The World Is Failing to Tackle the Biodiversity Crisis
None of the 2020 global biodiversity targets will be met. For the sake of both nature and humanity, we must urgently change course.
George Bowling, the middling protagonist of Orwell’s Coming up for Air, has a simple dream — to escape to the nature-filled days of his childhood. When he wins some money on the horses, he tries to realise that dream, but it doesn’t go to plan. His hometown has changed, his old girlfriend lives in poverty and doesn’t recognise him, and the woods have been cut down for a housing estate.
George’s disappointment peaks when he discovers that his secret fishing pond has been drained for a rubbish tip. He is livid: “And they’d filled my pool up with tin cans. God rot them and bust them! … Sentimental, you say? Anti-social? Oughtn’t to prefer trees to men? I say it depends what trees and what men.”
The novel was hardly meant to be an environmental commentary. It was published in 1939 and captures the anxiety and dread of that time. Nevertheless, it highlights the decline of nature over the protagonist’s lifetime — a trend, which has continued relentlessly. Over 97% of the UK’s wildflower meadows have been lost since the 1930s and in the last 50 years alone, there has been a 13% decline in average species’ abundance[1]. Some species have been affected more than others, for example, the farmland birds index has reduced by 56%[2]
Nature’s decline is more severe in other parts of the world. The 2020 Living Planet Report[3] found that there has been a 68% fall in global wildlife populations since 1970, with a 94% fall in Latin America.
The findings of the UN IPBES global assessment report on biodiversity[4] are stark — as a result of human activities, nature is declining at a rate unprecedented in human history, placing a million species at risk of extinction. Put simply, nature is in trouble, therefore we’re in trouble.
While we often take nature for granted, it provides the basic conditions we need to survive for free — it regulates the air we breathe, pollinates our crops, recycles nutrients in the soil to maintain fertility, mitigates the impact of extreme weather, and is a source of food, medicine, and materials. It also provides solace[5] and inspiration for artists, scientists, and engineers[6] alike. A seminal study estimated that the benefits provided by ecosystem services are US$125 trillion per annum[7].
A continuation of nature’s decline would not only threaten these services, it would also harm the measured economy. A report by Swiss Re Institute[8] found that 55% of global GDP is moderately or highly dependent on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Further, the World Economic Forum’s 2020 Global Risk Report[9] found that biodiversity loss is a top 5 risk in terms of both likelihood and impact.
Despite the gravity of the situation, not a single one of the 2020 global biodiversity targets will be met[10] (more on this later). There is still hope — awareness is growing and an increasing number of world leaders and companies are demonstrating a willingness to tackle the issue — but unless we urgently change course, humans will destroy the very foundations of our success and wellbeing.
Climate and biodiversity are interdependent but are different issues
The issue of biodiversity loss has a lot in common with climate change. In televised interviews, expert scientists have the same defeated look after having their warnings ignored for decades. Self-interested groups have deliberately dispersed doubt and have impeded progress. Both issues pose an existential threat.
Unsurprisingly, many people see the issues as kind of the same thing. Or sometimes they view nature as a tool to fight climate change alongside wind turbines and solar panels. But while biodiversity and climate are interdependent, they are very different problems.
The drastic decline in nature to date has occurred before the world suffers from the worst effects of climate change. For terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems, the main driver is changes in land-use — particularly the expansion and intensification of agriculture — followed by direct exploitation (e.g. logging and poaching) [11]. The same two drivers apply to marine ecosystems, but in the reverse order — overfishing has had the single largest impact on marine life.
Arguing that we should consider nature-based solutions to fight climate change somewhat misses the point. We cannot solve one without the other — to avert catastrophe we must solve both the climate and nature crises. It is impossible to reverse biodiversity loss if greenhouse gas emissions and global temperatures continue to rise; similarly, it is impossible to reduce emissions to net-zero and halt climate change if we continue to destroy nature at the current rate.
Happily, there are a number of solutions that address both crises. These must be prioritised. Conversely, solutions that benefit one cause, yet harm the other must be avoided. For example, increased use of biofuels could inadvertently cause deforestation to meet demand for palm oil and fuel crops, while monoculture tree plantations on species-rich grassland habitat could also harm biodiversity.
Solutions to address biodiversity loss
Addressing climate change is a herculean task, but the solution is relatively easy to communicate — greenhouse gas emissions need to reduce to net-zero, as quickly as possible and no later than 2050. The solution for biodiversity loss cannot be summarised as neatly. The closest equivalent is that there needs to be a significant increase in protected areas for nature — dedicated zones that prevent habitat destruction and exploitation. Of course, other measures are also necessary — such as limiting pollution, reducing insecticide and pesticide usage, and tackling invasive species — but the single best thing we can do for nature is to give it space and let it heal.
Scientific estimates for the amount of space needed to protect biodiversity vary widely, between 25% and 75%[12][13], depending on the scope of the study. Given the consequences of underestimation and recognising the political reality of the situation, there has been growing support for protecting a minimum of 30% of land and marine environments by 2030 and 50% by 2050[14].
In 2017, 49 scientists called for a Global Deal for Nature to go alongside the Paris Agreement on climate change, where half of the terrestrial biosphere would be protected for nature[15]. A follow-up paper in 2019[16] provided further support for an interim 30% by 2030 target and extended it to marine environments.
Wider support for the 30% by 2030 target appears to be gathering pace. The Wyss Foundation has pledged $1 billion to the project and UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson recently committed to protecting 30% of the UK’s land by 2030.
These developments are encouraging, but like losing weight or quitting smoking, figuring out what needs to be done is the easy part — working out how and sticking with it is rather more difficult. To do so, we must consider the underlying drivers of our appetite for land.
Since 1970, the human population has doubled[17] and global GDP has more than tripled[18]. In turn, this has increased demand on the planet’s resources and has led to an unparalleled transformation of land use — humans have appropriated land from the natural world on a massive scale.
Approximately half of all habitable land is currently used for agriculture[19]. And with the population projected to grow to almost 10bn in 2050[20], the demand for resources and land will inevitably continue without intervention.
At this point, it would be natural to wonder whether solving biodiversity loss is ultimately a choice between nature and humans, or “trees to men”. However, this is a false trade-off. Firstly, it would be naïve to assume that continuing on our current path is a viable option — the collapse of nature would be detrimental to humanity. Secondly, measures can be taken to reduce the amount of land required to sustain the population, such as a shift in diet[21], avoiding the need to make such a choice.
Livestock accounts for almost 80% of agricultural land, yet only provides 18% of the calorie intake. Meat from ruminant animals (e.g. beef and lamb) is particularly land-intensive, requiring over 150m2 of land per 100g of protein compared to 7m2 for poultry and 2m2 for tofu[22] (see chart below).
The meat-heavy diet of the West is problematic — if everyone ate as much meat as Americans, there would not be enough land[23] to support the population. Reducing meat consumption would allow more space for nature whilst accommodating projected population growth. Encouraging a shift in diets is difficult, but phasing-out (or redirecting) subsidies for livestock would be a good start.
Longer-term measures, such as improving global education rates to slow population growth and transitioning to a sustainable development framework, like Kate Raworth’s doughnut economic model, are also important. These will ensure humanity can continue to prosper without exceeding planetary boundaries.
A recent study[24], found that adopting the 30% by 2030 target would lead to a slight increase in economic output when restricted to considering financial outcomes. This increase is mainly attributable to land scarcity driving productivity increases as well as additional income from new sectors such as eco-tourism. The benefits were even more favourable when the scope was extended beyond financial outcomes.
Dedicating more land to nature, then, would appear feasible, albeit the challenge is enormous. Currently, only 3.6% of oceans and 14.7% of land are formally protected and many of these areas are not managed effectively[25]. A global agreement is needed.
The 2021 UN Biodiversity Conference in Kunming must be a turning point
The 2021 UN Biodiversity conference (COP 15) will be held in Kunming, China. Delegates will be tasked with agreeing a new strategic plan and targets. It is a crucial opportunity to change course on biodiversity loss.
The previous strategic plan for biodiversity was agreed in 2010 and included the ten-year Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Yes, targets not target — twenty targets, with sixty elements. It is difficult to dispute the intentions behind any of the targets. But in a world where attention spans are short and news is increasingly communicated in soundbites, such detailed targets were always going to be a tough sell.
Aside from quantity, the targets have also been criticised for not being sufficiently clear or measurable[26]. The result is somewhat predictable. Not a single target will be met — not one[27]. An abject failure. Leaders must learn from this experience.
A clear, overarching ambition along with binding and measurable targets must be agreed at COP 15, otherwise, the world is likely to once again drift, rudderless, into failure. The Paris Agreement for climate change is a good model. While far from perfect, it at least has a clear objective and scientists have defined different pathways for how to get there.
Biodiversity is complex, but that should not be a blocker for setting an overarching objective. For example, a paper in Science magazine[28] suggested a goal linked to limiting species extinctions to well below 20 per year over the next 100 years. Alternatively, the goal could be linked to restoring an agreed biodiversity index.
Once the objective is agreed, a measurable target (or targets) can then be set to achieve it, such as protecting 30% of land and water by 2030 and 50% by 2050. Nations could then turn the target(s) into binding commitments.
Agreeing on an overarching objective would also encourage leaders and non-state actors to get behind and align with a common goal, as they have done with the Paris Agreement. Currently, corporations are under increasing pressure from the public and investors to align their strategies with the Paris Agreement and to disclose their progress. If a successful Kunming Agreement on biodiversity is struck, the same pressure would no doubt be applied and this would drive meaningful change.
Financial institutions are already showing a willingness to tackle the issue. For example, in September 2020, 26 companies signed the Finance for Biodiversity pledge and the Task Force for Nature Disclosures (TFND) reached a key milestone. Clearer direction in the form of a strong global agreement will help these initiatives succeed and expand.
Getting a global agreement will not be easy. On 25 September, leaders of 75 nations signed a pledge for nature in a strong statement of intent. However, several major players were noticeably absent, including the US, Australia, Brazil, and China.
It is well worth the fight. If we manage to get it right, when today’s children reach middle age, should they attempt to revisit their childhood, they will find it more nature-filled than their memories. Now that would be enough to make Mr. Bowling grin.
___
References:
[1] “State of Nature Report 2019” (2019) National Biodiversity Network
[2] “Wild bird populations in the UK, 1970 to 2018” (2019) Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs
[3] Almond, et al. (2020) “Living planet report 2020” WWF
[4] “Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services” (2019) UN IPBES.
[5] The Japanese defined the term “Shinrin-Yoku” or forest bathing in the 1980s
[6] Engineers have long looked to nature for solutions. Brunel drew inspiration from a shipworm to design a tunnelling shield in the 1800s. More recently, chief engineer Eiji Nakatsu refashioned the nose of the Shinkansen (a.k.a. bullet train) in the shape of a Kingfisher’s beak to overcome the problem of fast trains generating a loud boom when exiting a tunnel.
[7] Costanza, et al. (2014) “Changes in the global value of ecosystem services” Global Environmental Change, Volume 26, May 2014, Pages 152–158
[8]“Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services A business case for re/insurance” (2020) Swiss Re Institute
[9] “The Global Risks Report 2020” (2020) World Economic Forum
[10] Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, (2020) “Global Biodiversity Outlook 5” (2020) UN Environment Programme
[11] Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services” (2019) UN Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.
[12] Baille, J., Zhang, Y. (2018) “Space for Nature”, Science Magazine, Vol. 361, Issue 6407.
[13] Woodley, et al. (2019), “A review of evidence for area-based conservation targets for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework”, Parks, Vol 25.2
[14] Ellis, E., Mehrabi, Z. (2019) “Half Earth: promises, pitfalls, and prospects of dedicating Half of Earth’s land to conservation”, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 38
[15] Dinerstein, et al. (2017) “An Ecoregion-Based Approach to Protecting Half the Terrestrial Realm”, BioScience
[16] Dinerstein, et al. (2019) “A Global Deal For Nature: Guiding principles, milestones, and targets.” Science Advances Magazine, Vol. 5, №4
[17] UN Population Division, world population increase from 3.7bn in 1970 to 7.7bn in 2019.
[18] Total output of the world economy, adjusted for inflation and expressed in international $ in 2011 prices. Source: Our World in Data, based on World Bank and New Maddison Project Database (2017).
[19] Based on UN FAO data. Another study suggests that 55% of ice-free land is dedicated to agriculture and urban areas: Ellis, et al. (2010). “Anthropogenic transformation of the biomes, 1700 to 2000.” Global Ecology and Biogeography, 19(5), 589–606.
[20] UN Population Division, World Population Prospects 2019, medium variant
[21] “Global food losses and food waste — Extent, causes and prevention”(2011) Food and Agricultural Organisation of United Nations.
[22] Poore, J., & Nemecek, T. (2018). “Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers.” Science, 360(6392), 987–992.
[23] Alexander, P., Brown, C., Arneth, A., Finnigan, J., & Rounsevell, M. D. (2016). Human appropriation of land for food: the role of diet. Global Environmental Change, 41, 88–98
[24]Waldron, A., et al.(2020) “Protecting 30% of the planet for nature: costs, benefits and economic implications”, working paper
[25] Baille, J., Zhang, Y. (2018) “Space for Nature”, Science Magazine, Vol. 361, Issue 6407.
[26]“New biodiversity targets cannot afford to fail”, Nature Magazine, Vol 578, 20 February 2020
[27]“Global biodiversity outlook 5” (2020) Convention on Biological Diversity.
[28] Rounsevell et. al (2020) “A biodiversity target based on species extinctions,” Science Magazine, Vol. 368, Issue 6496, pp. 1193–1195. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6496/1193
