A biodiversity target based on species extinctions
Abstract
Although worldwide loss of biodiversity arising from human activities is widely known, policy has been unable to arrest the decline (1). Much of this failure can be attributed to a lack of mainstreaming of biodiversity in public policy (2, pp. 741–762) and limitations in raising the profile of biodiversity loss for politicians and the public. Of the 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets (ABTs) established in 2010 by the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD), only four show good progress, whereas 12 related to the state of nature show worsening trends (1). With the 2020 target date for the ABTs now upon us, it is critical to define a post-2020 agenda to arrest the loss of biodiversity. This will require a target, underpinned by a clear global goal for biodiversity, that can be readily communicated to galvanize both political will and public support. Similarly to how the climate change community uses a single indicator (global mean temperature change) and a target (maximum 2°C rise relative to preindustrial levels) as a rallying point for policy action and agreements, we propose a 2°C-like target for biodiversity (see table S1): a measurable, near-term target of keeping described species extinctions to well below 20 per year over the next 100 years across all major groups (fungi, plants, invertebrates, and vertebrates) and across all ecosystem types (marine, freshwater, and terrestrial).
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Already a Subscriber?Sign In
Supplementary Material
File (aba6592_rounsevell_sm.pdf)
References and Notes
1
IPBES, Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, E. S. Brondizio, J. Settele, S. Díaz, H. T. Ngo, Eds. (IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, Germany, 2019).
2
Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, The Regional Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services for Europe and Central Asia, M. D. A. Rounsevell, M. Fischer, A. Torre-Marin Rando, A. Mader, Eds. (IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, Germany, 2018).
3
E. Dinerstein et al., Sci. Adv. 5, eaaw2869 (2019).
4
J. E. Watson et al., Nature 563, 27 (2018).
5
P. Visconti et al., Science 364, 239 (2019).
6
L. Boitani et al., PLOS Biol. 6, e66 (2008).
7
D. P. Tittensor et al., Science 346, 241 (2014).
8
V. Proença, H. Pereira, “Comparing extinction rates: Past, present, and future” in Encyclopaedia of Biodiversity (Elsevier, 2017).
9
W. Steffen et al., Science 347, 1259855 (2015).
10
G. M. Mace et al., Nat. Sustain. 1, 448 (2018).
11
A. Marques et al., Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 628 (2019).
Information & Authors
Information
Published In

Science
Volume 368 | Issue 6496
12 June 2020
12 June 2020
Copyright
Copyright © 2020, American Association for the Advancement of Science.
This is an article distributed under the terms of the Science Journals Default License.
Submission history
Published in print: 12 June 2020
Acknowledgments
We thank A. Arneth, N. Burgess, S. Butchart, A. Purvis, P. Visconti, and J. Watson for comments. M.D.A.R. acknowledges financial support of the Helmholtz Association. T.N. acknowledges funding from the Royal Society. The authors declare no competing interests.
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Article Usage
Altmetrics
Citations
Export citation
Select the format you want to export the citation of this publication.
Cited by
- The role of planetary boundaries in assessing absolute environmental sustainability across scales, Environment International, 152, (106475), (2021).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2021.106475
- Ensuring effective implementation of the post-2020 global biodiversity targets, Nature Ecology & Evolution, 5, 4, (411-418), (2021).https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-01375-y
- Bending the curve: Operationalizing national Red Lists to customize conservation actions to reduce extinction risk, Biological Conservation, 261, (109227), (2021).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109227
- National level use of International Union for Conservation of Nature knowledge products in American National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans and National Reports to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Conservation Science and Practice, 3, 5, (2021).https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.350
- Rates of geological processes, Earth-Science Reviews, 220, (103723), (2021).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2021.103723
- Nature and COVID-19: The pandemic, the environment, and the way ahead, Ambio, 50, 4, (767-781), (2021).https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-020-01447-0
- A research perspective towards a more complete biodiversity footprint: a report from the World Biodiversity Forum, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 26, 2, (238-243), (2021).https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01846-1
- Climate Change, Conservation, and Expertise, Governing the Anthropocene, (187-228), (2021).https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60350-2
- A metric for spatially explicit contributions to science-based species targets, Nature Ecology & Evolution, 5, 6, (836-844), (2021).https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01432-0
- Identifying uncertainties in scenarios and models of socio-ecological systems in support of decision-making, One Earth, 4, 7, (967-985), (2021).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.06.003
- See more
Loading...
View Options
Get Access
Log in to view the full text
AAAS login provides access to Science for AAAS Members, and access to other journals in the Science family to users who have purchased individual subscriptions.
- Become a AAAS Member
- Activate your AAAS ID
- Purchase Access to Other Journals in the Science Family
- Account Help
Log in via OpenAthens.
Log in via Shibboleth.
More options
Purchase digital access to this article
Download and print this article for your personal scholarly, research, and educational use.
Buy a single issue of Science for just $15 USD.
View options
PDF format
Download this article as a PDF file
Download PDF





