A biodiversity-crisis hierarchy to evaluate and refine conservation indicators

The Convention on Biological Diversity and its Biodiversity Strategic Plan 2011-2020 are the core of the World Nature Conservation Committee with 196 signatories, but the ability to control catastrophic loss of biodiversity is sufficient It is not. Indicators indicate that the "Aichi target" of the Convention on Biological Diversity aims to achieve the goal of reducing biodiversity loss by 2020. These indicators are only partially criticized for the goal, but the bigger problem is that the indicators are not fully noticed. And measure all the driving force of the biodiversity crisis. Here we show that many of the main factors of loss of biodiversity are underestimated or completely lacking. We will use the level of the biodiversity crisis as a conceptual model to link changes promoting factors to the loss of biodiversity in order to evaluate the scope of current indicators. There is a big gap related to the monitoring of government, population size, corruption, threat industry. We have set a hierarchical set of indicators to comprehensively monitor human behaviors and systems that have led to the loss of biodiversity that has hampered progress towards global biodiversity targets so far We recommend that you develop it.

Pollock at the University of Grenoble says: "Given the current biodiversity crisis, it shows the great advantage of conservation obtained from the perspective of biodiversity that otherwise could be overlooked in the protection program, one author of the report said "This biodiversity is the key to maintaining the tree of trees or functional ecosystems in line with the declared international policy goal.What global biodiversity is better understood and cataloged Since it is documented, update it and improve it. "

• Identify relevant indicators to evaluate the progress in implementing biodiversity actions required for impact assessment. Biodiversity indicators are a task to protect communities and companies. It is relatively easy to identify process indicators that measure whether mitigation measures are being implemented or processes that control the impact of biodiversity, but the indicators of biodiversity outcomes are still fantastic. Therefore, the effectiveness of mitigation measures and biodiversity management remains unclear with respect to the outcome of conservation of biodiversity. As a result, enterprises can not judge whether mitigation measures and management plans have desirable results, making adaptive management difficult.

Although the Ecological Footprint is not a direct measure of biodiversity, it supports the assessment and conservation of biodiversity in two important ways. First, the Ecological Footprint will serve as a large indicator of potential factors and pressure leading to the loss of biodiversity. For this purpose, both the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the streamlined European biodiversity indicator (SEBI) process have adopted ecological footprints as indicators of biodiversity stress. In addition, we use the Ecological Footprint to convert the consumption of a certain quantity of material (eg 1 kilogram of paper) into the area of ​​the particular area where it was harvested (forest of 1 square meter in Finland, for example) can do. After the initial translation, additional indicators and evaluation tools can be used to measure the impact of biodiversity related to harvesting from the ecosystem.