Biodiversity

What is the problem?

Human actions are fundamentally, and to a significant extent irreversibly, changing the
diversity of life on Earth, and most of these changes represent a loss of biodiversity.
Changes in important components of biological diversity were more rapid in the past 50
years than at any time in human history. Projections and scenarios indicate that these rates
will continue, or accelerate, in the future.
Virtually all of Earths ecosystems have now been dramatically transformed through human
actions. Over the past few hundred years, humans have increased species extinction rates
by as much as 1,000 times background rates that were typical over Earths history (See
below).

Why is biodiversity loss a concern?

Biodiversity contributes directly (through provisioning, regulating, and cultural ecosystem
services)and indirectly (through supporting ecosystem services) to many constituents of
human well-being, including security, basic material for a good life, health, good social
relations, and freedom of choice and action. Many people have benefited over the last
century from the conversion of natural ecosystems to human-dominated ecosystems and
the exploitation of biodiversity. At the same time, however, these losses in biodiversity and
changes in ecosystem services have caused some people to experience declining wellbeing, with poverty in some social groups being exacerbated.

Summary
1. Climate, biodiversity and human wellbeing are inextricably linked. Significant political
commitments and policy objectives for each now exist at national and international levels.
Our understanding of these issues, the relevant processes and their inter-relationships is far
from complete. But we know enough to identify some critically important matters for
immediate attention and priority areas for research and policy development. New
mechanisms will be needed to galvanise work in this area, especially at the
intergovernmental level.
2. Significant climate change impacts on biodiversity have already been identified with up
to 50% of the species studied world-wide observed to be affected. The Inter-governmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2007b) concludes that if temperature increases exceed 1.52.5C, 20-30% of plant and animal species assessed are likely to be at risk of extinction.
3. The continuing, accelerating loss of biodiversity could compromise the long-term ability
of ecosystems to regulate the climate, may accelerate or amplify climate warming and
could lead to additional, unforeseen, and potentially irreversible shifts in the earth system.
Urgent action now to halt further loss or degradation of biodiversity could help to maintain
future options for tackling climate change and managing its impacts.
4. Both mitigation and adaptation are urgently required if we are to reduce climate change
and its impacts over coming decades. Many of the people most vulnerable to climate
change are those who depend most on biodiversity. Climate change policy must maximise
the opportunities for implementation of mutually supportive strategies.
5. New policies are needed to integrate options for meeting biodiversity, climate and
sustainable development objectives at the international, national, and local levels. Difficult
policy choices lie ahead, requiring scientific and technical expertise and understanding of
socio-economic and ethical considerations. For example, climate change policies must, as a
priority, identify the protection of biodiversity and healthy ecosystems as highly relevant to
climate change mitigation and adaptation.
6. Our understanding of the impact of climate on biodiversity is increasing, but our
knowledge of the impact of biodiversity on climate is less advanced. A significant new
research effort is required to improve understanding of the role of biodiversity in earth and
climate systems, the impacts of climate change on biodiversity and human populations,
and their interlinkages, feedback mechanisms and cross-scale effects.

1. Introduction
1.1 The interconnectedness of climate, biodiversity and human wellbeing

Biodiversity is important in ecosystems and for the provision of ecosystem services

including climate regulation. It can therefore play an important role in reducing climate
change and its impacts, and protecting and improving societal wellbeing. However, there is
growing concern that efforts to address climate change may have the unintended
consequence of exacerbating biodiversity loss, and so reduce future options for responding
to climate change.

Climate, biodiversity and human wellbeing are inextricably linked (Figure 1). Over the past
few hundred years, human activity has significantly changed the face of the planet, a
period sometimes described as the anthropocene (Crutzen & Stoermer 2000). As a
consequence we are changing the earths climate, species are disappearing at a faster rate
than ever before, and many of the ecosystems on which humans and other species depend
for their basic survival are being degraded or used unsustainably.

Simple schematic demonstrating linkages between climate, biodiversity and human

wellbeing

Over the last 50 years humans have changed ecosystems more rapidly and extensively
than in any comparable period of time in human history (MA 2005a). The implications of
these changes are only now beginning to be understood. Anthropogenic climate change
provides a compelling example of the profound effect human activities can have on natural
systems and of the consequences of these impacts for human wellbeing. Even if
greenhouse gas emissions were to cease immediately, temperatures would continue to rise
for at least 30 years, and sea levels for the next 100 years. Action must be taken now to
prepare for the impacts that are inevitable over forthcoming decades. Efforts must be
targeted to reducing the vulnerability of those human populations and ecosystems most at
risk.
Because ecosystems collectively determine the biogeochemical and biophysical processes
that regulate the earth system, the potential ecological and climate consequences of
biodiversity loss are arousing significant scientific interest. Continued biodiversity loss may
compromise the longterm ability of ecosystems to regulate the climate, may accelerate or
amplify climate warming, and could lead to additional, unforeseen, and potentially
irreversible shifts in the earth system.
Biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation should be of major concern to decision-makers
around the world. However, recognition of the critical nature of this problem, and of the

potential opportunities of biodiversity management for meeting climate change policy

objectives, has been slow to appear outside of the biodiversity community.
The interdependencies of biodiversity, ecosystems, human livelihoods and the climate
system make it possible to address biodiversity loss, ecosystem degradation, sustainable
development, and climate change and its impacts, together. However, there is also growing
awareness that win-win-wins will not always be possible, and trade-offs may be necessary.
To realise the potential co-benefits, and to ensure trade-offs are as equitable and
ecologically sustainable as possible, new decision-making and implementation frameworks
are required.

The international community has a critical role to play in this, and in supporting the
capacity building and resources required for implementation. National governments and
local communities also have their part to play. The messages are simple; climate change is
unequivocal. Both mitigation and adaptation will be required to address the risks posed by
climate change. Biodiversity and human wellbeing are inextricably linked and climate
regulation must be central to the development of adaptation and mitigation programmes.

2. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning

Biological diversity (biodiversity) is defined by the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD)
as the variability among living organisms from all sources, including 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. The role and
function of biodiversity in ecosystems is complex but we know those ecosystem properties,
and therefore the services they provide, are influenced by the characteristics of the species
present and their functional traits (Reich et al 2004, Hooper et al 2005).
Crucially, higher genetic and species diversity tends to make ecosystems more resistant
and resilient to disturbance. This is because species are more likely to be present with
characteristics that will enable the ecosystem to adjust to environmental change (Hooper et
al 2005, Reusch et al 2005, Tilman et al 2006). This means that ecosystems can continue to
function and provide critical services such as water purification. As biodiversity declines, so
too does the resilience of the system (Amazon ecosystem).
Ecosystems with low resilience, when subject to shocks or disturbance, may reach a
threshold at which abrupt change occurs (Scheffer et al 2001). Biodiversity is therefore
important as it provides flexibility and insurance, and spreads risk across temporal and
spatial scales (Yachi and Loreau 1999, Loreau, Mouquet and Gonzalez 2003).

2.1 Biodiversity and human wellbeing

The components of human wellbeing were defined by the Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment (2005) as security, basic material for a good life, health, good social relations,
and freedom of choice and action, all of which depend either directly or indirectly on
ecosystems and the services they provide (and therefore on biodiversity). Humans rely on
food, clean air and water, timber and medicines for survival. Human livelihoods rely on
ecological services that support global employment and economic activity (for example
food and timber production, marine fisheries and aquaculture, and recreation) (MA 2005a).
The relationship between biodiversity and human wellbeing was characterised by the
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) (2005a), which described four categories of

services provided by ecosystems to society (see Figure 2). Supporting services underpin all
other ecosystem services and capture processes such as carbon cycling (eg primary
production, decomposition, and soil formation), and water and nutrient (eg nitrogen and
phosphorus) cycling. Regulating services provide the mechanisms that moderate the
impact of stresses and shocks on ecosystems (Kinzig et al 2006) and include, for example,
climate and disease regulation. Regulating services determine the distribution of
provisioning services, such as food, fuel and fibre, and cultural services such as spiritual
and aesthetic values (Kinzig et al 2007).
The transformation of ecosystems and exploitation of natural resources have resulted in
substantial gains in human wellbeing and economic development. However, the benefits
have not been equitably distributed, and the costs of biodiversity changes either not
recognised or quantified. This is because ecosystems tend to be valued by people in terms
of the direct benefits provided by provisioning and cultural services (eg food, fibre,
recreation and aesthetics respectively) which represent a relatively small component of
biodiversity. However, the supply of these services is underpinned by supporting and
regulating services, (for example pollination, climate regulation and primary productivity
respectively), for which the value of biodiversity is less visible but no less important
(Scholes & Midgley 2007, Kinzig et al 2007).

Biodiversity loss, ecosystem degradation, and consequent changes in ecosystem services

have also led to a decline in human wellbeing in some groups by exacerbating poverty and
increasing inequities and disparities (MA 2005b).

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment typology of the relationships between Biodiversity,

Ecosystem functioning, and Ecosystem services. Biodiversity is both a response variable
affected by global change drivers, and a factor modifying ecosystem processes and
services and human well-being (MA 2005b).
The material for biodiversity and human wellbeing was sourced from:
The Royal Society, (June 2007) Biodiversity-climate interactions: adaptation, mitigation and
human livelihoods, www.royalsoc.org.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Biodiversity

Synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.

Biodiversity loss: state and scenarios 2006 and 2050. These projections of biodiversity loss
from 2000 to 2050 were produced by the GLOBIO consortium for UNEP's Global
Environment Outlook 4. Across the GEO scenarios and regions, global biodiversity continues
to be threatened, with strong implications for ecosystem services and human well-being. All
regions continue to experience declines in terrestrial biodiversity in each of the scenarios.
The greatest losses are seen in Markets First, followed by Security First, Policy First and
Sustainability First for most regions. Africa, and Latin America and the Caribbean
experience the greatest losses of terrestrial biodiversity by 2050 in all four scenarios,
followed by Asia and the Pacific. The differences among the regions are largely a result of
broad-scale land-use changes, especially increases in pastureland and areas dedicated to

biofuel production. The overall changes in terrestrial biodiversity though, are influenced by
a number of other factors, including infrastructure development, pollution and climate
change, as well as public policy and conflict.
Biodiversity Loss
Worldwide there are an estimated 5 to 30 million species of animals and plants, each
genetically unique. Most remain unidentified. Some 1.4 million animal species alive today
have been named and described. Named plant species are far fewer, numbering around
400,000. Biodiversity is not uniformly distributed over the earths surface. The tropics cover
42% of all land but contain two-thirds of all animal species. Rain-forests cover 6 % of all
land but contain two-fifths of all plant and animal species. Comprehensive measurement of
biodiversity is difficult. However, we can compare numbers of species between sites as a
simple index of relative biodiversity.

Values of biodiversity
We all depend on the natural world to sustain us with food, clothing and other necessities,
establishing a set of use values. But there are many less obvious values of biodiversity, of
equal importance, to be considered (see box).
Values from human use
A total of about 3,000 plant species, 200 of which have been domesticated, are used
worldwide as a food source. However, just 20 of these plants provide more than 80% of our
food at the present time. In order to maintain the high level of production such consumption
demands, plant breeders frequently turn to the wild relatives of domestic crops in search of
desirable genetic traits such as resistance to disease or drought: wild plants are a valuable
reservoir of genetic diversity. A smaller number of animal species provide human food but
the scale is often enormous. For example, in 1989 world landings of fish and other aquatic
life forms totalled 99.5 mega-tonnes, 70 % of which was for human consumption.
In addition to food, many of our drugs and raw materials for manufacturing also originate
from either plants or animals. Globally 3.5 billion people rely on plant-based medicine for
primary health care, and in the USA a quarter of medicines prescribed are based on
compounds originally found in plants. Many industrial materials, such as fibres, resins, dyes,
waxes, pesticides, lubricants and perfumes derive from plant or animal sources. Trees
provide more than 3.8 million cubic metres of wood annually for use as fuel, timber or pulp.

In addition to these long established patterns of consumptive utilisation, there is now a

rapidly growing leisure industry, which involves the non-consumptive "use" of the living
world. For example, eco-tourism, based on the observation of wild animals and wilderness
habitats, generates between 100 and 200 billion US dollars annually, much of it in needy
developing economies.

Non-use values
While we can readily identify uses of biodiversity which directly support human life and are
commercially valued, we often overlook a host of hidden functions of living organisms
which are equally vital to human well-being. Foremost among these are free
environmental services, such as nutrient cycling, soil formation, watershed protection,
waste disposal, pollination, oxygen production, carbon sequestration and climate
regulation. Placing a cash value on these services is not easy, but one estimate of their
global value is US$ 33 trillion per annum, compared to a world GNP of US$ 18 trillion.
There are also many species which are not exploited themselves but have indirect value
because they are food for economically valuable species. For example, molluscs and
crustaceans are eaten by edible fishes. Other non-use values derive from the as yet
undiscovered possibilities for future uses of wild flora and fauna, such as new drugs from
plants and genes usable in breeding new characteristics into crops and domestic animals.
A totally different set of non-use values attaches to the significant contribution of wild
organisms to human art, literature and religion. Christianity values biodiversity as a potent
reminder to humans of Gods personality, power and creative genius (Rom.1:20) and Psalm
104 exclaims: "O Lord, what a variety you have made! And in wisdom you made them all!
The earth is full of your riches."
Intrinsic value
All values considered above refer to the multifaceted relationship of living things to
humankind, but the Preamble to the Convention on Biological Diversity, signed by 150
nations in 1992, refers to the intrinsic value of biodiversity. This notion, which is reflected in
most major religions, recognises that creation has a value quite apart from its usefulness to
humanity. For example, Christianity recognises that nature has value because it was made
by God for His own glory, not merely for human benefit. The whole of creation belongs to
God (Psalm 24:1); Man is His steward, accountable to Him for everything he does with and
to nature, especially to living creatures (Gen.2:15).
Valuing Biodiversity

Most values are assigned by humans

Most are related to human survival
Use values
Direct uses of biodiversity: consumptive - food, medicines, non-consumptive - ecotourism
Subject to trade & commerce, monetary value readily assigned, varies with demand
Non-use values
Indirectly related to humans, ecosystem services,
future options, aesthetics
Monetary valuation difficult
Intrinsic value
Worth in themselves

"It is the generally received opinion, that all this visible world was created for Man as if
there were no other end to any creature but some way or other to be serviceable to Man...

yet wise men nowadays think otherwise the creatures are made to enjoy themselves as
well as to serve us "
John Ray, The Wisdom of God..., 1691
Threats to biodiversity
In our eagerness to improve living conditions for the six billion members of our species, we
humans are imposing serious threats to the survival of much biodiversity, including many
species whose direct value is clearly established. Almost all ecosystems are greatly
modified by humans, who transform habitats and exterminate rivals and competitors.

Habitat degradation

The greatest threat is the loss and fragmentation of natural habitats. This includes clearing
forests for timber or plantations, overgrazing, draining wetlands and the destruction of
heathlands and coral reefs.
Pollution also degrades habitats. Pesticides, sewage, oil, combustion emissions and acid
rain contaminate soils, freshwater, oceans and air.
One alarming effect of atmospheric pollution is accelerating changes in climatic patterns to
which ecosystems are adapted by long-term evolutionary processes. Anticipated results
include dramatic changes in the geographical distribution of some species leading to
ecosystem imbalance, and the extermination of others due to flooding and other climaterelated phenomena.

Over-exploitation

Excessive exploitation has pushed some species to the verge of extinction. Included are the
tiger, Giant Panda, Black Rhinoceros, cod and several whale species. Between 1979 and
1989 the African eleph-ant population was halved by ivory poaching. Other species have
been relentlessly persecuted as vermin, often based on wrong assumptions about the
supposed harm they caused. For centuries in Britain, Red Kites had a price on their head as
lamb-killers, in spite of their lack of strength for such a task.
Results of threats
Resulting from this array of human threats, rates of extinction are now estimated to be
between 1,000 and 10,000 times greater than in the recent past. Tropical forests are being
destroyed at the rate of 0.8 to 2.0% per annum, sending some of their estimated 5 million
species into extinction. We know that 484 species of animal and 654 plants have become
extinct since 1600 AD. IUCN considers that one in eight plant species is at risk of extinction.
In Britain eleven tree species are classified as Critically Endangered by IUCN, including
Leys Whitebeam, of which only 15 individuals remain, and the Welsh Whitebeam, of which
44 are left.
In the animal world too, many species face imminent extinction. For example, 116 species
of European farmland birds are now of conservation concern. It is estimated that over the
last 20 years in Britain alone ten species of farmland birds have between them ten million
fewer breeding individuals. This is just one of the devastating effects of the intensification
of agriculture on biodiversity.
Examples of birds at risk of extinction in Britain are the Skylark, whose breeding population
has declined 54% in just 25 years, the Song Thrush, down 73% in many areas, and the Grey
Partridge, whose numbers have halved in the past 25 years. Such is the significance
attached to the decline of bird populations that the current Environment Secretary has

included a composite trend of 139 species in the list of indicators of sustainable

development upon which the government reports annually.

The search for solutions

Political level
The international Convention on Biological Diversity at Rio in 1992 focused attention on the
need for sustainable use (rather than non-use) of the components of biodiversity, and the
fair and equitable sharing of benefits - such as profits from new drugs based on tropical
plants. Nations are required to develop their own strategies that integrate biodiversity
conservation and sustainable use into the entire range of national decision-making. The UK
action plan (1994), in addition to the conservation of species and habitats, emphasised a
need for the involvement of individuals and communities, as well as government.
Conservation legislation is costly to enforce and only works well if it reflects widely
accepted values in the community. Attempts to tackle biodiversity loss politically are
unlikely to succeed unless they fully take into account the underlying causes of the crisis,
viz. the social organization and growth of the human population; patterns of natural
resource consumption; global trade; economic systems and policies that fail to value the
environment; and inequity in ownership, management and the flow of benefits from the use
and conservation of biological resources.
Policy level
Many governments rely on technical fixes to combat the problem. Conservation-conscious
nations set up parks and reserves to protect and rehabilitate wildlife and examples of
natural vegetation. However, Michael Soul, a respected US biologist, points out that a 90
% habitat loss can result in a 50 % loss of species. This means that a country protecting
10% of its area (an ambitious target; many aim at only 5 %) may lose 50 percent of its
species.
In Britain, schemes offering incentives to farmers to preserve traditional landscape features
between them encompass only about 12.5% of agricultural land. A preferred approach
would be to temper all of agricultural production with conservation measures, as well as
encouraging organic farming, which promotes habitat diversity of benefit to many forms of
wildlife.
Reduction of industrial and domestic pollution is a worldwide priority, particularly in the rich
nations. In many cases the technology for pollution reduction is available but industrialists
are reluctant to pay for it.

Over-exploitation has been restrained by bodies such as the International Whaling

Commission and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). Both
organizations aim to ensure that use of wild species is sustainable, rather than to attempt
absolute bans. However, continual vigilance is required and trade in thousands of less
conspicuous species such as orchids or tropical butterflies is often difficult to assess and
regulate.
Our response as individuals
Where do I stand as an individual or member of my community on the accelerating
degradation of our planets biodiversity? How acute is my appreciation of nature,
aesthetically and as an indispensable resource for the continued well-being of humankind?
Has the urbanisation of modern society removed me from vital contact with the living
world?
How often do I thank God for the natural world and - together with my fellow creatures worship Him? How aware am I of my God-given responsibility as a custodian of His
creation?
Most of us need to address questions such as these and take deliberate steps to remedy
any short-comings they expose. It may be that we need to be better informed by
appropriate reading or by attending a seminar on biodiversity. We will then be better
equipped to discuss these matters with colleagues, address a luncheon club or church
group, or even lobby our local MP.

Christians are exhorted to be "salt" and "light" in the world around them (Matt.5.13-14).
Surely this should include campaigning for greater care for the environment so that its
living resources will continue to support humankind and serve as a reminder of the God
who made them (Rom.1.20 & 25). There may be a need to request more biblical teaching
on creation care in your church through sermons, home groups or literature. What God is
redeeming ought to be of serious concern to his followers (Rom.8.19-22).
Lifestyle
In addition to being well informed and spreading the message, we need to check our
lifestyle. Is our wood from sustainable forestry and our news-paper recycled? Do we use
chemicals in our home or garden which are toxic to wildlife? Do we design parts of our
gardens for the benefit of wildlife?
Above all, our pattern of expenditure will reflect the seriousness of our commitment to
caring for the living world around us. Are we helping protect nature and its sustainable use?
This could be done by supporting a conservation organization such as RSPB, WWF, A Rocha
or a local Wildlife Trust.
Progress in curtailing the alarming loss of biodiversity in our modern world will depend on
the commitment and sacrifices of individuals just as much as the actions of governments.
Further reading
Anon. Biodiversity: the UK Action Plan (London: HMSO, 1994)
Gaston, K.J. and Spicer, J. Biodiversity - an Introduction. (Oxford: Blackwell Science, 1998)
Pearce, D. and Moran, D. The Economic Value of Biodiversity Loss. (London: IUCN &
Earthscan, 1994)

World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Global Biodiversity: Status of the Earths Living
Resources. (London, Chapman and Hall, 1992)
Credits
This briefing was prepared for the John Ray Initiative by Dr John Sale, International
Biodiversity Consultant. Thanks are due to Dr David Moyer and the JRI Trustees for their
helpful comments.