CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 316Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementEnvironmental Conservation and ManagementEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies

Post-2020 biodiversity targets need to embrace climate change

Open access
Arneth, Almut, Shin, Yunne-Jai, Leadley, Paul, Rondinini, Carlo, Bukvareva, Elena, Kolb, Melanie, Midgley, Guy F., Oberdorff, Thierry +2 more·2020·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
DOI 10.1073/pnas.2009584117PMC PMC7739876
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Recent assessment reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) have highlighted the risks to humanity arising from the unsustainable use of natural resources. Thus far, land, freshwater, and ocean exploitation have been the chief causes of biodiversity loss. Climate change is projected to be a rapidly increasing additional driver for biodiversity loss. Since climate change and biodiversity loss impact human societies everywhere, bold solutions are required that integrate environmental and societal objectives. As yet, most existing international biodiversity targets have overlooked climate change impacts. At the same time, climate change mitigation measures themselves may harm biodiversity directly. The Convention on Biological Diversity’s post-2020 framework offers the important opportunity to address the interactions between climate change and biodiversity and revise biodiversity targets accordingly by better aligning these with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Paris Agreement and the Sustainable Development Goals. We identify the considerable number of existing and proposed post-2020 biodiversity targets that risk being severely compromised due to climate change, even if other barriers to their achievement were removed. Our analysis suggests that the next set of biodiversity targets explicitly addresses climate change-related risks since many aspirational goals will not be feasible under even lower-end projections of future warming. Adopting more flexible and dynamic approaches to conservation, rather than static goals, would allow us to respond flexibly to changes in habitats, genetic resources, species composition, and ecosystem functioning and leverage biodiversity’s capacity to contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.2009584117

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The need for dynamic conservation strategies was not considered in the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, nor is it being considered in the current draft of the post-Aichi objectives.

    “However, the need for dynamic conservation strategies was not considered in the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, nor is it being considered in the current draft of the post-Aichi objectives (144).”

    From Restoring Degraded Lands (2021) · cites this paper as [144]

    In “Climate Change and Global Biodiversity Targets” (page unavailable), the paper says Aichi Target 11 and the corresponding draft post-2020 targets may lead to static protected-area approaches, although flexible, dynamic measures are needed. It says the draft targets *might* lead to static approaches, not that the need for dynamic conservation was wholly unconsidered across the draft objectives; the citing sentence overstates that conclusion. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 36

  1. [2]Settele J., “ Terrestrial and water systems” in Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC, Field C. B., Eds. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2014), pp. 271– 359.
  2. [3]IPCC, “ Summary for policy makers” in Climate Change and Land: An IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems, Shukla P. R., Ed. (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland, 2019), pp. 3– 36.
  3. [4]Arneth A., “Chapter 1: Framing and context” in IPCC Special Report on Climate Change and Land, Shukla P. R.., Eds. (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Geneva, Switzerland).
  4. [6]Edwards P., Misunderstandings, myths and mantras in aquaculture: Its contribution to world food supplies has been systematically over reported. Mar. Policy 106, 103547 (2019).
  5. [8]Hof C., Bioenergy cropland expansion may offset positive effects of climate change mitigation for global vertebrate diversity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 115, 13294– 13299 (2018). 30530689 PMC6310845
  6. [9]Shin Y.-J..; IPBES Global Assessment on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, “ Chapter 4: Plausible futures of nature, its contributions to people and their good quality of life” in Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science—Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Brondizio E. S., Ed. (IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, Germany, 2019), pp. 1– 264.
  7. [10]Bellard C., Bertelsmeier C., Leadley P., Thuiller W., Courchamp F., Impacts of climate change on the future of biodiversity. Ecol. Lett. 15, 365– 377 (2012). 22257223 PMC3880584
  8. [11]Pecl G. T., Biodiversity redistribution under climate change: Impacts on ecosystems and human well-being. Science 355, 355 (2017). 28360268
  9. [14]Hoegh-Guldberg O., The human imperative of stabilizing global climate change at 1.5°C. Science 365, eaaw6974 (2019). 31604209
  10. [16]Gattuso J.-P., Contrasting futures for ocean and society from different anthropogenic CO2 emissions scenarios. Science 349, aac4722 (2015). 26138982
  11. [18]Jones D. O. B., Global reductions in seafloor biomass in response to climate change. Glob. Change Biol. 20, 1861– 1872 (2014). PMC4261893 24382828
  12. [20]Naya D. E., Naya H., Cook J., Climate change and body size trends in aquatic and terrestrial endotherms: Does habitat matter? PLoS One 12, e0183051 (2017). 28813491 PMC5558942
  13. [22]Lurgi M., López B. C., Montoya J. M., Novel communities from climate change. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 367, 2913– 2922 (2012). 23007079 PMC3479747
  14. [28]Damien M., Tougeron K., Prey-predator phenological mismatch under climate change. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 35, 60– 68 (2019). 31401300
  15. [29]Prop J., Climate change and the increasing impact of polar bears on bird populations. Front. Ecol. Evol. 3, 33 (2015).
  16. [33]Rogers A., Blanchard J. L., Mumby P. J., Vulnerability of coral reef fisheries to a loss of structural complexity. Curr. Biol. 24, 1000– 1005 (2014). 24746794
  17. [34]Magurran A. E., Dornelas M., Moyes F., Gotelli N. J., McGill B., Rapid biotic homogenization of marine fish assemblages. Nat. Commun. 6, 8405 (2015). 26400102 PMC4598618
  18. [36]Li J., Global priority conservation areas in the face of 21st century climate change. PLoS One 8, e54839 (2013). 23359638 PMC3554607
  19. [37]Bellard C., Jeschke J. M., Leroy B., Mace G. M., Insights from modeling studies on how climate change affects invasive alien species geography. Ecol. Evol. 8, 5688– 5700 (2018). 29938085 PMC6010883
  20. [38]Schmitz O. J., Animals and the zoogeochemistry of the carbon cycle. Science 362, eaar3213 (2018). 30523083
  21. [39]Eigenbrod F., Gonzalez P., Dash J., Steyl I., Vulnerability of ecosystems to climate change moderated by habitat intactness. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 275– 286 (2015). 25059822
  22. [43]Boone R. B., Conant R. T., Sircely J., Thornton P. K., Herrero M., Climate change impacts on selected global rangeland ecosystem services. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 1382– 1393 (2018). 29160927
  23. [44]Rosenzweig C., Assessing agricultural risks of climate change in the 21st century in a global gridded crop model intercomparison. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 111, 3268– 3273 (2014). 24344314 PMC3948251
  24. [45]Potts S. G., Safeguarding pollinators and their values to human well-being. Nature 540, 220– 229 (2016). 27894123
  25. [47]Markkula I., Turunen M., Rasmus S., A review of climate change impacts on the ecosystem services in the Saami Homeland in Finland. Sci. Total Environ. 692, 1070– 1085 (2019). 31539939
  26. [48]Lindegren M., Brander K., Adapting fisheries and their management to climate change: A review of concepts, tools, frameworks, and current progress toward implementation. Rev. Fish. Sci. Aquacult. 26, 400– 415 (2018).
  27. [49]Immerzeel W. W., Importance and vulnerability of the world’s water towers. Nature 577, 364– 369 (2020). 31816624
  28. [50]Allison E. A., The spiritual significance of glaciers in an age of climate change. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 6, 493– 508 (2015).
  29. [51]Ciais P., “ Carbon and other biogeochemical cycles” in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Stocker T. F., Ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2013), pp. 465– 570.
  30. [52]Boyd P. W., Claustre H., Levy M., Siegel D. A., Weber T., Multi-faceted particle pumps drive carbon sequestration in the ocean. Nature 568, 327– 335 (2019). 30996317
  31. [53]Hooper D. U., A global synthesis reveals biodiversity loss as a major driver of ecosystem change. Nature 486, 105– 108 (2012). 22678289
  32. [54]Perugini L., Biophysical effects on temperature and precipitation due to land cover change. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 053002 (2017).
  33. [66]Hanson J. O., Global conservation of species’ niches. Nature 580, 232– 234 (2020). 32269340
  34. [69]Prober S. M., Shifting the conservation paradigm: A synthesis of options for renovating nature under climate change. Ecol. Monogr. 89, e01333 (2019).
  35. [70]Tittensor D. P., Integrating climate adaptation and biodiversity conservation in the global ocean. Sci. Adv. 5, eaay9969 (2019). 31807711 PMC6881166
  36. [72]Watson J. E. M., Set a global target for ecosystems. Nature 578, 360– 362 (2020). 32071453

Cited by

Sorted by citations

  • The direct drivers of recent global anthropogenic biodiversity loss

    Jaureguiberry, P., Titeux, N., Wiemers, M., Bowler, D. E., Coscieme, L., Golden, A. S., Guerra, C. A., Jacob, U., Takahashi, Y., Settele, J., et al. (2022) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.abm9982 · Cited by 1,121 · see citing works

    “Tackling accelerating climate change and bending the curve of biodiversity loss while still producing affordable food and safe water for people will require ambitious targets, policies, and actions that are more holistic than at present ( 2 , 5 , 28 , 32 , 49 , 58 ).”

  • Restoring Degraded Lands

    Arneth, A., Olsson, L., Cowie, A., Erb, K.-H., Hurlbert, M., Kurz, W. A., Mirzabaev, A., & Rounsevell, M. D. A. (2021) · Annual Review of Environment and Resources · doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-012320-054809 · Cited by 106 · see citing works

    “However, the need for dynamic conservation strategies was not considered in the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, nor is it being considered in the current draft of the post-Aichi objectives (144).”
    BackgroundSelf-citation

Authors
Arneth, A., Shin, Y.-J., Leadley, P., Rondinini, C., Bukvareva, E., Kolb, M., Midgley, G. F., Oberdorff, T., Palomo, I., & Saito, O.
Affiliations
  • Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (DE)
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
  • Sapienza University of Rome (IT)
  • Ecosystem Services Projects Section, Biodiversity Conservation Center, 117312, Moscow, Russia;
  • Geographic Institute, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 04510 Mexico City, Mexico;
  • Stellenbosch University (ZA)
  • Natural Resources and Ecosystem Services Area, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), Kanagawa 240-0115, Japan
Corresponding author
Arneth, Almut
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Publisher
National Academy of Sciences
Published
2020-12-07
Volume
117
Issue
49
Pages
30882-30891
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
DOI
10.1073/pnas.2009584117
PMC
PMC7739876
OpenAlex
W3112743724
Cited by
316
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 36 · 2025: 54 · 2024: 76 · 2023: 70 · 2022: 49 · 2021: 31
FWCI
13.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Repository KITopen (Karlsruhe Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Institutional Repositories DataBase (IRDB) (submittedVersion)
  • IRIS Research product catalog (Sapienza University of Rome) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Communities in ADDI (Universidad del Pais Vasco) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • Institutional Archive of Ifremer (French Research Institute for Exploitation of the Sea) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Hispana (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • KITopen
Funders
  • Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft (ATMO)
  • Belmont Forum (ANR-18-EBI4-0003-01)
  • Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-11-LABX-0034, 19-MPGA-0009)
  • European Commission (869300)
  • Environment Research and Technology Development Fund, Japan (S-15, JPMEERF16S11500)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Environmental Conservation and Management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Keywords
Convention on Biological Diversity, climate change, biodiversity loss, Paris Agreement, Sustainable Development Goals, dynamic conservation, climate change adaptation, biodiversity policy
MeSH terms
Carbon Dioxide, Conservation of Natural Resources, Feedback, Biodiversity, Climate Change

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review