Biodiversity and species extinction: categorisation, calculation, and communication

Abstract

After the launch of the Global Assessment of the Intergovernmental Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) in May 2019, the message that 1 million species are threatened with extinction made headlines in news and social media across the world. These headlines also resulted in critical responses that questioned the credibility of this number andby extensionthe Global Assessment report and the institution of IPBES. In this article, weas two authors of the Global Assessmentdraw lessons from the GA about how to represent biodiversity in assessments and how biodiversity knowledge can inform effective and legitimate actions that contribute to conservation as well as equity, justice, and human well-being. Specifically, we highlight the inherent multiplicity of meanings and definitions of biodiversity to reflect on the limitations of using species richness and extinction as proxies for biodiversity and biodiversity loss. It is crucial to communicate clearly and in a balanced way that biodiversity loss is broader than species extinction, and how this broader loss of biodiversity jeopardises human wellbeing irrespective of whether species die out. Consequently, the post-2020 biodiversity framework will require multiple targets around not only species extinction but also broader biodiversity loss and human well-being.

Navigating power in conservation

“…It is important to recognizing that statements and ideas about nature and ecology are in this sense always already political. Underlying views, values and assumptions are increasingly re-examined in conservation (Pascual et al, 2021) and scholars are calling attention for the need to consider the plurality of values of nature and its conservation in science-policy initiatives (Turnhout & Purvis, 2021). In this vein, the Intergovernmental Science-policy Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) adopted a new methodological assessment on values that will help to address the diverse conceptualization of multiple values of nature and its benefits.…”

Past, present, and future of the Living Planet Index

“…Communications around biodiversity indicators and biodiversity loss have often centred on species, and species extinctions respectively, rather than attempting to explain the multi-faceted nature of biodiversity change and how we measure it 123,150 . Miscommunication and oversimplification of biodiversity and biodiversity loss, or decline, across the science-society and science-policy interface, are a challenge shared by biodiversity indicators in general 123 . The impact of substituting a single word for another in press and media communications, "loss" vs "decline", has sometimes led to misinterpretation of the global LPI statistic.…”

“…Along with other high-profile biodiversity indicators and reports 122,123 , the underlying data, methods, and interpretation of the LPI have come repeatedly under scrutiny, which has been a positive catalyst for new research, collaborations and ameliorations on the scientific rigour of the index. Here we provide an outline of the challenges faced by the LPI and aim to provide clarity on common misconceptions that have arisen within recent years.…”

“…However, the index has been critiqued as oversimplifying the state of biodiversity 147 and masking important trends 141 . Arguably, there is need for a balance between providing a simple, clear message about global biodiversity trends whilst supporting it with more in-depth analysis 123 . To explore this variation, disaggregations of the LPI have been developed (Table 1), for example, for forest specialists 95 .…”

Mapping Agricultural Biodiversity: Legacy data and tensions between ways of seeing fields

“…We conducted a critical evaluation of how assumptions made in the data collection and architecture of the database affect the spatialization of biodiversity knowledge (Malavasi, 2020). We explicitly designed our study with the inclusion of the data curators and hereby contribute to the movement for critical reflection on the limitations of proxies for biodiversity (Turnhout and Purvis 2020) by documenting the advantages and pitfalls of acquiring, processing, and analyzing spatial data for use in biodiversity research.…”