Biodiversity Transcends Services

Abstract

In their Policy Forum “Ecosystem services for 2020” (15 October, p. [323][1]), C. Perrings et al. discuss possible missing elements in the Convention on Biological Diversity's proposed new targets. They suggest that targets for biodiversity be based directly on ecosystem services because people will then have a stake in the program's success. This approach undersells both biodiversity and the role of ecosystem services. Biodiversity's value extends beyond current ecosystem services and includes likely future benefits we cannot anticipate. Recognizing the benefits of ecosystem services can reduce the cost of retaining relatively intact areas of local biodiversity, but we need to plan for larger-scale conservation. A recognized ecosystem service does more than support some local elements of biodiversity; it makes a low-cost contribution toward conserving the biodiversity of the larger region. Regionally, ecosystem services may be more important as indicators of relative cost and intactness than of biodiversity. When considering regional trade-offs, we cannot simply target ecosystem services and ignore the elements of biodiversity that are not required for the service. Adopting the ecosystem services option for a specific locality may not be as good for balanced regional biodiversity conservation as adopting full conversion of that locality ([ 1 ][2]). An example that has been used to illustrate this point is a locality offering either complete conversion to forestry logging or “sympathetic” logging with partial biodiversity retention. Adopting the ecosystem service based on sympathetic logging, while lowering opportunity costs and maintaining some biodiversity in that locality, nevertheless would mean greater regional biodiversity loss for a given level of regional forestry production. As an alternative to targets focused on current perceptions of important services, it is time to consider higher-level targets and goals in an effort to better balance overall biodiversity conservation, ecosystem services, and other needs of society. I propose that we implement new systematic conservation planning to more efficiently serve these different needs ([ 2 ][3], [ 3 ][4]). Because greater efficiency can mean more biodiversity protection for a given rate of land conversion, higher-level targets could allow us to focus on reducing the rate of biodiversity loss as opposed to the more narrow goal of maintaining ecosystem services. 1. [↵][5] 1. D. P. Faith , Biodiversity and Regional Sustainability Analysis, (CSIRO, Canberra, 1995); . 2. [↵][6] 1. D. P. Faith , Glob. Environ. Change Soc. Pol. Dimensions 15, 5 (2005). [OpenUrl][7][CrossRef][8] 3. [↵][9] 1. F. Grant, 2. J. Young, 3. P. Bridgewater, 4. A. D. Watt , Eds., “Targets for biodiversity beyond 2010: Research supporting policy” (Report of e-conference, 2009), p. 44; [www.epbrs.org/PDF/Final%20long%20report.pdf][10]. [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.1196431 [2]: #ref-1 [3]: #ref-2 [4]: #ref-3 [5]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1 in text [6]: #xref-ref-2-1 View reference 2 in text [7]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DGlob.%2BEnviron.%2BChange%2BSoc.%2BPol.%2BDimensions%26rft.volume%253D15%26rft.spage%253D5%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1016%252Fj.gloenvcha.2004.12.003%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [8]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2004.12.003&link_type=DOI [9]: #xref-ref-3-1 View reference 3 in text [10]: http://www.epbrs.org/PDF/Final%20long%20report.pdf