970 1970 1980 1980 1990 1990 2000 2000 2010 2010 40 000 2010 2010 20 1970 1980 1970 1980 1990 2000 and food and medicine 1970 1980 1990 2000 2 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 for utilized vertebrate species 2010 in trade 2010 1 Sustainably managed National 10 Biodiversity aid 40 0.75 Biodiversity aid 20 2.6 s of dollars Site coverage forest 1980 xtent 2.6 1970 extent 1990 2000 2010 0 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 0Billions of dollars 0 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 3.2 1.5 BENEFITS 1980 1990 1970 1980 199019702000198020101990 2000 2010 1970 2000 2010 0 RESPONSES 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Millions km2 of Forest Stewardship Council Billions of dollars 120 1.00 1.0 Per 3.0 of countries with policies cent certied forest 3.2 Internationally 4 100 BENEFITS 0.95 BENEFITS 100 traded species 2.8 0.5 80 International 0.90 3.0 3 1.00 Food & medicine 120 1.00 Biodiversity aid 80 pecies 60 Biodiversity aid Climatic Impact Indicator 0.85Invasive alien species Internationally species Internationally 2.6 0 0.95 2 0.95 2.8 Plant species 100 policy List Index for species utilized 60 2000 traded species 0 1980 1990 2010 Living tradedIndex 40 1970 adoption 1990 0.80 Red 1980 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 0 2010 2000 2010 0.90 for utilized vertebrate species 0.90 in trade and food and medicine 1 Sustainably managed National Food & medicine 80 40 0.75 Food & medicine Biodiversity aid 20 erage forest 1980 2.6 1970 extent 0.85 1990 2000species 2010 0 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 0.85 species 0 Living Plant Index 60 Living 2000 0.80 Red List Index for species 2000198020101990 Plant Index 1970 1980 2000 2010 2010 0.80 Red List Index for species utilized 0 2010 BENEFITS species 1990 1970trade1980 food19901970utilizedutilized vertebrate species for utilized vertebrate for in and and medicine BENEFITS in trade and food and medicine 0.75 40 0.75 fip Council dollars 1980 1990 1.00 of countries with policies 1980 2000 2010 1970 1990 1970 2000 1980 2010 1990 Per cent 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 120 1.00 2000 Internationally Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 13 100 Internationally BENEFITS 0.95 traded species 0.95 100 traded species 80 International 0.90 0.90 120 1.00 Food & medicine

BOX: National action on biodiversity Over 170 countries (87% of the Parties to the Convention) have developed national biodiversity strategies and action plans (NBSAPs). A further 14 Parties are preparing them, and 9 have either not started to draw up a strategy or had not announced their intention to do so by the time this Outlook went to press. An overwhelming majority of governments, in other words, have been through the process of codifying their approach to protecting the biodiversity within their own territory. In many countries, the preparation of strategies has stimulated the development of additional laws and programmes, and spurred action on a broad range of issues, including: the eradication or control of alien invasive species; using biodiversity sustainably; the protection of traditional knowledge and rules to ensure local communities share benefits from bio-prospecting which might result in patents or sales of new drugs, foods or cosmetics; the safe use of biotechnology; and maintaining the diversity of plants and animals used in agriculture. Relatively few Parties have fully integrated the 2010 biodiversity target into their national strategies. Moreover, few countries are using NBSAPs as effective tools for integrating biodiversity into broader national strategies, policies and planning processes. More than 80% of Parties, in their latest national reports to the CBD, concede that limited biodiversity mainstreaming, fragmented decision making and/or limited communication among government ministries or sectors is a challenge to meeting the goals of the Convention. However, recently developed and updated national biodiversity strategies tend to be more strategic than the first generation of NBSAPs, they have a stronger emphasis on mainstreaming, and give greater recognition to broader national development objectives. NBSAPs should catalyze a number of strategic actions in countries, including:

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

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

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

Knowledge for good decisions to be made, the best available information about the biodiversity of a country or region must be accessible to the

right people at the right time. The Clearing-House Mechanism, a system of compiling, co-ordinating and providing access to relevant and up-to-date knowledge, is a key tool provided by the CBD framework.

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

Financing and capacity co-ordinating action to support biodiversity will only be meaningful if there is money to do it and there are people who
know how to do it.
Number ofof countries Number countries Number of countries 195 195 180 180 160 160 140 140 120 120 100 100 80 80 60 60 40 40 20 20

Number of countries 195

195 180

180
160

Parties to Convention on Biological Diversity The number of countries party to the Convention on Biological Diversity has grown over time, and it currently has near universal membership. Of the 193 Parties to the Convention 170 have developed National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) and of these, more than 35 Parties have revised their NBSAP.
Source: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity

160
140

140
120

120
100

100
80

80
60

60 40 20 0 1992

40 20 0 1992

00 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 200 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Countries 2002 2003 Countries 2004 2005 2008 Parties 2006 2007NBSAPs 2009 Parties NBSAPs

2010NBSAP revision NBSAP revisions

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Countries 2007 2008 2009 Parties 2010

NBSAPs

NBSAP revisions

Countries

Parties

NBSAPs

NBSAP revisions

Number ofof countries Number countries

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 14

Number of countries

Number of countries 195 180

195 195 180 180

 Claude Hamel

Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 (ISBN-92-9225-243-7) is an open access publication, subject to the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). Copyright is retained by the Secretariat. The full version of Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 is freely available online: www. cbd.int/GBO3. An annotated version of the publication with complete references is also available from the website. Users may download, reuse, reprint, modify, distribute, and/or copy text, figures, graphs and photos from Global Biodiversity Outlook 3, so long as the original source is credited. The designations employed and the presentation of material in Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Citation: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2010) Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 Executive Summary. Montral, 12 pages.

For further information, please contact: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity World Trade Centre 413 St. Jacques Street, Suite 800 Montreal, Quebec, Canada H2Y 1N9 Phone: 1(514) 288 2220 Fax: 1 (514) 288 6588 E-mail: secretariat@cbd.int Website: http://www.cbd.int
Layout and design: Phoenix Design Aid A/S, ISO 9001/ ISO 14001certified and approved CO2 neutral company. www.phoenixdesignaid.com. Graphics: In-folio Printed by Progress Press Ltd., Malta, a FSC certified company. Printed on chlorine-free paper made of pulp from sustainably managed forests and using vegetablebased inks and water-based coatings.

FRONT: (The Earth in a drop) Shevs | Dreamstime.com, (Coral reef) Carlcphoto | Dreamstime.com, (Cattle with people) Claude Hamel, (Mountain and eagle) Urosmm | Dreamstime.com BACK: (Boat on a river) David Cooper, (Trees with person) Luis Alfonso Argelles, (Woman with beans) Louise Sperling, (Shark) Lenta | Dreamstime.com Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 15 (Gorilla) Warwick Lister-Kaye | istockphoto.com, (Frog) Geckophoto | Dreamstime.com, (Field) Alexsol | Dreamstime.com, (Forest) Lagustin | Dreamstime.com (Leaf background) Cobalt88 | Dreamstime.com

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 | 16

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