Disappearing Habitats

The Imperial Amazon, a parrot found on the Caribbean island of Dominica, has lost more than 60 percent of its habitat since 2001. So has the Puerto Rican robber frog, the Barton Springs salamander, the collared nightjar, and many other species all over the globe.

Wildlife is disappearing around the world, from both oceans and land. One of the main causes: Humans are taking over more and more of the planet, erasing what was there before. Most converted land is taken for agriculture, such as clearing forests to graze cattle or plant crops. Other wild habitats have been turned into cities and roads. Per capita consumption is soaring as the human population surpasses 8 billion.

Biodiversity, or the variety of life on the planet—including plants, invertebrates, and ocean species—is declining at rates unprecedented in human history, according to the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, an independent intergovernmental body. The group’s projections suggest that a million species are threatened with extinction.

It’s not only wildlife that will suffer if populations continue to plummet, experts say; human well-being is tied to the survival of other species too. More than 75 percent of global food crops rely on animal pollination, for example. Losing biodiversity can cause ecosystems to collapse, scientists say, threatening our food and water supplies.

But a different path may be possible: In December, roughly 190 nations met in Montreal and approved a sweeping new United Nations (U.N.) agreement to tackle biodiversity loss under a treaty called the Convention on Biological Diversity.

“Humanity has become a weapon of mass extinction,” says António Guterres, the U.N. secretary general. “It’s time to forge a peace pact with nature.”

The Imperial Amazon is a parrot found on the Caribbean island of Dominica. Since 2001, the species has lost more than 60 percent of its habitat. So have the Puerto Rican robber frog, the Barton Springs salamander, the collared nightjar, and many other animals all over the globe.

Wildlife is disappearing around the world. It’s happening both in the oceans and on land. Humans are one of the main causes of this loss. As people have taken over more and more of the planet, they’ve erased what was there before. Most converted land is taken for farming, such as clearing forests to graze cattle or plant crops. Other areas where wildlife once lived have been turned into cities and roads. And as the human population surpasses 8 billion, the amount of goods and resources used by each person is soaring.

Biodiversity is the variety of all life on the planet. That includes plants, animals that don’t have backbones, ocean species, and more. Biodiversity is declining at rates that have never been seen in human history, according to the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, an independent intergovernmental body. The group’s projections suggest that a million species are threatened with extinction.

Experts say that it’s not only wildlife that will suffer if populations continue to drop. Human well-being is also tied to other species’ survival. For example, more than 75 percent of global food crops rely on animal pollination. Scientists say that losing biodiversity can cause ecosystems to collapse. That would be a threat to our food and water supplies.

But a different path may be possible. In December, about 190 nations met in Montreal to devise a plan to tackle biodiversity loss. They approved a broad new United Nations (U.N.) agreement to do so under a treaty called the Convention on Biological Diversity.

“Humanity has become a weapon of mass extinction,” says António Guterres, the U.N. secretary general. “It’s time to forge a peace pact with nature.”

_{Animals With More Than 50% Habitat Loss Since 2001: Honduran white bat, Rufous breasted coua, Guibé’s mantella, Louisiana pine snake, Scott Bar salamander, Collared nightjar, Puerto Rican robber frog} 

^{Animals With More Than 50% Habitat Loss Since 2001: Honduran white bat, Rufous breasted coua, Guibé’s mantella, Louisiana pine snake, Scott Bar salamander, Collared nightjar, Puerto Rican robber frog} 

The biggest causes of biodiversity loss, scientists say, are changes in land and sea use as the human population expands. Next comes reduction through means such as hunting, fishing, and wildlife trafficking, followed by climate change, pollution, and invasive species.

Experts say the threat of habitat loss is comparable in significance to the climate crisis and that the two are inextricably linked. For example, since trees soak up and help store carbon, a greenhouse gas, clearing forests intensifies climate change; restoring them helps mitigate it.

Why are humans taking over so much land? In many parts of the world, people say they need to support their economies, particularly for agriculture or exports driven by global trade. And desperation can sometimes push people to take land in remote areas.

“They need land in order to feed their families,” says David López-Carr, a professor of geography at the University of California Santa Barbara.

There’s growing recognition that stanching biodiversity loss requires addressing the needs of local communities.

“There needs to be a way that the people that live close to the forests benefit from the intact forests, rather than clearing the forest for short-term gain,” says Julia Patricia Gordon Jones, a professor of conservation science at Bangor University in Wales.

Scientists say that the biggest causes of biodiversity loss are changes in land and sea use as the human population expands. Next comes reduction through means such as hunting, fishing, and wildlife trafficking. That’s followed by climate change, pollution, and invasive species.

Experts say the threat of habitat loss is as urgent an issue as the climate crisis. They also say that there’s an undeniable link between the two. For example, trees soak up and help store carbon, a greenhouse gas. So, clearing forests worsens climate change. But restoring forests helps lessen its effects.

Why are humans taking over so much land? In many parts of the world, people say they need to support their economies. That’s particularly the case for farming or exports driven by global trade. And despair can sometimes push people to take land in remote areas.

“They need land in order to feed their families,” says David López-Carr, a professor of geography at the University of California Santa Barbara.

There’s a growing understanding that halting biodiversity loss requires addressing the needs of local communities.

“There needs to be a way that the people that live close to the forests benefit from the intact forests, rather than clearing the forest for short-term gain,” says Julia Patricia Gordon Jones, a professor of conservation science at Bangor University in Wales.

Some progress has been made already. For example, 21 million Chinese farmers recently decreased the amount of nitrogen they use on crops while still increasing yields. Guatemala has rewarded landowners who restored forests with native species. And some American homeowners are trying to help by putting in natural gardens in place of lawns to provide more habitat.

At the Montreal negotiations, called COP15, countries that are poor economically but rich in biodiversity argued that they need help from wealthier nations. Overall, the financial need is daunting: hundreds of billions per year to help develop and implement national biodiversity plans, which would include actions such as creating protected areas and restoring degraded lands.

Failing to address biodiversity loss carries enormous financial risk. The World Economic Forum found that $44 trillion of economic value generation is dependent on nature and is therefore exposed to nature loss.

The U.S. is one of the only countries that wasn’t a party to the Montreal convention, as, since the 1990s, the Senate has been unable to muster the required 67 votes to join.

“We can play a very constructive role from the outside,” says Monica Medina, a U.S. special envoy for biodiversity and water resources. But she added that being a member would be better. “I hope that someday we will be.”

Some progress has been made already. For example, 21 million Chinese farmers recently decreased the amount of nitrogen they use on crops while still increasing yields. Guatemala has rewarded landowners who restored forests with native species. And some American homeowners are trying to help by putting in natural gardens in place of lawns to provide more habitat.

At the Montreal negotiations, called COP15, countries that are poor economically but rich in biodiversity argued that they need help from wealthier nations. Overall, the financial need is hefty: hundreds of billions per year to help develop and put national biodiversity plans in place. These plans would include actions like creating protected areas and restoring degraded lands.

Failing to address biodiversity loss carries a huge financial risk. The World Economic Forum found that $44 trillion of economic value creation depends on nature. As a result, nature loss has an impact on economic well-being.

The U.S. is one of the only countries that wasn’t a party to the Montreal convention. Since the 1990s, the Senate has been unable to gather the 67 votes required to join.

“We can play a very constructive role from the outside,” says Monica Medina, a U.S. special envoy for biodiversity and water resources. But she added that being a member would be better. “I hope that someday we will be.”

Of the many targets in the agreement, the one getting the most attention is a plan to safeguard at least 30 percent of the planet’s land and oceans by 2030, known as 30x30.

But experts emphasize that action will have to go further than lines on a map.

“You can set up a protected area, but you’ve not dealt with the fact that the whole reason you had habitat loss in the first place is because of demand for land,” says Pamela McElwee, an environmental anthropologist at Rutgers University. “You have to tackle the underlying drivers; otherwise you’re only dealing with like half the problem.”

There is a broad range of targets in the agreement. The one getting the most attention is a proposal to protect at least 30 percent of the planet’s land and oceans by 2030. This plan is known as 30x30.

But experts assert that action will have to go further than lines on a map.

“You can set up a protected area, but you’ve not dealt with the fact that the whole reason you had habitat loss in the first place is because of demand for land,” says Pamela McElwee, an environmental anthropologist at Rutgers University. “You have to tackle the underlying drivers; otherwise you’re only dealing with like half the problem.”

Catrin Einhorn covers the environment for The New York Times. Lauren Leatherby is a graphics editor for The Times. With reporting by Chrisanne Grisé.

Catrin Einhorn covers the environment for The New York Times. Lauren Leatherby is a graphics editor for The Times. With reporting by Chrisanne Grisé.