In 2002, world leaders committed, through the Convention on Biological Diversity, to achieve a significant reduction in the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010. We compiled 31 indicators to report on progress toward this target. Most indicators of the state of biodiversity (covering species' population trends, extinction risk, habitat extent and condition, and community composition) showed declines, with no significant recent reductions in rate, whereas indicators of pressures on biodiversity (including resource consumption, invasive alien species, nitrogen pollution, overexploitation, and climate change impacts) showed increases. Despite some local successes and increasing responses (including extent and biodiversity coverage of protected areas, sustainable forest management, policy responses to invasive alien species, and biodiversity-related aid), the rate of biodiversity loss does not appear to be slowing.

Using data for 25,780 species categorized on the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List, we present an assessment of the status of the world’s vertebrates. One-fifth of species are classified as Threatened, and we show that this figure is increasing: On average, 52 species of mammals, birds, and amphibians move one category closer to extinction each year. However, this overall pattern conceals the impact of conservation successes, and we show that the rate of deterioration would have been at least one-fifth again as much in the absence of these. Nonetheless, current conservation efforts remain insufficient to offset the main drivers of biodiversity loss in these groups: agricultural expansion, logging, overexploitation, and invasive alien species

In 2010, the international community, under the auspices of the Convention on Biological Diversity, agreed on 20 biodiversity-related "Aichi Targets" to be achieved within a decade. We provide a comprehensive mid-term assessment of progress toward these global targets using 55 indicator data sets. We projected indicator trends to 2020 using an adaptive statistical framework that incorporated the specific properties of individual time series. On current trajectories, results suggest that despite accelerating policy and management responses to the biodiversity crisis, the impacts of these efforts are unlikely to be reflected in improved trends in the state of biodiversity by 2020. We highlight areas of societal endeavor requiring additional efforts to achieve the Aichi Targets, and provide a baseline against which to assess future progress.

T i m H . S p a r k s , S t u a r t H . M . B u t c h a r t , A n d r e w B a l m f o r d , L e o n B e n n u n D a m o n S t a n w e l l -S m i t h , M a t t W a l p o l e , N i c h o l a s R . B a t e s B a s t i a n B o m h a r d , G r a e m e M . B u c h a n a n , A n n a M . C h e n e r y , B e n C o l l e n J o r g e C s i r k e , R o b e r t J . D i a z , N i c h o l a s K . D u l v y , C l a i r e F i t z g e r a l d V a l e r i e K a p o s , P h i l i p p e M a y a u x , M e g a n T i e r n e y , M i c h e l l e W a y c o t t L o u i s a W o o d and R h y s E . G r e e n Abstract The target adopted by world leaders of significantly reducing the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010 was not met but this stimulated a new suite of biodiversity targets for 2020 adopted by the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in October 2010. Indicators will be essential for monitoring progress towards these targets and the CBD will be defining a suite of relevant indicators, building on those developed for the 2010 target. Here we argue that explicitly linked sets of indicators offer a more useful framework than do individual indicators because the former are easier to understand, communicate and interpret to guide policy. A Response-Pressure-State-Benefit framework for structuring and linking indicators facilitates an understanding of the relationships between policy actions, anthropogenic threats, the status of biodiversity and the benefits that people derive from it. Such an approach is appropriate at global, regional, national and local scales but for many systems it is easier to demonstrate causal linkages and use them to aid decision making at national and local scales. We outline examples of linked indicator sets for humid tropical forests and marine fisheries as illustrations of the concept and conclude that much work remains to be done in developing both the indicators and the causal links between them.

Biodiversity indicators are widely used tools to help determine rates of biodiversity change and the success or failure of efforts to conserve it. However, their sufficiency and suitability in providing information for decision-makers is unclear. Here, we review the indicators brought together under the Biodiversity Indicator Partnership to monitor progress towards the Aichi Targets to determine where there are gaps. Of the 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets, Targets 2, 3, and 15 are missing indicators entirely. Scoring the indicators in relation to their alignment, temporal relevance and spatial scale shows additional gaps under Targets 1, 13, and 16-20. Predominately, gaps were found to be socioeconomic in nature (i.e., benefits, pressures, and responses) rather than statusrelated (i.e., states), principally due to a poor alignment between the indicator and the text of the Aichi Target. Hence, it is critical that existing indicators are properly resourced and maintained and new indicators developed to be able to effectively monitor biodiversity and its influencing factors to 2020 and beyond.