Biodiversity targets after 2010

Abstract

The bold commitment made by the world's governments to reduce the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010 will soon be tested. On the basis of the continuing declines measured by most indicators, it now seems inevitable that the outcome will be that it has not been achieved. Here, in order to build on the momentum created by the 2010 target, we propose a shift away from a large set of static targets towards a smaller number of specific targets. Specifically, we present three categories of targets (red, green and blue) with examples of each. These relate respectively to (1) those biodiversity outcomes that must be avoided to avert situations that are deleterious for people, (2) the highly valued biodiversity conservation priorities, and (3) an improved scientific understanding necessary for adaptive management now and into the future.

Full text

Page 1

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright

Page 2

Author's personal copy
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Biodiversity targets after 2010
Georgina M Mace1, Wolfgang Cramer2, Sandra Dı ´az3, Daniel P Faith4,
Anne Larigauderie5, Philippe Le Prestre6, Margaret Palmer7,
Charles Perrings8, Robert J Scholes9, Matt Walpole10, Bruno A Walther11,
James EM Watson12and Harold A Mooney13
The bold commitment made by the world’s governments to
reduce the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010 will soon be tested.
On the basis of the continuing declines measured by most
indicators,itnowseemsinevitablethattheoutcomewillbethatit
hasnotbeenachieved.Here,inordertobuildonthemomentum
createdbythe 2010target,weproposeashiftawayfromalarge
setofstatictargetstowardsasmallernumberofspecifictargets.
Specifically, we present three categories of targets (red, green
and blue) with examples of each. These relate respectively to (1)
those biodiversity outcomes that must be avoided to avert
situations that are deleterious for people, (2) the highly valued
biodiversityconservationpriorities,and(3)animprovedscientific
understanding necessary for adaptive management now and
into the future.
Addresses
1Imperial College London, Centre for Population Biology, Silwood Park,
ASCOT SL5 7PY, United Kingdom
2Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, PO Box 60 12 03,
D-144 12 Potsdam, Germany
3Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biologı ´a Vegetal, CONICET-Universidad
Nacional de Co ´rdoba, 5000 Cordoba, Argentina
4The Australian Museum, 6 College St., Sydney, NSW 2010, Australia
5DIVERSITAS, Muse ´um National d’Histoire Naturelle (MNHN), 57,
rue Cuvier, CP 41, 75231 Paris Cedex 05, France
6Institut Hydro-Que ´bec en environnement, de ´veloppement et socie ´te ´,
Universite ´ Laval,PavillonDes-Services3800,Que ´bec(Qc)G1V0A6,Canada
7University of Maryland, Center for Environmental Science, Chesapeake
Biological Lab, 1 Williams Box 38, Solomons, MD 20688, USA
8ecoSERVICES Group, School of Life Sciences, PO Box 874501,
Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA
9CSIR Natural Resources and Environment, PO Box 395, Pretoria 0001,
South Africa
10UNEP-WCMC, 219 Huntingdon Road, Cambridge CB3 0DL,
United Kingdom
11College of Public Health and Nutrition, Taipei Medical University,
Taipei, Taiwan
12The Ecology Centre, The University of Queensland, St Lucia,
Queensland 4072, Australia
13Department of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94306, USA
Corresponding author: Mace, Georgina M (g.mace@imperial.ac.uk)
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2010, 2:3–8
This review comes from a themed issue on Terrestrial systems
Edited by Anne Larigauderie and Harold A. Mooney
Received 3 February 2010, accepted 2 March 2010
Available online 24th March 2010
1877-3435/$ – see front matter
# 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
DOI 10.1016/j.cosust.2010.03.003
Introduction
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) defines
biological diversity as, ‘the variability among living organ-
isms 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’. Biodiversity sustains
all life processes and contributes directly to human well-
being by supporting the production of foods, fuels, fibres
and genetic material; by providing educational, intellec-
tual and recreational opportunities, aesthetic and spiritual
enjoyment; and by reducing the risks posed by environ-
mental change. Biodiversity is necessary to keep open
options needed to secure future human well-being. Of
course biodiversity also affects human well-being in
negative ways; weeds, pests and pathogens all impose
significant costs on people. In general however, it is
widely appreciated that biodiversity loss and ecosystem
degradation jeopardize human well-being both now and
in the future [1].
This problem was first formally recognized with the
establishment of the CBD at the Earth Summit in
1992, and advanced substantially in 2002 when govern-
ments committed to work towards an international goal to
reduce the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010 [2]. The ‘2010
target’ has become an important political commitment by
almost all nations for improved biodiversity conservation
and management.
How is the world doing in relation to the target? As we
enter theyear 2010itisbecomingclear that thetargetwill
not be achieved, but also that we set a goal that was vague
and difficult to measure, and was inconsistent with con-
servation and development trajectories. Here, we propose
revisions to develop biodiversity targets that are more
likely to stimulate constructive actions, are amenable to
tracking usingunambiguousmetrics, that reflectpriorities
relevant to the health and well-being of people and that
recognise that biodiversitychange involvesbothcostsand
benefits.
Progress to 2010
A great deal of work has gone into promoting the 2010
biodiversity target, developing indicators, indicator
measures and gathering data (see http://www.twentyten.
net/). Biodiversity is a broad concept, and the headline
indicators selected by the Parties to the CBD in 2004
www.sciencedirect.com
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2010, 2:3–8

Page 3

Author's personal copy
focusedaround seven focalareaswithinwhich the current
set of indicators have been planned (Status and trends of
the components of biodiversity, Sustainable use, Threats
to biodiversity, Ecosystem integrity and ecosystem goods
and services, Status of traditional knowledge, innovations
and practices, Status of access and benefit sharing, and
Status of resource transfers); six of the focal areas now
have indicators and/or metrics developed or under de-
velopment [3]. However, few of the selected indicators
and measures have been assessed for rigour and
relevance, and many have been selected primarily
because the data are available [4]. New data gathering
is underway, but often a ‘quick-and-dirty’ approach has
been adopted in order to have something to report by
2010. A developing interest in the target from the scien-
tific community [2] led to suggestions for new approaches
and indicators [5–8] but these efforts could not be incorp-
orated into the formal programme of the CBD, and so
gaps remain [3]. Nor have preparations for reporting
biodiversity change begun to take account of the devel-
oping body of work on indicators of the impact of biodi-
versity change on human well-being, or extending
economic measures of performance, such as those associ-
ated with the system of national income accounts, to
include changes in the value of environmental assets
[9,10].
Given the rather short time since 2002 and the broad
scope of the 2010 target, it is not surprising that as we
reach the year 2010 reporting is likely to be somewhat
limited in scope and relevance. While a great deal of
data and activity has been generated, it is unclear
whether we will really have better information to sup-
port improved biodiversity and ecosystem management
after 2010. Yet crucially, and regardless of the measures
used and the data to hand, evidence from various global
and regional assessments shows that in most places and
for most systems studied current rates of biodiversity
loss are at least continuing and often accelerating, large-
ly because the major drivers of biodiversity loss persist,
often at increasing intensity [11]. Amongst these, cli-
mate change and the expansion of biofuel production
are now adding to the burden already imposed by
invasive species, overexploitation, pollution, and by
habitat conversion and fragmentation caused by land
use changes. The relative importance of different dri-
vers and their impacts vary widely, but the positive
feedbacks and synergies between them make it inevi-
table that the overall rates of biodiversity loss will
continue to increase. Therefore, considering biodiver-
sity overall we have to conclude that in the aggregate the
2010 biodiversity target will not be met at a global level
[4,11] and indeed it is questionable whether the target,
as stated, could be met anytime in the near future. Here,
we review some problems with the 2010 target and then
suggest a more constructive process for the post 2010
period.
Targets after 2010
The current CBD 2010 target is (in full), ‘to achieve by
2010 a significant reduction of the current rate of biodi-
versity loss at the global, regional and national level as a
contributionto povertyalleviation and tothe benefitof all
life on Earth’ (www.cbd.int/2010-target). There are sev-
eral features that make this problematic as an objective
for the global community. First, it is framed negatively; as
statedtheaimistoreducethecurrentrateofloss;ineffect
to simply stop doing quite so badly. Thus it is not
necessarily going to encourage positive actions of the
kinds that might have been in the minds of those that
devised it. Apart from being negative, it is extremely
vague about timescales, baselines, acceptable rates and
measures, as well as having some perverse incentives and
unintended consequences. For example, the target is
hardest to achieve in the places where attention should
be most strongly focused, such as those where high levels
of biodiversity are just beginning to be converted or
exploited. It is easiest to achieve in cases where biodi-
versity is already so depleted that rates of loss can only
decline. For many reasons therefore, although it is a
simple, bold and visionary goal it is difficult to work with
in practice. Moreover, even if the target was shown to
have been met in certain cases, it is not clear that this
would necessarily indicate that the world was headed on a
better path for biodiversity and ecosystem management.
Ideally, the target would be framed in terms of an agreed
long term vision for global biodiversity [4,12,13]. The
current target relates most closely to a vision that global
biodiversity is maintained in the aggregate at some level
close to what it was at the end of the 20th century. While
this might be acceptable to some as a general conservation
goal, it is almost certainly not achievable for several
reasons. As with climate change, inertia in the system
ensures that biodiversity loss will continue regardless of
present decisions. Even if all deleterious anthropogenic
impacts were now halted, the legacy of the recent past has
yet to be realised [14]. Furthermore, continuing human
population growth and development means that pressure
onlandandseaforprovisioningecosystemservicessuchas
food, fuel, and timber production will continue to increase
[15]. Given these pressures, the demands for other eco-
system services such as regulating and cultural services
from ecosystems will be even greater in the future than in
the past, but the means to satisfy them will be reduced,
especially under continuing environmental change [16].
Additionally,evenifitwereachievable,theformulationof
the current goal does not embrace the possibility that for
some taxa and systems, declines relative to the starting
point might be necessary or desirable.
We suggest that key elements of a revised set of
targets will be to establish mechanisms to ensure that
the global interest in local biodiversity change is prop-
erly represented to avoid the type and magnitude of
4
Terrestrial systems
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2010, 2:3–8 www.sciencedirect.com

Page 4

Author's personal copy
biodiversity change that threatens human well-being.
This includes securing the current and future supply of
ecosystemservices aswell
needs that society has for biodiversity. We suggest that
the overall target be reformulated along the following
lines:
as meetingbroader
To avoid undesired and dangerous biodiversity change and to
strengthen the role of biodiversity in securing and enhancing the
benefits that people derive from ecosystems
This target includes both a reactive component that
highlightstheseriousnessandtheurgencyofthesituation
pointing to what should be addressed first, as well as a
positive aspiration, clearly reflecting what needs to be
done. For society to move towards realising this target, we
recommend the development of a small set of focused,
relevant, efficient and achievable sub-targets. Each of
these sub-targets should have scientifically and socially
appropriate outcomes and timescales, support biodiver-
sity’s role in human well-being, be linked to legislative
and regulatory processes, be relevant at global scales but
reflect local and national interests, and be open to accu-
rate and efficient reporting.
Design features for sub-targets
Societies value different
Here we emphasise two key roles that are different
though overlapping. The first is the role that biodiver-
sityplays inunderpinning
the benefits people obtain from ecosystems. These
include provisioning services such as food and water;
regulating services such as flood and disease control,
and cultural services such as spiritual and recreational
benefits [17].
aspects ofbiodiversity.
ecosystemservices—
There are many demonstrated positive effects of biodi-
versity on the provision of ecosystem services, both direct
and indirect through ecosystem processes [18,19] and
diversity at several levels also provides insurance against
the deleterious effects of environmental fluctuations [20–
22]. There is now therefore abundant evidence that the
biodiversity in an ecosystem significantly influences its
ability to deliver a broad range of services. Under con-
tinuing environmental change the impacts of biodiversity
loss will be more severe [16]. The precise ways in which
different dimensions of biodiversity play a role in eco-
system processes and services are continuing to be better
understood; recent work for example has showed the
important distinction between the variability component
of biodiversity, which is important for the resilience and
adaptability of ecological systems, as well for many cul-
tural benefits, compared with the role of the composition
component of biodiversity (the presence and abundance
of certain types of species) in many provisioning, cultural
and regulating services [23]. But the strong conclusion is
that biodiversity is central to maintaining ecosystem
services [24].
The second role of biodiversity relates to the con-
sequences of its loss for many who value nature for its
own sake. Biodiversity conservation generally prioritises
the protection and viability of wild species and habitats.
While many of the goals of biodiversity conservation will
certainly benefit ecosystem services, it is not clear that
these two sets of priorities will necessarily be the same.
For example, biodiversity conservation priorities gener-
ally focus on large-bodied species of birds and mammals,
andonareasofhighspeciesrichness andhabitatdiversity.
Yet many ecosystem services may depend on cryptic
organisms in soils and oceans, and on low diversity areas
(such as the boreal and tundra regions). Many ecosystem
services may also depend more on species composition,
functional diversity or even biomass than on measures
related to species richness which tends to underpin the
conservationagenda.Ratherthanassumingthatthesetwo
biodiversityroleswilloverlap,werecommendmakingthe
goals of each clear in order to encourage a positive
discussion about how to establish and maintain the right
balance between them.
A complication is the fact that while biodiversity is often
managed and valued locally, the consequences of its
alteration and loss are often felt more strongly regionally
orevenglobally.Different societiesplace differentvalues
on the various elements of biodiversity and the current
2010 target does not distinguish between countries aim-
ing at a different balance between conservation and de-
velopment. The overall target needs to be sufficiently
flexible that different countries can develop appropriate
local and national sub-targets that meet their own aspira-
tions and needs, yet contribute to agreed global priorities.
A difficult area concerns the insurance value of biodiver-
sity. Many will argue that in an uncertain world, a key
concern will be to maintain biodiversity so as not to
foreclose any options open to future generations. This
would entail agoal of nooverall loss ofbiodiversity. While
probably desirable we suggest this is unlikely to be
achievable and as a goal it could conflict with other
priorities. To a large degree the insurance value argument
exists because of gaps in our understanding of biodiver-
sity and ecosystem processes. Under uncertainty it is
always prudent to be precautionary and to risk little.
We anticipate that in the longer term, improved knowl-
edge and understanding will enable biodiversity and
ecosystem management strategies to be efficiently and
effectively designed and will alleviate the pressure to
maintain all options.
Examples of specific sub-targets
Considering the current focal areas supported by the
CBD and the discussion about how and why biodiversity
Biodiversity targets after 2010 Mace et al.5
www.sciencedirect.com
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2010, 2:3–8

Page 5

Author's personal copy
matters to people, it is clear that there are some funda-
mentally different kinds of concerns. Here we describe
three different categories of sub-targets that explicitly
recognise these different agendas (see Box 1).
Red targets—addressing biodiversity change that is
directly harmful to people
First, we consider cases where the current biodiversity
change is directly and immediately harmful to people.
Certain biological systems or processes must be main-
tained, restored or managed better in order to avoid
deleterious or damaging consequences. We refer to this
category of sub-targets as ‘Red targets’. They are
designed to avoid or avert unacceptable changes in bio-
diversity that will be damaging to people in the near term
and that we need to urgently prevent. Some examples of
cases where the impacts on people are already potentially
dangerous include those relating to food; human, animal
and plant health, and natural hazards. Case studies of
dangerous changes have been well documented: for
example, the collapse of marine fisheries [25,26], the
loss of keystone species leading to trophic collapse and
changes to particular ecosystems that affect people every-
where [27–29], the eutrophication of water bodies leading
to freshwater fouling and dead zones in coastal regions
[30], loss of coastal protection against storm or wave
damage [31], the emergence of infectious zoonotic dis-
eases that threaten global human health [32] and changes
to intact functioning forests that contribute to regional
and global climate change [33–35]. So far, responses have
been largely reactive to deleterious biodiversity change,
but a process comparable to that used to identify danger-
ous change by the UNFCCC [36] could help to clarify the
important processes and manage them proactively. Sub-
targets around these kinds of issues could be developed
and have the advantage that they could be meaningfully
reflected at regional or national levels.
Green targets—conserving biodiversity components
valued by society
Second, there are a set of global concerns relating to
conservation of biodiversity that are driven not by the
immediate threat of harm, but by the positive long term
value that biodiversity has and that transcends national
boundaries. In some cases, natural area management and
conservation practice is dedicated to protecting biodiver-
sity that is valued by global society for its natural beauty,
aesthetic value, inspirational or cultural importance,
regardless of any economic or resource value. There
are typically well defined biodiversity elements that each
society has cared for and continues to cherish. We refer to
this category of sub-targets as ‘Green targets’ and they
include the elements of biodiversity that society values
and wishes to retain.
Conservation targets need to be more ambitious than the
rather modest general target to ‘reduce the rate of loss’,
which in some circumstances may already be met, but is
probably inadequate compared with what society would
choose. We suggest developing targets that would attract
international support, meet many people’s aspirations for
nature conservation, and also contribute to broader eco-
system-level management goals. Examples of green tar-
gets might include criteria for improved habitat condition
in key existing protected areas of international import-
ance (e.g. the Great Barrier Reef, the unique biota of
MadagascarandthesurroundingIndianoceanislands,the
biodiverse south east Asian forests, or the Serengeti
ecosystem), or enhanced conservation success in some
key taxonomic groups. For example, a sub-target for no
more bird extinctions is probably close to achievable,
would attract wide support and if achieved would have
many associated side-benefits, as would conserving the
great whales, or terrestrial top carnivores or large mam-
malian grazers.
Blue targets—enabling understanding and governing the
system
Finally, there are a set of enabling targets that are necess-
ary to successfully define and manage the red and green
targets. Managing any system ultimately relies both on
understanding its components, processes and dynamics,
and on a system of governance that makes it possible to
use that understanding. The biosphere is currently
neither well-understood, nor effectively governed. There
are key gaps in knowledge that need to be filled. We
6
Terrestrial systems
Box 1 Categories of biodiversity targets
Biodiversity matters to people in different ways. It directly underpins
certain ecosystem functions and services, it contributes to aesthetic
and cultural values, and it is a part of the sustainable life support
system upon which all life ultimately depends. Urgent versus
important priorities under each of these headings will not be the
same. Choosing among them will benefit from a clear articulation
about why certain choices have been made. Here we define the three
different categories of sub-targets. These are not mutually exclusive,
but can be used to classify targets according to their primary
motivation. This classification should help decision-makers to clarify
priorities among competing agendas, as well as to focus the
science-based management strategies appropriately (see text for
more details and examples).
1. Red targets—addressing biodiversity change that is directly
harmful to people. Red targets are designed to avoid or avert
urgent and unacceptable changes in biodiversity that will be
damaging to people in the near term. They largely map onto the
biosecurity agenda.
2. Green targets—conserving biodiversity components valued by
society for non-utilitarian purposes. Green targets will focus on
long term priorities for the conservation of biodiversity often
focusing on species and habitats. They largely map onto the
conservation agenda.
3. Blue targets—understanding and governing the system. In the
long term, sustainable management of the biosphere depends on
knowledge of the underpinning processes and an effective system
to manage it. Blue targets focus on steps in progress towards this
end.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2010, 2:3–8www.sciencedirect.com

Page 6

Author's personal copy
suggest a set of research-based targets to prioritise and
focus the science agenda and monitoring effort, and a set
of targets for the governance of the biosphere. We refer to
this category of targets as ‘Blue targets’. They address the
conditions needed to implement the overall goal of pro-
tecting the global public interest in biosphere change.
Among the scientificgaps area setof key concernsaround
thresholds and tipping points in the earth’s systems
[37,38] and these concerns are especially important in
the case of ecosystem processes and biodiversity [17,39].
Ecosystem change is inevitable and sometimes desirable,
butecosystemfunctions areoftenscale-dependentmean-
ing there are limits in the extent, or the size of individual
fragments, below which functions and services will be
compromised. In many cases, ecosystem functions are
crucially dependent on different aspects of biodiversity.
While being quite commonly observed, the processes
that lead to regime shifts and unexpected changes in
ecosystems are poorly understood [40] though evidence
emerging that they may be predictable at least in well-
monitored systems [41]. Without the knowledge of the
processes however it will always be hard to predict the
minimum area, quality or intactness that specified eco-
systems must retain in order to deliver the services we
require of them. To maintain intact ecosystems safely
above the minimum threshold for area or quality, or to
restore the function when the threshold has already been
transgressed will be possible only with improved knowl-
edge and understanding of the dynamics of the system.
Priorities for this research could for example focus on
critical thresholds for local climate regulation feedback
processes in forests [42,43], protected areas coverage and
quality that are effective for wildlife conservation [44], or
the features of lake systems that lead to altered ecological
function in relation to biotic and abiotic changes where
there may be scale-dependent reversibility [45].
Anotherarea forblue targets would betoestablish rates of
change that exceed adaptive capacity with the ultimate
aim of restricting the rate of extrinsic change to systems
being within their adaptive capacities. Change is not
always undesirable and importantly will support biodi-
versity generation. Biotic communities can persist in the
face of change given the opportunity. The problem arises
when the rate of change exceeds the capacity for com-
ponents of the ecosystem to adapt [46]. Adaptation can
occur by different processes, and biological, social and
physical processes will have their own limits in terms of
maximum sustainable rates of change [17,47]. Rates of
change become especially dangerous when they jeopar-
dise the ecological processes that support ecosystem
services.
Conclusions
We hope that the these proposals will contribute to the
international debate and policy development that lies
ahead, and, in particular, to the on-going work towards
the new strategic plan of the CBD. We recognize that the
complexityofthetechnicalissuesaswellastheintricacies
of the intergovernmental and international processes
which mean that progress will necessarily be quite slow.
Nevertheless, the accelerating biodiversity crisis should
demand urgent action. The development of achievable
targets that provide rewards to society will require
enhanced science-policy interactions [48], as well as
improved mobilisation of relevant data and knowledge
[17,49]. Importantly, however we suggest that the classi-
fication of targets presented here can help to distinguish
the science needed to achieve the targets from the
decisions over agreed priorities. To firmly ground such
political action in biodiversity science, we believe that
this framework provides a general science vision that can
defineasetofevolvingtargetsthathighlighturgentissues
but also maintain public relevance, scientific and social
interest, and which can be adapted to regional and
national levels. Developing such a comprehensive new
vision will be a key step towards maintaining biodiversity
and sustainable ecosystems.
Acknowledgements
This paper arose from discussions led by DIVERSITAS. We thank the
funding agencies, which through core support to DIVERSITAS made these
discussions possible at meetings of the Scientific Committee of
DIVERSITAS. We also thank David Cooper for constructive and
informative discussions.
1. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: Ecosystems and Human Well-
being: Synthesis Washington DC: World Resources Institute; 2005 .
2.Balmford A, Bennun L, ten Brink B, Cooper D, Co ˆte ´ I, Crane P,
Dobson A, Dudley N, Dutton I, Green RE et al.: The convention on
biological diversity’s 2010 target. Science 2005, 307:212-213.
3.Walpole M, Almond REA, Besancon C, Butchart SHM, Campbell-
Lendrum D, Carr GM, Collen B, Collette L, Davidson NC, Dulloo E
et al.: Tracking progress toward the 2010 biodiversity target
and beyond. Science 2009, 325:1503-1504.
4.Mace GM, Baillie JEM: The 2010 biodiversity indicators:
challenges for science and policy. Conservation Biology 2007,
21(6):1406-1413.
5.CoteIM,GillJA,GardnerTA,WatkinsonAR:Measuringcoralreef
decline through meta-analyses. Philos Transac R Soc B: Biol Sci
2005, 360:385-395.
6.Faith DP, Ferrier S, Williams KJ: Getting biodiversity intactness
indices right: ensuring that ‘biodiversity’ reflects ‘diversity’.
Glob Change Biol 2008, 14:207-217.
7.Gregory RD, Willis SG, Jiguet F, Vorisek F, Klvanova P, van
Strien A, Huntley B, Collingham YC, Couvet D, Green RE: An
Indicator of the impact of climatic change on European bird
populations. PLoS One 2009, 4:e4678.
8. Scholes RJ, Biggs R: A biodiversity intactness index. Nature
2005, 434:45-49.
9.Dasgupta P: Nature’s role in sustaining economic
development. Philos Transac R Soc B: Biol Sci 2010, 365:5-11.
10. Ferreira S, Hamilton K, Vincent JR: Comprehensive wealth and
future consumption: accounting for population growth. World
Bank Econ Rev 2008, 22:233-248.
11. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: Ecosystems and Human Well-
being: Biodiversity Synthesis Washington DC: World Resources
Institute; 2005.
Biodiversity targets after 2010 Mace et al.7
www.sciencedirect.com
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2010, 2:3–8

Page 7

Author's personal copy
12. Dobson A: Monitoring global rates of biodiversity change:
challenges that arise in meeting the convention on biological
diversity(CBD)2010goals.PhilosTransacRSocB-BiolSci2005,
360:229-241.
13. Green RE, Balmford A, Crane PR, Mace GM, Reynolds JD,
Turner RK: A framework for improved monitoring of
biodiversity: responses to the world summit on sustainable
development. Conserv Biol 2005, 19:56-65.
14. Tilman D, May RM, Lehman CL, Nowak MA: Habitat destruction
and the extinction debt. Nature 1994, 371:65-66.
15. Beddington J: Food security: contributions from science to a
new and greener revolution. Philos Transact R Soc B: Biol Sci
2010, 365:61-71.
16. Mooney H, Larigauderie A, Cesario M, Elmquist T, Hoegh-
Guldberg O, Lavorel S, Mace GM, Palmer M, Scholes R, Yahara T:
Biodiversity, climate change, and ecosystem services. Curr
Opin Environ Sustain 2009, 1:46-54.
17. Carpenter SR, Mooney HA, Agard J, Capistrano D, DeFries RS,
Diaz S, Dietz T, Duraiappah AK, Oteng-Yeboah A, Pereira HM
et al.: Science for managing ecosystem services: beyond the
millennium ecosystem assessment. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
2009, 106:1305-1312.
18. Balvanera P, Pfisterer AB, Buchmann N, He JS, Nakashizuka T,
Raffaell iD, Schmid B: Quantifying the evidence for biodiversity
effects on ecosystem functioning and services. Ecol Lett 2006,
9:1146-1156.
19. Naeem S, Bunker D, Hector A, Loreau M, Perrings C (Eds):
Biodiversity, Ecosystem Functioning, and Human Wellbeing: An
Ecological and Economic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University
Press; 2009.
20. Hobbs RJ, Yates S, Mooney HA:Long-term data revealcomplex
dynamics in grassland in relation to climate and disturbance.
Ecol Monogr 2007, 77:545-568.
21. Koricheva J, Vehvilainen H, Riihimaki J, Ruohomaki K,
Kaitaniemi P, Ranta H: Diversification of tree stands as a means
to manage pests and diseases in boreal forests: myth or
reality? Can J Forest Res-Rev Canad De Recherche Forestiere
2006, 36:324-336.
22. Yachi S,Loreau M:Biodiversity and ecosystem productivity ina
fluctuating environment: the insurance hypothesis. Proc Natl
Acad Sci USA 1999, 96:1463-1468.
23. Dı ´az S, Lavorel S, de Bello F, Que ´tier F, Grigulis K, Robson M:
Incorporating plant functional diversity effects in ecosystem
service assessments. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2007,
104:20684-20689.
24. Dı ´az S, Fargione J, Chapin FS III, Tilman D: Biodiversity loss
threatens human well-being. PLoS Biol 2006, 4:1300-1305.
25. Myers RA, Worm B: Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory
fish communities. Nature 2003, 423:280-283.
26. Pauly D, Christensen V, Dalsgaard J, Froese R, Torres F Jr:
Fishing down marine food webs. Science 1998, 279:860-863.
27. Jackson JBC, Kirby MX, Berger WH, Bjorndal KA, Botsford LW,
Bourque BJ, Bradbury RH, Cooke R, Erlandson J, Estes JA et al.:
Historical overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal
ecosystems. Science 2001, 293:629-637.
28. Schmitz OJ: Perturbation and abrupt shift in trophic control of
biodiversity and productivity. Ecol Lett 2004, 7:403-409.
29. Terborgh J, Lopez L,Nunez P, Rao M, Shahabuddin G, Orihuela G,
Riveros M, Ascanio R, Adler GH, Lambert TD et al.: Ecological
meltdown in predator-free forest fragments. Science 2001,
294:1923-1926.
30. Diaz RJ, Rosenberg R: Spreading dead zones and
consequences for marine ecosystems. Science 2008,
321:926-929.
31. Barbier EB, Koch EW, Silliman BR, Hacker SD, Wolanski E,
Primavera J, Granek EF, Polasky S, Aswani S, Cramer LA et al.:
Coastal ecosystem-based management with nonlinear
ecological functions and values. Science 2008, 319:321-323.
32. Jones KE, Patel NG, Levy MA, Storeygard A, Balk D, Gittleman JL,
Daszak P: Global trends in emerging infectious diseases.
Nature 2008, 451:U990-U994.
33. Canadell JG, Raupach MR: Managing forests for climate
change mitigation. Science 2008, 320:1456-1457.
34. Cramer W, Bondeau A, Schaphoff S, Lucht W, Smith B, Sitch S:
Tropical forests and the global carbon cycle: impacts of
atmospheric carbon dioxide, climate change and rate of
deforestation. Philos Transact R Soc Lond Ser B-Biol Sci 2004,
359:331-343.
35. Malhi Y, Aragao L, Galbraith D, Huntingford C, Fisher R,
Zelazowski P, Sitch S, McSweeney C, Meir P: Exploring the
likelihood and mechanism of a climate-change-induced
diebackofthe Amazon rainforest.Proc NatlAcad SciUSA 2009,
106:20610-20615.
36. Schellnhuber HJ, Cramer W, Nakı ´ce ´novic N, Wigley T, Yohe G
(Eds): Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press; 2006.
37. Rockstrom J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson A, Chapin FS,
Lambin EF, Lenton TM, Scheffer M, Folke C, Schellnhuber HJ
et al.: A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 2009,
461:472-475.
38. Schellnhuber HJ, Crutzen PJ, Clark WC, Hunt J: Earth system
analysis for sustainability. Environment 2005, 47:10-25.
39. Folke C, Carpenter S, Walker B, Scheffer M, Elmqvist T,
Gunderson L, Holling CS: Regime shifts, resilience, and
biodiversity in ecosystem management. Annu Rev Ecol Evol
Syst 2004, 35:557-581.
40. Scheffer M, Carpenter SR: Catastrophic regime shifts in
ecosystems: linking theory to observation. Trends Ecol Evol
2003, 18:648-656.
41. Biggs R, Carpenter SR, Brock WA: Turning back from the brink:
detecting an impending regime shift in time to avert it. Proc
Natl Acad Sci USA 2009, 106:826-831.
42. Sampaio G, Nobre C, Costa MC, Satyamurty P, Soares-Filho BS,
Cardoso M: Regional climate change over eastern Amazonia
caused by pasture and soybean cropland expansion. Geophys
Res Lett 2007, 34:L17709.
43. Sternberg LDL: Savanna-forest hysteresis in the tropics. Glob
Ecol Biogeogr 2001, 10:369-378.
44. Struhsaker TT, Struhsaker PJ, Siex KS: Conserving Africa’s rain
forests: problems in protected areas and possible solutions.
Biol Conserv 2005, 123:45-54.
45. Gulati RD, van Donk E: Lakes in the Netherlands, their origin,
eutrophication and restoration: state-of-the-art review.
Hydrobiologia 2002, 478:73-106.
46. Chevin L-M, Lande R, Mace GM: Adaptation, plasticity and
extinction in a changing environment:towards a predictive
theory. PLoS Biol 2010.
47. Nicholson E, Mace GM, Armsworth PR, Atkinson G, Buckle S,
Clements T, Ewers RM, Fa JE, Gardner TA, Gibbons J et al.:
Priority research areas for ecosystem services in a changing
world. J Appl Ecol 2009, 46:1139-1144.
48. Mooney H, Mace G: Biodiversity policy challenges. Science
2009, 325:1474-11474.
49. Scholes RJ, Mace GM, Turner W, Geller GN, Ju ¨rgens N,
Larigauderie A, Muchoney D, Walther BA, Mooney HA: Toward a
global biodiversity observing system. Science 2008,
321:1044-1045.
8
Terrestrial systems
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2010, 2:3–8www.sciencedirect.com