{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Tracking Progress toward the 2010 Biodiversity Target

Tracking Progress toward the 2010 Biodiversity Target -...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL 325 18 SEPTEMBER 2009 1503 POLICY FORUM Change may provide a means to enhance the quality and timeliness of the interactions between scientists and policy-makers at national scales and above. The GLOBE Inter- national Commission on Land Use Change and Ecosystems, made up of senior legisla- tors from the G8+5 and several developing countries, provides another opportunity to bring policy-makers and scientists together. Similar initiatives will also be needed at the subnational scale. The United Nations will convene a sum- mit in 2010 to consider the second 5-year review of the MDGs and to catalyze action ahead of the 2015 MDG target year. We must advise policy-makers and civil society organi- zations on the most critical initiatives needed to achieve the MDGs while preserving biodi- versity and ecosystem services. References and Notes 1. U.N. Millennium Project, Investing in Development: A Practical Plan to Achieve the Millennium Development Goals (Earthscan, New York, 2005). 2. G. M. Mace, H. Masundire, J. E. M. Baillie, in Ecosys- tems and Human Well-Being: Current State and Trends: Findings of the Condition and Trends Working Group (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Series, Island Press, Washington, DC, vol. 1, 2005), chap. 4. 3. B. Collen et al ., Conserv. Biol. 23 , 317 (2009). 4. G. M. Mace, J. E. M. Baillie, Conserv. Biol. 21 , 1406 (2007). 5. S. Dasgupta, B. Laplante, H. Wang, D. Wheeler, J. Econ. Perspect. 16 , 147 (2002). 6. P. Dasgupta, in Handbook of Environmental Economics: Environmental Degradation and Institutional Responses , K.-G. Maler, J. R. Vincent, Eds. (Elsevier, London, 2003), pp. 192–240. 7. M. Q. Dao, J. Stud. Econ. Econometr. 32 , 47 (2008). 8. J. D. Sachs, The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time (Penguin, New York, 2005). 9. R. E. Green, S. J. Cornell, P. W. Scharlemann, A. Balmford, Science 307 , 550 (2005). 10. W. M. Adams, J. Hutton, Conserv. Soc. 5 , 147 (2007). 11. M. Walpole et al ., Science 325 , 1503 (2009). 12. W. M. Adams et al ., Science 306 , 1146 (2004). 13. B. Strassburg, R. K. Turner, B. Fisher, R. Schaeffer, A. Lovett, Glob. Environ. Change 19 , 265 (2009). 14. Poverty maps, http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/povmap. 15. R. Grenyer et al ., Nature 444 , 93 (2006). 10.1126/science.1175035 I n response to global declines in biodiver- sity, some 190 countries have pledged, under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), to reduce the rate of bio- diversity loss by 2010 ( 1 , 2 ). Moreover, this target has recently been incorporated into the Millennium Development Goals in rec- ognition of the impact of biodiversity loss on human well-being ( 3 ). Timely information on where and in what ways the target has or has not been met, as well as the likely direction of future trends, depends on a rigorous, rele- vant, and comprehensive suite of biodiversity indicators with which to track changes over time, to assess the impacts of policy and man- agement responses, and to identify priorities for action. How far have we come in meeting these needs, and is it sufficient?
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}