Received: 9 August 2019 Revised: 30 January 2020 Accepted: 8 February 2020 DOI: 10.1111/conl.12713 REVIEW Biodiversity policy beyond economic growth Iago Otero1,2 Katharine N. Farrell3,4 Salvador Pueyo5,6 Giorgos Kallis5,7,8 Laura Kehoe9,10,11,12,13 Helmut Haberl1,14 Christoph Plutzar14,15 Peter Hobson16 Jaime García-Márquez1,17 Beatriz Rodríguez-Labajos5,7,18 Jean-Louis Martin19 Karl-Heinz Erb14 Stefan Schindler20 Jonas Nielsen1,9 Teuta Skorin21 Josef Settele22,23,24 Franz Essl15 Erik Gómez-Baggethun25,26 Lluís Brotons27,28,29 Wolfgang Rabitsch30 François Schneider5,31 Guy Pe’er22,32,33 1 Integrative Research Institute on Transformations of Human-Environment Systems (IRI THESys), Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany 2 Interdisciplinary Centre for Mountain Research, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland 3 Biology Program, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Universidad del Rosario, Bogotá, Colombia 4 Berlin Workshop in Institutional Analysis of Social-Ecological Systems, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany 5 Research & Degrowth, Barcelona, Spain 6 Department of Evolutionary Biology, Ecology and Environmental Sciences, Universitat de Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain 7 Institute of Environmental Science and Technology (ICTA), Autonomous University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain 8 ICREA, Barcelona, Spain 9 Geography Department, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany 10 Biology Department, University of Victoria, Victoria, Canada 11 Department of Forest & Conservation Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada 12 The Nature Conservancy, London, UK 13 Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK 14 Institute of Social Ecology, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, Austria 15 Division of Conservation Biology, Vegetation Ecology and Landscape Ecology, Department of Botany and Biodiversity Research, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria 16 Centre for Econics & Ecosystem Management, Writtle University College, Chelmsford, UK 17 Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries, Berlin, Germany 18 Energy and Resources Group, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, United States 19 Centred’Écologie Fonctionnelle et Évolutive UMR 5175, CNRS–Université de Montpellier–Université Paul Valéry Montpellier–École Pratique des Hautes Études, IRD, Montpellier, France 20 Community Ecology and Conservation research group, Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic 21 Freelance biodiversity conservationist, Zagreb, Croatia 22 German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany 23 UFZ - Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Department of Community Ecology, Halle, Germany 24 Institute of Biological Sciences, University of the Philippines Los Baños, College, Laguna, Philippines 25 Department of International Environment and Development Studies (Noragric), Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU), Ås, Norway 26 Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), Oslo, Norway 27 InForest Joint Research Unit (CTFC-CREAF), Solsona, Spain This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. © 2020 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Conservation Letters. 2020;13:e12713. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/conl 1 of 18 https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12713 2 of 18 OTERO ET AL. 28 CREAF, Cerdanyola del Vallès, Spain 29 CSIC, Cerdanyola del Vallès, Spain 30 Environment Agency Austria, Vienna, Austria 31 Research & Degrowth France, Cerbère, France 32 UFZ - Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Department of Ecosystem Services and Department of Environmental Economics, Leipzig, Germany 33 University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany Correspondence Iago Otero, Centre interdisciplinaire de Abstract recherche sur la montagne, Université de Lau- Increasing evidence—synthesized in this paper—shows that economic growth con- sanne - Site de Sion, Ch. de l’Institut 18, 1967 tributes to biodiversity loss via greater resource consumption and higher emissions. Bramois, Switzerland. Email: iago.otero@unil.ch Nonetheless, a review of international biodiversity and sustainability policies shows that the majority advocate economic growth. Since improvements in resource use effi- Funding information ciency have so far not allowed for absolute global reductions in resource use and pollu- Austrian Science Funds, Grant/Award Num- ber: P29130-G27; Seventh Framework tion, we question the support for economic growth in these policies, where inadequate Programme, Grant/Award Numbers: EU attention is paid to the question of how growth can be decoupled from biodiversity BON/308454, ROBIN/283093; sDiv; Austrian loss. Drawing on the literature about alternatives to economic growth, we explore Academy of Sciences, Grant/Award Num- ber: LUBIO; Spanish Ministry of Economy this contradiction and suggest ways forward to halt global biodiversity decline. These and Competitiveness, Grant/Award Number: include policy proposals to move beyond the growth paradigm while enhancing over- MDM-2015-0552; Horizon 2020 Research and all prosperity, which can be implemented by combining top-down and bottom-up gov- Innovation Programme, Grant/Award Num- bers: CLAMOR/797444, COUPLED/765408, ernance across scales. Finally, we call the attention of researchers and policy makers to MAT_STOCKS/741950 two immediate steps: acknowledge the conflict between economic growth and biodi- versity conservation in future policies; and explore socioeconomic trajectories beyond economic growth in the next generation of biodiversity scenarios. KEYWORDS biodiversity conservation, biodiversity loss, biodiversity policy, biodiversity scenarios, decoupling, degrowth, economic growth, postgrowth, sustainability policy, transition 1 I N T RO D U C T I O N a critical assessment of economic growth may improve biodi- Conservation scientists have long stressed the need to pay versity policies in an ambitious and yet realistic way remains attention to the socioeconomic context of biodiversity loss if unexplored. effective policies are to be designed (Martin, Maris, & Sim- This paper aims to shed light on this crucial question. berloff, 2016). Such a question becomes urgent in the face To do so, we first synthesize available empirical evidence of an unprecedented degradation of the biosphere, undermin- on the relationships between economic growth and biodi- ing human well-being and calling into question the standard versity, focusing on land-use change, climate change, and development model (IPBES, 2019a). As economic growth is invasive alien species. Second, we review the prospects for part and parcel of this development model (Escobar, 2015), decoupling economic growth from biodiversity loss. Third, the exploration of its effects on biodiversity has the potential we review the position of 28 international biodiversity and to strengthen the diagnosis of biodiversity decline and support sustainability policy documents (produced under the auspices the design of effective solutions. of the United Nations between 1972 and 2016) about eco- The critical assessment of economic growth has recently nomic growth and decoupling. Fourth, we sketch out policy been directly linked to the debates around biodiversity con- possibilities by presenting existing literature on alternatives to servation. Authors have highlighted the need to move away economic growth and reviewing its relevance for biodiversity from the global economy’s current foundation on economic conservation. Finally, we show how scenario development for growth while discussing the role of conservation science in major policy instruments, such as the Convention on Biolog- the transition to a society focused instead on biodiversity and ical Diversity, could help directing national and international well-being (Büscher et al., 2017; Martin et al., 2016; see also priorities away from the growth imperative and toward the Czech, Krausman, & Devers, 2000). However, why and how enhancement of biodiversity and human well-being. OTERO ET AL. 3 of 18 F I G U R E 1 How economic growth contributes to biodiversity loss. Economic growth increases resource use and trade, which in turn impact biodiversity via various mechanisms reviewed in the text (climate change, land-use change, and invasive species). Source: our own 2 ECONOMI C G ROW T H , century, replacing ecosystems at a massive scale (Krausmann RES OURC E U SE , A N D et al., 2017). B I O D I V E R S I T Y LO S S Agricultural expansion and the development of cities and infrastructures threaten biodiversity through the encroach- Increasing evidence shows that an expanding economy ment and fragmentation of habitats, both major causes of bio- degrades biodiversity. In this paper, biodiversity is understood diversity loss across almost all terrestrial taxonomic groups as the variability among living organisms and the ecolog- (Andrén, 1994; Didham, Ghazoul, Stork, & Davis, 1996; Fis- ical complexes of which they are a part. This can include cher & Lindenmayer, 2007; Krauss et al., 2010). Conventional variation in genetic, phenotypic, phylogenetic, and functional agricultural intensification—characterized by a shift to highly attributes, as well as changes in abundance and distribution mechanized, large-scale monocultures with high levels of over time and space, within and among species and ecosys- agrichemicals use—is often detrimental to biodiversity (New- tems (IPBES, 2019a, glossary). The connection between eco- bold et al., 2015). These intensification processes can increase nomic growth and biodiversity loss can be explored by resort- the risk of soil erosion, degradation (Foucher et al., 2014; ing to correlations between gross domestic product (GDP), IPBES, 2018a), and salinization (Foresight, 2011). They can resource use and the state of biodiversity (Figure 1). While also reduce soil organic matter, disturb soil biota communi- such correlations do not necessarily imply causality, the argu- ties (Foucher et al., 2014; Postma-Blaauw, de Goede, Bloem, ments assembled below suggest that causal relations do exist. Faber, & Brussaard, 2010), result in biotic homogenization, Next, we show the relevance of our rationale for three well- become toxic to plants with cascading effects on ecosystems known mechanisms of biodiversity loss. (Yamaguchi & Blumwald, 2005), and threaten birds, mam- mals, amphibians, and insects (Gibbs, Mackey, & Currie, 2009; Hof, Araújo, Jetz, & Rahbek, 2011; IPBES, 2017; Kerr & Cihlar, 2004; Kleijn et al., 2009). 2.1 Land-use change Global agricultural area has increased by ca. 70–80% dur- ing the twentieth century, and agricultural production has 2.2 Climate change increased nearly sixfold as a result of land-use intensifica- Global economic and population growth have driven an tion (Klein Goldewijk, Beusen, Doelman, & Stehfest, 2017; increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, Krausmann et al., 2013). This increasing—and increasingly leading to unprecedented atmospheric concentrations that intense—use of land for agriculture has been attributed to have warmed the climate (IPCC, 2014). Global carbon diox- different drivers such as population, yield, and diet (Alexan- ide and other GHG emissions increase with GDP, and there der et al., 2015). The structure and evolution of the global is no empirical evidence for the assumption that they would economy seem to play a key role though. Trends in global automatically start declining in absolute terms once a certain agricultural land and in fertilizer and pesticide use correlate threshold of GDP has been reached (Burke, Shahiduzzaman, with GDP since the 1960s (Tilman et al., 2001). Increases in & Stern, 2015; Stern, 2017; for national-level decoupling, see per-capita GDP also closely correlate with a higher demand Section 3). for animal protein (Tilman & Clark, 2014), which further Shifts toward warmer climates are occurring at an unprece- increases the demand for agricultural area (Alexander et al., dented rate that may exceed the capacity of many species and 2015; Kastner, Rivas, Koch, & Nonhebel, 2012). ecosystems to adapt, leading to changes in species ranges and GDP growth is also associated with an expansion of urban population sizes, and resulting in local extinctions (Burrows areas and infrastructures (Seto, Güneralp, & Hutyra, 2012). et al., 2011; Hof et al., 2011; Wessely et al., 2017). Warmer The total mass of global human-made material stocks (build- temperatures have affected the phenology and the distribution ings, roads, etc.) grew in unison with global GDP over the last of species from various taxonomic groups across the globe 4 of 18 OTERO ET AL. (Cohen, Lajeunesse, & Rohr, 2018; Parmesan & Yohe, 2003; or strong competitors. Accordingly, 86% of documented his- Peñuelas & Filella, 2001; Root et al., 2003; Walther et al., toric extinctions on islands are linked to biological invasions 2002). Breeding bird populations, for instance, have shown a (Bellard et al., 2016). An unprecedented intensity of human- consistent response to climate change across the United States mediated species exchange is associated with contemporary and Europe since 1980, with an increasingly divergent fate economic activities, leading to the homogenization of flora between species favored and disadvantaged by rising temper- and fauna (Capinha, Essl, Seebens, Moser, & Pereira, 2015; atures (Stephens et al., 2016). Between 2001 and 2008, Euro- Winter et al., 2009), redefining the classical boundaries of bio- pean mountain plant communities experienced a decline in geography (Capinha et al., 2015), and presenting far-reaching cold-adapted species and an increase in warm-adapted ones, negative implications for native biota, ecosystem services, as well as upward shifts in ranges (Gottfried et al., 2012; and human well-being (Vilà & Hulme, 2017; Vilà et al., Pauli et al., 2012). The northward shift of European bird 2010). and butterfly communities observed between 1990 and 2008 As the global economy grows, the increase in the numbers was insufficient to track temperature changes (Devictor et al., of alien species does not show any sign of saturation (Seebens 2012). et al., 2017). Thus, many new introductions and associated In addition, climate change modifies habitats and enhances negative impacts can be expected in the future (Seebens et al., the frequency and intensity of extreme events such as storms, 2018). floods, extreme temperatures, and droughts (Maxwell, Fuller, Brooks, & Watson, 2016). In fact, extreme events are con- sidered to pose an even greater threat to biodiversity than global warming, both in terrestrial and marine environments 3 D E CO U P L I NG E CONOM I C (Garcia, Cabeza, Rahbek, & Araújo, 2014; Wernberg et al., G ROW TH F RO M BIO DIVERS IT Y 2013). Moreover, changes in climate can undermine efforts LOSS? to conserve biodiversity: for instance, in Europe 58% of plant and terrestrial vertebrate species are projected to lose suitable In theory, increases in the efficiency of resource use could climate conditions within existing protected areas by 2080 enable economic growth while reducing environmental and (Araújo, Alagador, Cabeza, Nogués-Bravo, & Thuiller, 2011). biodiversity impacts. This possibility is referred to as decou- Climate change could also cause abrupt system-level shifts pling. Relative decoupling means that GDP grows faster than in several biomes on the earth (Lenton, 2013). Finally, the resource use. It has been observed in the global aggregate effects of climate change are likely to act in synergy with as well as in many countries over long (decadal) periods of the effects of land-use change, especially as species’ disper- time for measures of aggregate use of resources (materials sal and adaptation to changing conditions is hindered by habi- and energy) and GHG emissions in the last century (Haberl tat loss and fragmentation (Sirami et al., 2017; Urban et al., et al., 2019). Absolute decoupling means that resource use 2016). declines in absolute terms while GDP grows; this requires that resource efficiency (i.e., the ratio GDP/resource use) grows faster than GDP. The literature has provided ample evidence 2.3 Invasive alien species that sustained absolute decoupling has not occurred so far Economic growth is intimately related to international trade (Alexander et al., 2015; Csereklyei & Stern, 2015; Kraus- and the expansion of transport routes (Dittrich & Bringezu mann et al., 2013; Steinberger, Krausmann, Getzner, Schandl, 2010; Schandl et al., 2017). In turn, international trade pro- & West, 2013; Ward et al., 2016; Wiedmann et al., 2015; see vides numerous opportunities for the transport of propag- below for some nuances). These studies suggest that, under ules of alien species to new regions (Seebens et al., 2015). current socioecological conditions, economies with higher Seebens et al. (2015) show that a strong increase in alien plant GDP tend to (i) consume more raw materials and energy, species is expected in the next decades, especially for emerg- (ii) occupy more productive land, and/or (iii) use it more ing economies in megadiverse regions. intensively. The human-caused introduction and spread of species in With regard to raw materials, a panel analysis of 39 coun- regions that were previously beyond the reach of natural tries (1970–2005) found that a 1% growth in GDP per capita colonization has become a defining feature of global biodi- implied a 0.8% growth in material use per capita (Steinberger versity loss (IPBES, 2019a). Alien species are the second et al., 2013). Krausmann, Schandl, Eisenmenger, Giljum, and most common threat associated with the extinction of plants, Jackson (2017) found that global relative decoupling of mate- amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals (Bellard, Cassey, rials from GDP ground to a halt around 2002; thereafter, & Blackburn, 2016). Impacts of alien species are particu- global material productivity (GDP/material use) deteriorated larly pronounced on islands, where evolutionary naïve native due to growth in regions with resource-intensive production species often become exposed to novel predators, pathogens, such as China. The few cases of absolute decoupling they OTERO ET AL. 5 of 18 found were related to low GDP growth and to increased The possibility of absolute decoupling is implicitly import of material-intensive goods. Similarly, the domestic defended through reference to the environmental Kuznets material use of some countries in the Global North declined curve (EKC). The EKC applied to biodiversity predicts that in absolute terms while their economies grew (1990–2008), biodiversity damage first increases and then decreases with but this was achieved by importing resource-intensive goods rising per capita incomes, as higher levels of income bring from the Global South (Wiedmann et al., 2015). When all raw about demand for, and investment in, biodiversity conser- materials associated with imported and exported goods are vation (Dietz & Adger, 2003). Partial support for a biodi- considered, the material footprint of these countries increases versity EKC has only been found for threatened bird and with GDP, although not at the same rate (Wiedmann et al., mammal species in two multicountry analyses (McPherson & 2015). Nieswiadomy, 2005; Naidoo & Adamowicz, 2001), as well In the case of the human appropriation of net primary as for birds linked to some habitat types in a number of Cana- production (HANPP), global data show a (strong) relative dian provinces (Lantz & Martínez-Espiñeira, 2008). However, decoupling. In the period 1910–2005, global GDP increased several multicountry analyses found no evidence to support much faster than global HANPP (17-fold vs. twofold) (Kraus- an EKC effect for a range of terrestrial and aquatic biodiver- mann et al., 2013). However, this was due to (i) land-use sity proxies, even supporting a trend in the opposite direction intensification, which resulted in NPP increases and partly from that predicted by the EKC hypothesis (Clausen & York, compensated for growing harvest volumes, and (ii) most 2008; Dietz & Adger, 2003; Gren, Campos, & Gustafsson, non-land-use–based economic activity being reliant on fossil 2016; Majumder, Berrens, & Bohara, 2006; Mills & Waite, energy and not biomass (Krausmann et al., 2013). As noted 2009). above, both land-use intensification and fossil energy use (cli- In the United States, the existence of an EKC was not mate change) impact biodiversity, suggesting that this relative supported for an integrated index of biodiversity risk (Tevie, decoupling can have considerable trade-offs for biodiversity Grimsrud, & Berrens, 2011). In this country, avian biodi- conservation. versity was found to follow an S-curve relationship, rather Regarding CO2 emissions, a steady increase is observed than the U-curve of the EKC—that is, biodiversity initially at the global level for the period 1960–2018 (Global Carbon declines with economic growth, then improves over inter- Budget, 2018). An analysis of 189 countries for the period mediate growth, and ultimately declines at higher growth 1961–2010 found that a 1% increase in GDP was associated (Strong, Tschirhart, & Finnoff, 2011). These observations with a 0.5–0.8% increase in CO2 emissions (Burke et al., resonate with other studies carried out in the United States 2015). In the period 2006–2016, the United States and EU28 indicating a close link between GDP growth and species had declining emissions in absolute terms despite continued endangerment (Czech et al., 2005; Czech, Mills Busa, & economic growth, in both territorial and consumption-based Brown, 2012), and with theoretical analyses arguing that terms (Global Carbon Budget 2018; see also Quéré et al., economic growth results in the competitive exclusion of non- 2019). These results indicate that absolute decoupling could human beings (Czech, 2008). Given the evidence assem- be possible. However, these declines are far slower than those bled in this paper, such a close link is unlikely to be a needed to meet the 1.5◦ C Paris target (Hickel & Kallis, 2019). coincidence. In the case of biodiversity, an absolute decoupling between economic growth and impacts occurred in Western Europe and North America during the period 2000–2011, consider- ing both production and consumption (Marques et al., 2019). 4 ECO NO M IC G ROW TH AND As these authors show, this decoupling was associated with a D E CO U P L I NG I N I N T E R NAT I O NA L reduction in consumption following the financial crisis, after S U STA I NA B I L I T Y A N D which biodiversity impacts increased again. At the global B I O D I V E R S I T Y PO L I C I E S level and in the same period, despite a reduction of biodiver- sity impacts per unit of GDP, overall population and economic Advocacy of economic growth is unequivocal in some of the growth resulted in increased total impacts (Marques et al., most influential policy documents on sustainability and biodi- 2019). versity analyzed in this paper (see selection criteria in SM1). Some studies suggest that absolute decoupling could be The first major international declaration concerning sustain- possible in the future under scenarios of dramatic reductions able development, the 1987 Brundtland report, called for in energy demand through highly efficient technologies and “internationally expansionary policies of growth” in indus- structures (Grubler et al., 2018). Yet other studies argue that trial countries and for “more rapid economic growth in both absolute decoupling is unlikely to occur, specially at a fast industrial and developing countries”.1 This commitment has enough rate to ensure global sustainability (Hickel & Kallis, since been reiterated in all subsequent major sustainability 2019; Jackson & Victor, 2019; Ward et al., 2016). declarations and agreements (Gómez-Baggethun & Naredo, 6 of 18 OTERO ET AL. 2015). The Declaration of the UN Conference on Environ- is made in explicitly addressing the impacts of economic ment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 advo- growth. cated “economic growth and sustainable development in all In light of ample evidence showing that absolute decou- countries, to better address the problems of environmental pling is unlikely under current conditions, the unreflexive degradation”2 ; the 2011 UN Environment Programme growth emphasis of the biodiversity and sustainability poli- (UNEP) report on the green economy stated that “the key cies seems to stand in the way of safeguarding biodiversity. aim for a transition to a green economy is to enable eco- nomic growth and investment while increasing environmental quality”3 ; and the Rio 2012 declaration reaffirmed “the need to achieve sustainable development by promoting sustained, 5 B I O D I V E R S I T Y A N D E CO NO M I C inclusive and equitable economic growth”.4 The current UN P O L I C I E S B E YO N D E CONOM I C Sustainable Development Goals likewise call for “sustain- G ROW TH : SO LUTIO NS AND able economic growth” and to “sustain per capita economic CHALLENGES growth”.5 In keeping with this trend, the declaration of the Cancun Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Bio- Biodiversity policies reflect the shared assumption by policy- logical Diversity (CBD) commits signatories to “promote sus- makers that economic growth is needed to alleviate poverty tainable economic growth”.6 and to achieve prosperity (Table S4 in SM1). However, an While advocating economic growth, key policy documents emerging literature explores whether and how it may be pos- on sustainability and biodiversity conservation acknowledge sible to find a “prosperous way down” and manage without the relevance of drivers of biodiversity loss that are strongly growth (D’Alisa, Demaria, & Kallis, 2014; Daly, 1991; Jack- related to economic growth according to the review presented son, 2011; Odum & Odum, 2006; Victor, 2008). This litera- in Section 2 (Table S4 in the Supporting Information). Indeed, ture has its origins in the Global North, where strategies for their views on the relationship between economic growth and alternative economies thrive on an intellectual and material biodiversity are mostly ambiguous, and very few of them history that is far from that of the Global South. Yet anal- (six out of 28) explicitly recognize that growth is problem- ogous values—such as subsistence-living, balance between atic for biodiversity (Tables 1 and 2). More than half of all living beings, and reciprocity—favor a joint explo- these documents (16) neglect the question of how a decou- ration of alliances (Escobar, 2015; Rodríguez-Labajos et al., pling of economic growth from biodiversity loss might be 2019). achieved. Among those that do address this question (12), This literature—composed of different schools—argues only seven accept that reducing the pressures of a growing that policy-makers can design policies to control unsustain- economy on biodiversity is challenging (Tables 1 and 2). able expansion. Steady-state economics proposes legal lim- This is the case, for example, of the Global Biodiversity Out- its to throughput (the economy´s use of energy and mate- look 4, which explicitly recognizes that absolute decoupling rials), allowing the economy to develop qualitatively within is unlikely given current patterns of consumption7 . The other such limits (Daly, 1996; Dietz & O’Neill, 2013). Degrowth documents that do address the question of decoupling either scholars call for abolishing the pursuit of GDP growth and have ambiguous positions or consider it to be unchallenging. highlight the potential of grassroots movements for facilitat- The latter is the case of the Cancun declaration, which lim- ing the transition to a new economy (Kallis, 2011; Kallis its itself to listing several measures to reduce the biodiversity et al., 2018). Whereas the degrowth literature considers a impacts of economic growth, without recourse to a scientific reduction of GDP inevitable if throughput is to decrease to assessment of their success prospects within the current eco- sustainable levels, the postgrowth literature prefers to ignore nomic system. GDP, which is deemed a bad indicator of welfare, and argues Other key biodiversity policies do not acknowledge the for environmental and well-being policies, regardless of their problematic nature of economic growth at all when address- effects on GDP (Raworth, 2017; van den Bergh & Kallis, ing drivers of biodiversity loss. For instance, the CBD Aichi 2012). Targets for 2020 aimed to contain “the impacts of use of Policy proposals from this literature can contribute to natural resources well within safe ecological limits”,8 with- reframing biodiversity and economic policies beyond the out addressing the systemic relationships between economic economic growth imperative (Table S5 in SM2), even if growth and the critical global biodiversity pressures shown remarkable challenges are to be expected (Box 1). The to undermine progress toward the targets. These pressures establishment—via multilevel governance—of absolute caps include ecological and water footprints, trawl fishing effort, on the amount of resources embedded in imported goods nitrogen surplus, and introduction of alien species (Tittensor and services is crucial (Alcott, 2010; Daly, 1991). Dif- et al., 2014). This means that several Aichi targets (and future ferent caps could apply to different countries depending similar targets) may be unachievable unless clear progress on their past consumption and ecological or carbon debts OTERO ET AL. 7 of 18 TABLE 1 Policy analysis: How key international declarations and agreements on sustainability and biodiversity view the relationship between economic growth and biodiversity, and how they view the prospects of decoupling economic growth from biodiversity loss A B C View on the View on decoupling relationship between Is economic growth economic growth and decoupling from biodiversity Document biodiversity mentioned? loss Policy documents on Declaration UN Conference on the Human Problematic Yes Challenging sustainability Environment Stockholm (1972) UN Report of the World Commission on Ambiguous Yes Challenging Environment and Development (1987) (Brundtland Report) Declaration UN Conference on Environment and Ambiguous No NA Development Rio de Janeiro (1992) Declaration UN World Summit on Sustainable Unproblematic Yes Unchallenging Development Johannesburg (2002) Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ambiguous Yes Challenging Declaration UN Conference on Sustainable Problematic No NA Development Rio de Janeiro (2012) (Rio + 20) UN Sustainable Development Goals (2015) Ambiguous Yes Unchallenging Policy documents on Convention on Biological Diversity (1992) Ambiguous No NA biodiversity Report CBD COP 1 (1994) Ambiguous No NA Report CBD COP 2 (1995) Problematic No NA Report CBD COP 3 (1996) Ambiguous Yes Challenging Report CBD COP 4 (1998) Ambiguous Yes Challenging Report CBD COP 5 (2000) Ambiguous No NA Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the CBD Unproblematic No NA (2000) Report CBD COP 6 (2002) Problematic No NA Report CBD COP 7 (2004) Unproblematic No NA Report CBD COP 8 (2006) Ambiguous Yes Challenging Report CBD COP 9 (2008) Ambiguous No NA Report CBD COP 10 (2010) Ambiguous Yes Ambiguous Strategic Plan 2011–2020 and Aichi Targets Unproblematic No NA CBD COP 10 (2010) Nagoya - Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol Ambiguous No NA to Cartagena Protocol (2011) Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources Unproblematic No NA to the CBD (2011) Report CBD COP 11 (2012) Problematic Yes Ambiguous Report CBD COP 12 (2014) Ambiguous No NA Gangwon Declaration CBD COP 12 (2014) NA No NA Global Biodiversity Outlook 4 (2014) Problematic Yes Challenging Opening statement to CBD COP 13 (2016) NA No NA Cancun Declaration CBD COP 13 (2016) Ambiguous Yes Unchallenging Note: Column A. “Problematic”: Growth is explicitly presumed to have either a negative, or potentially negative, impact on biodiversity. “Unproblematic”: Growth is explicitly presumed to have either no impact or a positive impact on biodiversity. “Ambiguous”: The position is either internally contradictory, sometimes seen as problematic sometimes not, or too vague to be determined. “NA”: Not assessed. Column C. “Challenging”: Decoupling economic growth from biodiversity loss is explicitly presumed to be complicated, difficult, or potentially impossible. “Unchallenging”: Decoupling economic growth from biodiversity loss is explicitly presumed to be easy and/or automatic. “Ambiguous”: The position on decoupling is either internally contradictory, sometimes seen as problematic sometimes not, or too vague to be determined. “NA”: The relationship was not assessed if the document did not mention decoupling. For methods and full results of the review of policy documents, see SM1. 8 of 18 OTERO ET AL. TABLE 2 Summary of results from policy analysis (Table 1) A. View on the relationship between economic B. Is decoupling C. View on decoupling economic growth from growth and biodiversity mentioned? biodiversity loss Unprobl- Unchall- Problematic ematic Ambiguous NA Yes No Challenging enging Ambiguous NA Policy documents on 2 1 4 0 5 2 3 2 0 2 sustainability (7) Policy documents on 4 4 11 2 7 14 4 1 2 14 biodiversity (21) (Martinez-Alier, 2002). Caps could be complemented by spe- necessary link between a slowing down of the economy and cific moratoria on resource extraction in highly sensitive bio- rising inequality (Jackson & Victor, 2016). Redistributive diverse regions—so-called “resource sanctuaries” (Videira, policies such as high taxes on high-income brackets, speci- Schneider, Sekulova, & Kallis, 2014)—and by limiting the fied ratios for the spread between minimum and maximum expansion of large infrastructures, which not only enhance salaries, and capital or inheritance taxes can reduce inequal- the extractive capacity of nations (Krausmann et al., 2017) ity (Piketty, 2014). Without growth in GDP or population, but also represent a direct threat to biodiversity (Ibisch et al., and with an ageing population, societies also face the problem 2016; Maxwell et al., 2016; Table S5 in SM2). The global of covering pensions, health care, and education costs. How- map of roadless areas is a cost-effective means for guiding ever, the presence of quality health and education systems in this endeavor, as it highlights the potential of, and the urgent middle-income countries suggests that it is possible to secure need for, protecting key biodiversity refugia from road expan- good public services at levels of GDP much lower than those sion (Ibisch et al., 2016). of today’s rich countries (Gough, 2017). When designing policies for a prosperous way down, one Relocalizing the economy (Latouche, 2009), namely short- core concern is what would happen to employment. Lack of ening the distances between production and consumption, is growth in growth-based economies increases unemployment a degrowth principle important for biodiversity conservation, and causes instability. But high unemployment is not a nec- even if local production does not always mean lower environ- essary outcome of an economic slowdown: 1% less growth mental impacts (Theurl, Haberl, Erb, & Lindenthal, 2014). in Japan or Austria leads to only 0.15% more unemploy- Supporting local and regional agroecological management ment, compared to 0.85% in Spain (Ball, Leigh, & Loun- practices that enhance the diversity and services of ecosys- gani, 2013). Employment policies matter. They can redirect tems while ensuring food sovereignty could reduce biodiver- economic activities toward employment-rich sectors, such as sity pressures from food production (Altieri, 2004; Infante health and caring services (D’Alisa et al., 2014). Sharing work Amate & González de Molina, 2013; Kovács-Hostyánszki by reducing working hours can increase the number of new et al., 2017; Table S5 in SM2). While small-scale farming sys- jobs even if productivity and growth stall (Kallis, Kalush, tems may be less productive in GDP terms, they are employ- O’Flynn, Rossiter, & Ashford, 2013). Under certain condi- ment rich and often provide higher social value for local com- tions, shorter working time is linked to lower carbon emis- munities (Jackson, 2011). sions and other environmental pressures harmful to biodi- Compact urban planning could help limit the physical versity (Knight, Rosa, & Schor, 2013; Shao & Rodríguez- expansion of cities (Wächter, 2013; Xue, 2014), reducing the Labajos, 2016). Biodiversity benefits from reducing work- ongoing loss and fragmentation of periurban habitats. Peri- ing hours are therefore likely (Table S5 in SM2), even if urban croplands—saved from urbanization—could produce they may depend on complementary policies ensuring that food to feed city inhabitants, thus reducing the displacement the time liberated from work will not be directed to resource- of agricultural land-use change to remote biodiverse regions intensive consumption (Kallis et al., 2013). Work sharing (Marques et al., 2019; Table S5 in SM2). Top-down national schemes could be applied in combination with taxation linked land-use planning must enforce limits to urban expansion. to resource use and environmental and biodiversity impacts. However, bottom-up planning schemes are also needed that Simulations suggest that with a high enough carbon tax, take into account the regional context, where stakeholders can Canada could reduce its carbon emissions by 80% in 2035; redesign housing arrangements to solve housing needs while while income would contract to the levels of 1976, employ- restoring ecosystems (Lietaert, 2010). Finally, labeling based ment would not decrease if working hours were to be reduced on a product’s full biodiversity footprint along international to one fourth of their present level (Victor, 2012). trade routes has the potential to mitigate the impacts of Another concern is that without economic growth inequal- consumption (Lenzen et al., 2012). Together with govern- ity may rise. However, simulations suggest that there is no mental control of advertisement and the use of public media OTERO ET AL. 9 of 18 to provide information on the impacts of products, labeling could contribute to more biodiversity-friendly consumption BOX 1. CHALLENGES OF IMPLEMENTING (Table S5 in SM2). BIODIVERSITY POLICIES BEYOND ECO- Many of these proposed policies have not yet been widely NOMIC GROWTH. SOURCE: OUR OWN tried nor analyzed, so it is uncertain that they would have the Measures such as a reduction of working hours and posited effects. The systematic investigation of their prospects resource caps may benefit biodiversity, but their constitutes fertile ground for future research. implementation faces several challenges. Social and cultural barriers are to be expected since voluntary simplicity goes against the prevalent imaginary of 6 FOST E R I NG T H E T R A N S I T I O N unlimited growth. However, evidence suggests that T H ROU G H SC E NA R I O the desire for more personal time, environmental DEVELOPMENT and ethical factors, and health reasons motivate peo- ple to seek a simpler life, mostly by working less A range of feasible actions at multiple scales could put (Alexander & Ussher, 2012). The greatest obstacle humanity on a biodiversity-friendly pathway while enhanc- for this is the structural incentive to overwork. More- ing overall prosperity (Table S5 in SM2). To support this over, modern societies require material growth in transition, we recommend that in the negotiations of the next order to preserve the socioeconomic and political sta- CBD COPs and in future assessments of the Intergovernmen- tus quo (Rosa, Dörre, & Lessenich, 2017). There- tal Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem fore, calls to go beyond economic growth in bio- Services (IPBES), endorsement of economic growth is diversity policies will also find political and legal replaced by at least a precautionary recognition that it can barriers. By questioning the assumption that eco- be problematic for biodiversity. A significant step in this nomic growth is necessary to ensure prosperity, such direction has been made in the IPBES Global Assessment calls aim at “repoliticizing” the sustainability debate Report, by acknowledging the need to move away from the (Asara, Otero, Demaria, & Corbera, 2015). The polit- current growth paradigm (IPBES 2019b, p. 19). ical confrontation between alternative societal mod- At the same time, both CBD and IPBES could act as lab- els can be an opportunity to expand the solutions oratories where alternative policies are designed, tested, and space for biodiversity conservation. Whether alter- evaluated through enhanced cooperation between countries, native ideas will permeate national and international the private sector, and the civil society. Scenario development legal frameworks influencing the planet’s biodiver- can play a critical role in this endeavor. Participatory scenario sity will ultimately depend on the ability of politi- development is suited to overcome the societal addiction to cal actors to forge new consensus beyond economic growth as it allows exploring policy options toward a positive growth. Finally, corporate barriers should not be vision of a shared future and the commitments necessary neglected. Industries tend to endorse policy initia- to get there (Costanza et al., 2017). Up to now, biodiversity tives that secure growing access to resources from scenarios take growth forecasts as given and search for global markets, thus against the rationale of resource policy options that can reduce biodiversity loss while the caps. The European Union’s Raw Materials Initia- economy grows. Inspired by van den Bergh (2017), we tive is a good example of this (European Commis- propose here a different approach: first set tight biodiversity sion, 2019). Furthermore, revenue is a basic driver targets and then examine how different economic scenarios of corporate profit. Faced with societal and political and conservation policies could accomplish them. This might decisions for reduced resource use, companies may involve positive, zero, or negative growth. There is no reason generate signals that act as disincentives for further to restrict biodiversity policies only to those compatible with resource savings. For instance, when domestic water positive economic (GDP) growth, as GDP is far from a robust usage in Barcelona dropped to less than 120 liters indicator of social welfare (van den Bergh, 2009). Chapter per person per day by 2008 (Tello & Ostos, 2012), 5 of the IPBES Global Assessment is a good example of the the average billing increased by 60% in the following direction this could take (Chan et al., 2019). 5 years. The private company in charge of domestic The biodiversity scenarios currently under development water supply provided economic viability reasons to within IPBES use the shared socioeconomic pathways justify the fee increases (Cordero, 2013). (SSP) as a basis (Rosa et al., 2017). SSP are descriptions of alternative societal trajectories in demographic, economic, technological, governance, and environmental factors, which serve as inputs to models of climate and other environ- mental changes (O’Neill et al., 2017). Up to now, all SSPs 10 of 18 OTERO ET AL. BOX 2. A NARRATIVE FOR SSP0. SOURCE: OUR OWN The collective awareness of the human embedded- ness in the Earth’s life network reaches a tipping point. This is triggered by an accumulation of evi- dence on the social and ecological costs of our devel- opment trajectory, as well as by an active inner seeking of genuine well-being by individuals and countries throughout the world. As a result, human- ity initiates a transition to a smaller global econ- omy in material and energetic terms that is able to redistribute wealth and provide enhanced prosper- ity. The current emphasis on achieving resource effi- ciency is complemented by the recognition of the need to reduce the overall amount of materials and F I G U R E 2 Opening up scenario development for biodiversity energy used by the economy. Investment in tech- conservation. SSPs are descriptions of alternative societal trajectories nology is directed toward liberating time for intro- which are used in scenario development for biodiversity. Here, spection and learning, not to fuel production and currently available SSPs (SSP1 to SSP5) are displayed according to consumption. The demographic transition is accel- their envisaged economic growth rates (in GDP terms) and biodiversity conservation levels (adapted from O’Neill et al., 2017; see this erated by educational and health investments, curv- reference for a description of SSPs). Up to now, all SSPs consider ing global population growth. Changing social pri- positive economic growth rates, and no pathway is included whereby orities substitute the consensus around the need for high levels of biodiversity conservation can be achieved with low or GDP growth for a set of sustainable well-being indi- negative economic growth. To explore this opportunity space (wider cators, which is adopted by the international com- circle in Y axis), we propose to add a new SSP called “beyond munity (e.g., in relation to the sustainable devel- economic growth” (see Box 2) opment goals). Overall, these changes open up the range of potential biodiversity policies, as these are consider positive economic growth rates, and no pathway is not constrained anymore to only those compatible included whereby high levels of social and environmental with positive GDP growth rates (Figure 2). Scenario sustainability can be achieved with low growth (O’Neill et al., development within international biodiversity poli- 2017). Based on these authors, Figure 2 situates the available cies thus explores a broader range of institutional SSPs in the bidimensional space “biodiversity conservation” and economic reforms that could accomplish ambi- vs. “economic growth” (SSP1 to SSP5). We propose to add a tious biodiversity and well-being targets. By acting new SSP to examine low, zero, and negative growth pathways as laboratories of new policies, they help to ease the compatible with ambitious biodiversity targets and enhanced resistance of vested interests against such a transi- well-being (SSP0). This effort could build on already existing tion. New policies include resource caps, resource scenarios such as the “Great Transition”, which assumes sanctuaries, limits to large infrastructures, redistribu- that GDP flattens while well-being and ecosystem services tive green taxation, work reduction schemes, agroe- increase (Great Transition Initiative, 2019; Kubiszewski, cological development, compact urban planning and Costanza, Anderson, & Sutton, 2017). Box 2 synthesizes our restrictions to advertising. Time liberated from pro- vision for the SSP0. duction and consumption of resource intensive prod- The use of SSP0 in the IPBES Expert Group on Scenar- ucts is invested in meditation and self-awareness. ios and Models could strengthen the discussion on biodiver- This shift improves overall health levels and deep- sity policy options. The participatory construction of visions ens the collective awareness of oneness between for nature already undertaken by this group echoes calls humans and nature, leading to a positive feed- to replace the pursuit of GDP growth with new well-being back between human development and ecosystem paradigms (Lundquist, Pereira, Alkemade, & den Belder, flourishing. 2017, p. 21). Yet low, zero, and negative growth pathways have not yet been used in new modeling efforts (Kim et al., 2018), although interest in doing so has been expressed in some regional assessments (IPBES, 2018b). OTERO ET AL. 11 of 18 (a) (b) $40,000 20,000 $35,000 18,000 $30,000 16,000 $25,000 14,000 12,000 $20,000 10,000 $15,000 8,000 6,000 $10,000 4,000 $5,000 2,000 1950 1954 1958 1962 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 1840 1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 GDP pc GPI pc GDP (2012 US$, billions) (c) F I G U R E 3 (a) U.S. genuine progress indicator (GPI) and gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, in 2000 U.S.$ (yearly data for 1950–2004). Source: Talberth, Cobb, and Slattery (2007), U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (2005), and United Nations (n.d.). (b) U.S. GDP, in billions of 2012 U.S.$ (decennial data for 1850–1920, yearly data for 1929–2018). Source: Barro and Ursúa (2010), United Nations (n.d.), U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (2019), and U.S. Census Bureau (1990). (c) Mean species abundance in the U.S. Historical trend (data for years 1850, 1900, 1910, 1940, 1980, and 2015) and projections (2050) for different SSP. Source: Data on historical trend and projections for SSP1, SSP3, and SSP5 were provided by J.P. Hilbers, R. Alkemade, and A.M. Schipper. The value for SSP0 is our speculation (see Section 6 for details on SSP0). See SM3 for details on figures’ sources and methods. In this endeavor, the use of an integrated set of metrics 2013; Talberth & Weisdorf 2017; see Figure 3; Box 3). In composed of economic measures, social indicators, biophys- addition, it would be important to account for ecosystems’ ical indicators (including biodiversity), subjective measures positive contributions to well-being in new metrics where sus- of well-being, and composite measures of several indicators tainable and equitable prosperity is the explicit goal (Costanza (Costanza et al., 2014, 2016; O’Neill, 2012; O’Neill, Fan- et al., 2016). The global transdisciplinary research effort on ning, Lamb, & Steinberger, 2018; Czech et al., 2005) would nature’s contributions to people (Díaz et al., 2018) offers a encourage a better understanding of the relationships between valuable resource for advancing this work. While changing economic activity, social well-being, and biodiversity. The modeling paradigms is not changing policy, adding an SSP0 fear that achieving ambitious conservation targets is likely to to current scenario analyses could contribute to overcome the diminish GDP could be calmed by visualizing stable or even growth dependency of countries and help them shift their positive trends in more robust measures of well-being such political economic priorities toward better biodiversity and as the genuine progress indicator (GPI) (Kubiszewski et al., well-being policies. 12 of 18 OTERO ET AL. nomic system. By contrast, global biodiversity and sustain- BOX 3. A SHIFT IN BIODIVERSITY SCE- ability policies generally advocate economic growth and have NARIO DEVELOPMENT IN POLICY FORU ambiguous positions regarding its effects on biodiversity. This MS. SOURCE: OUR OWN, WITH DATA MEN- reflects the widespread assumption that growth is needed TIONED IN THE TEXT to secure prosperity, despite increasing evidence that, under certain conditions, high levels of social well-being may be Whereas U.S. GDP per capita experienced an almost achievable without—or beyond—growth. Scenario develop- continuous upward trend since 1950, GPI per capita ment can play a critical role in shifting away from the cur- increased steadily until about 1978 and flattened rent development model, whereby positive visions of a shared out (Talberth, Cobb, & Slattery, 2007; Kubiszewski future are collectively designed. In particular, we propose that et al., 2013; Figure 3a). Economic growth seems a new SSP is introduced that examines low, zero, or negative to bring about an improvement in social well-being growth pathways compatible with ambitious biodiversity and but only up to a certain threshold. Instead, there well-being targets. Using this SSP0 within IPBES—which is no “threshold” for biodiversity degradation. The will advise the CBD during the adoption and implementation number of threatened and endangered species has of a post-2020 framework for biodiversity—has the potential increased sharply since the 1970s (Czech et al., to open up the range of policy options beyond mere projec- 2005) and the mean species abundance has contin- tions of the status quo. The discussion on crucial aspects of uously declined over the period 1850–2015 along- this framework—new targets and indicators, mainstreaming side a growing economy (Figures 3b and 3c). The of biodiversity across all economic sectors and transformative evidence presented in this paper suggests a strong change—can benefit from both the evidence and the alterna- connection between endless growth and biodiver- tive scenarios presented in this paper. sity loss. Moreover, the growing economy is reduc- ing ecosystem’s contribution to well-being (Costanza et al., 2016; Kubiszewski et al., 2013). Projections for ENDNOTES MSA in 2050 using currently available SSPs show 1 Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. that, at best, we could keep biodiversity degradation Our Common Future. United Nations, 1987 (articles 24 and 72, chapter at levels similar to those of 2015 (SSP1, Figure 3c). 3 “The Role of the International Economy”). SSP1 is a green growth scenario that relies either on 2 The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. United Nations negative emissions technologies—unproven and dan- Conference on Environment and Development, 1992 (principle 12). gerous at scale—or unfeasible decarbonisation rates 3 Towards a Green Economy: Pathways to Sustainable Development and (Doelman et al., 2018; Hickel & Kallis, 2019). An Poverty Eradication. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Program, alternative option to SSP1 is to first set biodiver- 2011 (p. 16). This document is not included in our policy review (see sity targets and then examine which combinations SM1). of economic growth and conservation policies could 4 Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 27 July 2012. United accomplish them. If, for example, by 2050 we were Nations, A/RES/66/288 (p. 2). to recover MSA to 1940 levels (73%; SSP0 in Fig- 5 Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015. ure 3c), what GDP growth rate would be consis- United Nations, A/RES/70/1 (goal 8). tent with such target? What could be the combined 6 Cancun Declaration on Mainstreaming the Conservation and Sustain- contribution of conservation policies like resource able Use of Biodiversity for Well-Being. Cancun, Mexico: 13th meeting caps, land-use regulations, and agroecological devel- of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diver- opment schemes? How would GPI and other mea- sity, 2016 (declaration 4 and commitment 7). 7 Global Biodiversity Outlook 4. Montréal: Secretariat of the Convention sures of well-being react to redistributive green tax- ation, work-sharing programs, and a recovery of on Biological Diversity, 2014 (pp. 12 and 45). 8 Decision ecosystems? adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity at its Tenth Meeting. Convention on Biological Diversity, 2010, UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/X/2 (target 4). 7 CONC LU SI ON ACKNOW LEDGMENTS Economic growth and biodiversity loss are linked via a set This paper emerges from a workshop on degrowth and bio- of mechanisms triggered by increased resource use. While diversity conservation that took place at the 27th ICCB absolute decoupling remains a theoretical possibility, it has and 4th ECCB in Montpellier, France (August 2015). G.K. not occurred so far and seems unlikely to occur in the near acknowledges support under the “María de Maeztu” Unit future in the absence of major transformations in the eco- of Excellence grant (MDM-2015-0552) from the Spanish OTERO ET AL. 13 of 18 Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness. C.P., K.-H.E., and Burke, P. J., Shahiduzzaman, M., & Stern, D. I. (2015). Carbon dioxide H.H. gratefully acknowledge funding by the Austrian Sci- emissions in the short run: The rate and sources of economic growth ence Funds (P29130-G27), by the EU FP7 (ROBIN, 283093), matter. Global Environmental Change, 33(Supplement C), 109–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.04.012 and by the Austrian Academy of Sciences (LUBIO). H.H. Burrows, M. T., Schoeman, D. S., Buckley, L. B., Moore, P., Poloczan- gratefully acknowledges funding from the European Research ska, E. S., Brander, K. M., … Richardson, A. J. (2011). The pace Council under the EU’s H2020 Research and Innovation Pro- of shifting climate in marine and terrestrial ecosystems. Science, gramme (MAT_STOCKS, 741950). S.P. is grateful to Cen- 334(6056), 652–655. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1210288 tre de Recerca Matemàtica for its hospitality. B.R.-L. grate- Büscher, B., Fletcher, R., Brockington, D., Sandbrook, C., Adams, fully acknowledges funding and support from the EU’s H2020 W. M., Campbell, L., … Shanker, K. (2017). Half-earth or Research and Innovation Programme (CLAMOR, 797444; whole earth? Radical ideas for conservation, and their implica- COUPLED, 765408). G.P. was funded by the FP7 project EU tions. Oryx, 51(3), 407–410. https://doi.org/10.1017/S003060531 6001228 BON (308454) and is currently funded by sDiv. We thank Capinha, C., Essl, F., Seebens, H., Moser, D., & Pereira, H. M. (2015). I. Kubiszewski for providing the GPI data, as well as J.P. The dispersal of alien species redefines biogeography in the anthro- Hilbers, R. Alkemade and A.M. Schipper for the MSA data. pocene. Science, 348(6240), 1248–1251. https://doi.org/10.1126/ The advices of B. Czech and R. Costanza are also appreciated. science.aaa8913 We are grateful to the in-depth comments from three anony- Chan, K. M. A., Agard, J., Liu, J., de Aguiar, A. P. D., Armenteras, mous reviewers and the editors. D., Boedhihartono, A. K., … Xue, D. (2019). Pathways towards a sustainable future. In E. S. Brondizio, J. Settele, S. Díaz, & H. T. Ngo (Eds.), Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Plat- REFERENCES form on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Bonn, Germany: IPBES Secretariat. Alcott, B. (2010). Impact caps: Why population, affluence and technol- Clausen, R., & York, R. (2008). Global biodiversity decline of marine ogy strategies should be abandoned. Journal of Cleaner Production, and freshwater fish: A cross-national analysis of economic, demo- 18(6), 552–560. graphic, and ecological influences. Social Science Research, 37(4), Alexander, P., Rounsevell, M. D. A., Dislich, C., Dodson, J. R., 1310–1320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2007.10.002 Engström, K., & Moran, D. (2015). Drivers for global agricultural Cohen, J. M., Lajeunesse, M. J., & Rohr, J. R. (2018). A global synthesis land use change: The nexus of diet, population, yield and bioen- of animal phenological responses to climate change. Nature Climate ergy. Global Environmental Change, 35, 138–147. https://doi.org/10. Change, 8(3), 224–228. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0067-3 1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.08.011 Cordero, D. (2013. December 8). El consumo de agua cae un 18% en la Alexander, S., & Ussher, S. (2012). The voluntary simplicity move- última década en Barcelona. El País. Retrieved from https://elpais. ment: A multi-national survey analysis in theoretical context. Jour- com/ccaa/2013/12/08/catalunya/1386531382_205471.html nal of Consumer Culture, 12(1), 66–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/ Costanza, R., Atkins, P. W. B., Bolton, M., Cork, S., Grigg, N. J., Kasser, 1469540512444019 T., & Kubiszewski, I. (2017). Overcoming societal addictions: What Altieri, M. A. (2004). Linking ecologists and traditional farmers in can we learn from individual therapies? Ecological Economics, 131, the search for sustainable agriculture. Frontiers in Ecology and the 543–550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.09.023 Environment, 2(1), 35–42. https://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295(2004) Costanza, R., Daly, L., Fioramonti, L., Giovannini, E., Kubiszewski, I., 002[0035:LEATFI]2.0.CO;2 Mortensen, L. F., … Wilkinson, R. (2016). Modelling and measuring Andrén, H. (1994). Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and sustainable wellbeing in connection with the UN sustainable devel- mammals in landscapes with different proportions of suitable opment goals. Ecological Economics, 130, 350–355. https://doi.org/ habitat: A review. Oikos, 71(3), 355–366. https://doi.org/10.2307/ 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.07.009 3545823 Costanza, R., Kubiszewski, I., Giovannini, E., Lovins, H., McGlade, J., Araújo, M. B., Alagador, D., Cabeza, M., Nogués-Bravo, D., & Thuiller, Pickett, K. E., … Wilkinson, R. (2014). Development: Time to leave W. (2011). Climate change threatens European conservation areas. GDP behind. Nature News, 505(7483), 283. https://doi.org/10.1038/ Ecology Letters, 14(5), 484–492. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461- 505283a 0248.2011.01610.x Csereklyei, Z., & Stern, D. I. (2015). Global energy use: Decoupling Asara, V., Otero, I., Demaria, F., & Corbera, E. (2015). Socially sus- or convergence? Energy Economics, 51, 633–641. https://doi.org/10. tainable degrowth as a social–ecological transformation: Repoliti- 1016/j.eneco.2015.08.029 cizing sustainability. Sustainability Science, 10(3), 375–384. https: Czech, B. (2008). Prospects for reconciling the conflict between eco- //doi.org/10.1007/s11625-015-0321-9 nomic growth and biodiversity conservation with technological Ball, L. M., Leigh, D., & Loungani, P. (2013). Okun’s law: Fit at fifty? progress. Conservation Biology, 22(6), 1389–1398. https://doi.org/ National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper no. 18668. 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01089.x Barro, R. J., & Ursúa, J. F. (2010). Barro-Ursúa macroeconomic data. Czech, B., Krausman, P. R., & Devers, P. K. (2000). Economic asso- Retrieved from http://scholar.harvard.edu/barro/publications/barro- ciations among causes of species endangerment in the United ursua-macroeconomic-data. States. BioScience, 50(7), 593–601. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006- Bellard, C., Cassey, P., & Blackburn, T. M. (2016). Alien species as a 3568(2000)050[0593:EAACOS]2.0.CO;2 driver of recent extinctions. Biology Letters, 12(2), 20150623. https: Czech, B., Mills Busa, J. H., & Brown, R. M. (2012). Effects of eco- //doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2015.0623 nomic growth on biodiversity in the United States. Natural Resources 14 of 18 OTERO ET AL. Forum, 36(3), 160–166. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-8947.2012. sity. Science, 344(6183), 1247579. https://doi.org/10.1126/science. 01455.x 1247579 Czech, B., Trauger, D. L., Farley, J., Costanza, R., Daly, H. E., Hall, Gibbs, K. E., Mackey, R. L., & Currie, D. J. (2009). Human land use, C. A. S., … Krausman, P. R. (2005). Establishing indicators for agriculture, pesticides and losses of imperiled species. Diversity and biodiversity. Science, 308(5723), 791–792. Distributions, 15(2), 242–253. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4642. D’Alisa, G., Demaria, F., & Kallis, G. (2014). Degrowth. A vocabulary 2008.00543.x for a new era. New York, NY: Routledge. Global Carbon Budget (2018). Global carbon project. Retrieved from Daly, H. E. (1991). Steady-state economics (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: https://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/ Island Press. Gómez-Baggethun, E., & Naredo, J. M. (2015). In search of lost time: Daly, H. E. (1996). Beyond growth: The economics of sustainable devel- The rise and fall of limits to growth in international sustainability pol- opment. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. icy. Sustainability Science, 10(3), 385–395. https://doi.org/10.1007/ Devictor, V., van Swaay, C., Brereton, T., Brotons, L., Chamberlain, D., s11625-015-0308-6 Heliölä, J., … Jiguet, F. (2012). Differences in the climatic debts of Gottfried, M., Pauli, H., Futschik, A., Akhalkatsi, M., Barančok, P., birds and butterflies at a continental scale. Nature Climate Change, Alonso, J. L. B., … Grabherr, G. (2012). Continent-wide response 2(2), 121–124. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1347 of mountain vegetation to climate change. Nature Climate Change, Díaz, S., Pascual, U., Stenseke, M., Martín-López, B., Watson, R. T., 2(2), 111–115. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1329 Molnár, Z., … Shirayama, Y. (2018). Assessing nature’s contri- Gough, I. (2017). Heat, greed and human need: Climate change, capi- butions to people. Science, 359(6373), 270–272. https://doi.org/10. talism and sustainable wellbeing. Edward Elgar Publishing. 1126/science.aap8826 Great Transition Initiative (2019). Global scenarios. Retrieved from Didham, R. K., Ghazoul, J., Stork, N. E., & Davis, A. J. (1996). Insects https://greattransition.org/explore/scenarios in fragmented forests: A functional approach. Trends in Ecology Gren, I.-M., Campos, M., & Gustafsson, L. (2016). Economic develop- & Evolution, 11(6), 255–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-5347(96) ment, institutions, and biodiversity loss at the global scale. Regional 20047-3 Environmental Change, 16(2), 445–457. https://doi.org/10.1007/ Dietz, R., & O’Neill, D. W. (2013). Enough is enough: Building a sus- s10113-015-0754-9 tainable economy in a world of finite resources. Routledge. Grubler, A., Wilson, C., Bento, N., Boza-Kiss, B., Krey, V., McCollum, Dietz, S., & Adger, W. N. (2003). Economic growth, biodiversity loss and D. L., … Valin, H. (2018). A low energy demand scenario for meeting conservation effort. Journal of Environmental Management, 68(1), the 1.5◦ C target and sustainable development goals without negative 23–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4797(02)00231-1 emission technologies. Nature Energy, 3(6), 515. https://doi.org/10. Dittrich, M., & Bringezu, S. (2010). The physical dimension of inter- 1038/s41560-018-0172-6 national trade: Part 1: Direct global flows between 1962 and 2005. Haberl, H., Wiedenhofer, D., Pauliuk, S., Krausmann, F., Müller, D. Ecological Economics, 69(9), 1838–1847. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. B., & Fischer-Kowalski, M. (2019). Contributions of sociometabolic ecolecon.2010.04.023 research to sustainability science. Nature Sustainability, 2(3), 173. Doelman, J. C., Stehfest, E., Tabeau, A., van Meijl, H., Lassaletta, L., https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0225-2 Gernaat, D. E. H. J., … van Vuuren, D. P. (2018). Exploring SSP Hickel, J., & Kallis, G. (2019). Is green growth possible? New Political land-use dynamics using the IMAGE model: Regional and gridded Economy. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2019.1598964. scenarios of land-use change and land-based climate change mitiga- Hof, C., Araújo, M. B., Jetz, W., & Rahbek, C. (2011). Additive threats tion. Global Environmental Change, 48, 119–135. https://doi.org/10. from pathogens, climate and land-use change for global amphib- 1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.11.014 ian diversity. Nature, 480(7378), 516–519. https://doi.org/10.1038/ Escobar, A. (2015). Degrowth, postdevelopment, and transitions: A nature10650 preliminary conversation. Sustainability Science, 10(3), 451–462. Ibisch, P. L., Hoffmann, M. T., Kreft, S., Pe’er, G., Kati, V., Biber- https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-015-0297-5 Freudenberger, L., … Selva, N. (2016). A global map of roadless European Commission (2019). Policy and strategy for raw materials. areas and their conservation status. Science, 354(6318), 1423–1427. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/raw-materials/ https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf7166 policy-strategy_en Infante Amate, J., & González de Molina, M. (2013). ‘Sustainable de- Fischer, J., & Lindenmayer, D. B. (2007). Landscape modification and growth’ in agriculture and food: An agro-ecological perspective on habitat fragmentation: A synthesis. Global Ecology and Biogeog- Spain’s agri-food system (year 2000). Journal of Cleaner Production, raphy, 16(3), 265–280. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2007. 38, 27–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.03.018 00287.x IPBES (2017). The assessment report of the Intergovernmental Science- Foresight (2011). The future of food and farming. The Government Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services on pollina- Office for Science. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/ tors, pollination and food production. S. G. Potts, V. L. Imperatriz- publications/future-of-food-and-farming Fonseca, & H. T. Ngo (Eds.). Bonn, Germany: Secretariat of Foucher, A., Salvador-Blanes, S., Evrard, O., Simonneau, A., Chapron, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and E., Courp, T., … Desmet, M. (2014). Increase in soil erosion after Ecosystem Services. agricultural intensification: Evidence from a lowland basin in France. IPBES (2018a). The IPBES assessment report on land degradation and Anthropocene, 7, 30–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.2015.02. restoration. L. Montanarella, R. Scholes, & A. Brainich (Eds.). Bonn, 001 Germany: Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Plat- Garcia, R. A., Cabeza, M., Rahbek, C., & Araújo, M. B. (2014). Multi- form on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. ple dimensions of climate change and their implications for biodiver- OTERO ET AL. 15 of 18 IPBES (2018b). The IPBES regional assessment report on biodiversity sis of OECD countries, 1970–2007. Global Environmental Change, and ecosystem services for the Americas. J. Rice, C. S. Seixas, M. E. 23(4), 691–700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.02.017 Zaccagnini, M. Bedoya-Gaitán, & N. Valderrama (Eds.). Bonn, Ger- Kovács-Hostyánszki, A., Espíndola, A., Vanbergen, A. J., Settele, J., many: Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform Kremen, C., & Dicks, L. V. (2017). Ecological intensification to on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. mitigate impacts of conventional intensive land use on pollinators IPBES (2019a). Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem and pollination. Ecology Letters, 20(5), 673–689. https://doi.org/10. services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodi- 1111/ele.12762 versity and Ecosystem Services. E. S. Brondizio, J. Settele, S. Díaz, Krausmann, F., Erb, K.-H., Gingrich, S., Haberl, H., Bondeau, A., & H. T. Ngo (Eds.). Bonn, Germany: IPBES Secretariat. Gaube, V., … Searchinger, T. D. (2013). Global human appropria- IPBES (2019b). Summary for policymakers of the global assessment tion of net primary production doubled in the 20th century. Proceed- report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmen- ings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(25), 10324–10329. tal Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1211349110 Bonn, Germany: IPBES Secretariat. Krausmann, F., Schandl, H., Eisenmenger, N., Giljum, S., & Jack- IPCC (2014). Climate change 2014: Synthesis report. Contribution of son, T. (2017). Material flow accounting: Measuring global mate- working groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment report of the Inter- rial use for sustainable development. Annual Review of Environment governmental Panel on Climate Change. R. K. Pachauri and L.A. and Resources, 42(1), 647–675. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev- Meyer (Eds.). Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC. environ-102016-060726 Jackson, T. (2011). Prosperity without growth: Economics for a finite Krausmann, F., Wiedenhofer, D., Lauk, C., Haas, W., Tanikawa, H., Fish- planet. New York, NY: Routledge. man, T., … Haberl, H. (2017). Global socioeconomic material stocks Jackson, T., & Victor, P. A. (2016). Does slow growth lead to ris- rise 23-fold over the 20th century and require half of annual resource ing inequality? Some theoretical reflections and numerical simula- use. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(8), 1880– tions. Ecological Economics, 121, 206–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/ 1885. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1613773114 j.ecolecon.2015.03.019 Krauss, J., Bommarco, R., Guardiola, M., Heikkinen, R. K., Helm, A., Jackson, T., & Victor, P. A. (2019). Unraveling the claims for (and Kuussaari, M., … Steffan-Dewenter, I. (2010). Habitat fragmenta- against) green growth. Science, 366(6468), 950–951. https://doi.org/ tion causes immediate and time-delayed biodiversity loss at differ- 10.1126/science.aay0749 ent trophic levels. Ecology Letters, 13(5), 597–605. https://doi.org/ Kallis, G., Kalush, M., O’Flynn, H., Rossiter, J., & Ashford, N. (2013). 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01457.x “Friday off”: Reducing working hours in Europe. Sustainability, 5, Kubiszewski, I., Costanza, R., Anderson, S., & Sutton, P. (2017). The 1545–1567. future value of ecosystem services: Global scenarios and national Kallis, G. (2011). In defence of degrowth. Ecological Economics, 70(5), implications. Ecosystem Services, 26, 289–301. https://doi.org/10. 873–880. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.12.007 1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.004 Kallis, G., Kostakis, V., Lange, S., Muraca, B., Paulson, S., & Schmelzer, Kubiszewski, I., Costanza, R., Franco, C., Lawn, P., Talberth, J., Jack- M. (2018). Research on degrowth. Annual Review of Environment son, T., & Aylmer, C. (2013). Beyond GDP: Measuring and achiev- and Resources, 43(1), 291–316. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev- ing global genuine progress. Ecological Economics, 93, 57–68. environ-102017-025941 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.04.019 Kastner, T., Rivas, M. J. I., Koch, W., & Nonhebel, S. (2012). Global Lantz, V., & Martínez-Espiñeira, R. (2008). Testing the environmen- changes in diets and the consequences for land requirements for food. tal Kuznets curve hypothesis with bird populations as habitat- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(18), 6868– specific environmental indicators: Evidence from Canada. Conserva- 6872. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1117054109 tion Biology, 22(2), 428–438. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739. Kerr, J. T., & Cihlar, J. (2004). Patterns and causes of species endan- 2008.00885.x germent in Canada. Ecological Applications, 14(3), 743–753. https: Latouche, S. (2009). Farewell to growth. Malden, MA: Polity Press. //doi.org/10.1890/02-5117 Lenton, T. M. (2013). Environmental tipping points. Annual Review of Kim, H., Rosa, I. M. D., Alkemade, R., Leadley, P., Hurtt, G., Popp, Environment and Resources, 38(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1146/ A., … Pereira, H. M. (2018). A protocol for an intercomparison of annurev-environ-102511-084654 biodiversity and ecosystem services models using harmonized land- Lenzen, M., Moran, D., Kanemoto, K., Foran, B., Lobefaro, L., & use and climate scenarios. Geoscientific Model Development, 11(11), Geschke, A. (2012). International trade drives biodiversity threats in 4537–4562. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-4537-2018 developing nations. Nature, 486(7401), 109–112. https://doi.org/10. Kleijn, D., Kohler, F., Báldi, A., Batáry, P., Concepción, E. D., Clough, 1038/nature11145 Y., … Verhulst, J. (2009). On the relationship between farmland Lietaert, M. (2010). Cohousing’s relevance to degrowth theories. Jour- biodiversity and land-use intensity in Europe. Proceedings of the nal of Cleaner Production, 18(6), 576–580. https://doi.org/10.1016/ Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 276(1658), 903– j.jclepro.2009.11.016 909. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2008.1509 Lundquist, C. J., Pereira, H. M., Alkemade, R., & den Belder, E. (2017). Klein Goldewijk, K., Beusen, A., Doelman, J., & Stehfest, E. (2017). Visions for nature and nature’s contributions to people for the 21st Anthropogenic land use estimates for the Holocene – HYDE 3.2. century: Report from an IPBES visioning workshop held on Septem- Earth System Science Data, 9(2), 927–953. https://doi.org/10.5194/ ber 4–8, 2017, in Auckland, New Zealand (No. 83; p. 123). Auckland, essd-9-927-2017 New Zealand: NIWA. Knight, K. W., Rosa, E. A., & Schor, J. B. (2013). Could working less Majumder, P., Berrens, R. P., & Bohara, A. K. (2006). Is there an environ- reduce pressures on the environment? A cross-national panel analy- mental Kuznets curve for the risk of biodiversity loss? The Journal of 16 of 18 OTERO ET AL. Developing Areas, 39(2), 175–190. https://doi.org/10.1353/jda.2006. under agricultural intensification and extensification. Ecology, 91(2), 0008 460–473. https://doi.org/10.1890/09-0666.1 Marques, A., Martins, I. S., Kastner, T., Plutzar, C., Theurl, M. C., Quéré, C. L., Korsbakken, J. I., Wilson, C., Tosun, J., Andrew, R., Eisenmenger, N., … Pereira, H. M. (2019). Increasing impacts of Andres, R. J., … van Vuuren, D. P. (2019). Drivers of declining CO2 land use on biodiversity and carbon sequestration driven by popu- emissions in 18 developed economies. Nature Climate Change, 9(3), lation and economic growth. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 3(4), 628. 213. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0419-7 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-019-0824-3 Raworth, K. (2017). Doughnut economics: Seven ways to think like a Martin, J.-L., Maris, V., & Simberloff, D. S. (2016). The need to respect 21st-century economist. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green nature and its limits challenges society and conservation science. Pro- Publishing. ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(22), 6105–6112. Rodríguez-Labajos, B., Yánez, I., Bond, P., Greyl, L., Munguti, S., Ojo, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1525003113 G. U., & Overbeek, W. (2019). Not so natural an alliance? Degrowth Martinez-Alier, J. (2002). The environmentalism of the poor: A study and environmental justice movements in the Global South. Ecolog- of ecological conflicts and valuation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward ical Economics, 157, 175–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon. Elgar. 2018.11.007 Maxwell, S. L., Fuller, R. A., Brooks, T. M., & Watson, J. E. M. (2016). Root, T. L., Price, J. T., Hall, K. R., Schneider, S. H., Rosenzweig, C., Biodiversity: The ravages of guns, nets and bulldozers. Nature News, & Pounds, J. A. (2003). Fingerprints of global warming on wild ani- 536(7615), 143. https://doi.org/10.1038/536143a mals and plants. Nature, 421(6918), 57–60. https://doi.org/10.1038/ McPherson, M. A., & Nieswiadomy, M. L. (2005). Environmental nature01333 Kuznets curve: Threatened species and spatial effects. Ecologi- Rosa, H., Dörre, K., & Lessenich, S. (2017). Appropriation, activation cal Economics, 55(3), 395–407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon. and acceleration: The escalatory logics of capitalist modernity and 2004.12.004 the crises of dynamic stabilization. Theory, Culture & Society, 34(1), Mills, J. H., & Waite, T. A. (2009). Economic prosperity, biodiversity 53–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276416657600 conservation, and the environmental Kuznets curve. Ecological Eco- Rosa, I. M. D., Pereira, H. M., Ferrier, S., Alkemade, R., Acosta, nomics, 68(7), 2087–2095. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009. L. A., Akcakaya, R., … van Vuuren, D. (2017). Multiscale sce- 01.017 narios for nature futures. Nature Ecology and Evolution, 1, 1416– Naidoo, R., & Adamowicz, W. L. (2001). Effects of economic 1419. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0273-9 prosperity on numbers of threatened species. Conservation Biol- Schandl, H., Fischer-Kowalski, M., West, J., Giljum, S., Dittrich, M., ogy, 15(4), 1021–1029. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2001. Eisenmenger, N., … Fishman, T. (2017). Global material flows and 0150041021.x resource productivity: Forty years of evidence. Journal of Industrial Newbold, T., Hudson, L. N., Hill, S. L. L., Contu, S., Lysenko, I., Senior, Ecology, https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12626 R. A., … Purvis, A. (2015). Global effects of land use on local terres- Seebens, H., Blackburn, T., Dyer, E., Genovesi, P., Hulme, P., Jeschke, trial biodiversity. Nature, 520(7545), 45–50. https://doi.org/10.1038/ J., … Essl, F. (2018). The global rise in emerging alien species results nature14324 from increased accessibility of new source pools. Proceedings of the Odum, H. T., & Odum, E. C. (2006). The prosperous way down. Energy, National Academy of Sciences, 15(10), E2264–E227. 31(1), 21–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2004.05.012 Seebens, H., Blackburn, T. M., Dyer, E. E., Genovesi, P., Hulme, P. O’Neill, B. C., Kriegler, E., Ebi, K. L., Kemp-Benedict, E., Riahi, K., E., Jeschke, J. M., … Essl, F. (2017). No saturation in the accu- Rothman, D. S., … Solecki, W. (2017). The roads ahead: Narratives mulation of alien species worldwide. Nature Communications, 8, for shared socioeconomic pathways describing world futures in the ncomms14435. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14435 21st century. Global Environmental Change, 42, 169–180. https:// Seebens, H., Essl, F., Dawson, W., Fuentes, N., Moser, D., Pergl, J., … doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.01.004 Blasius, B. (2015). Global trade will accelerate plant invasions in O’Neill, D. W. (2012). Measuring progress in the degrowth transition to emerging economies under climate change. Global Change Biology, a steady state economy. Ecological Economics, 84, 221–231. https: 21(11), 4128–4140. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13021 //doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.05.020 Seto, K. C., Güneralp, B., & Hutyra, L. R. (2012). Global forecasts O’Neill, D. W., Fanning, A. L., Lamb, W. F., & Steinberger, J. K. (2018). of urban expansion to 2030 and direct impacts on biodiversity and A good life for all within planetary boundaries. Nature Sustainability, carbon pools. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 1(2), 88–95. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0021-4 109(40), 16083–16088. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1211658109 Parmesan, C., & Yohe, G. (2003). A globally coherent fingerprint of cli- Shao, Q., & Rodríguez-Labajos, B. (2016). Does decreasing work- mate change impacts across natural systems. Nature, 421(6918), 37– ing time reduce environmental pressures? New evidence based on 42. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01286 dynamic panel approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 125, 227– Pauli, H., Gottfried, M., Dullinger, S., Abdaladze, O., Akhalkatsi, M., 235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.037 Alonso, J. L. B., … Grabherr, G. (2012). Recent plant diversity Sirami, C., Caplat, P., Popy, S., Clamens, A., Arlettaz, R., Jiguet, F., changes on Europe’s mountain summits. Science, 336(6079), 353– … Martin, J.-L. (2017). Impacts of global change on species distri- 355. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1219033 butions: Obstacles and solutions to integrate climate and land use. Peñuelas, J., & Filella, I. (2001). Responses to a warming world. Science, Global Ecology and Biogeography, 26(4), 385–394. https://doi.org/ 294(5543), 793–795. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1066860 10.1111/geb.12555 Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century. Harvard University Steinberger, J. K., Krausmann, F., Getzner, M., Schandl, H., & West, Press. J. (2013). Development and dematerialization: An international Postma-Blaauw, M. B., de Goede, R. G. M., Bloem, J., Faber, J. H., & study. Plos One, 8(10), e70385. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. Brussaard, L. (2010). Soil biota community structure and abundance pone.0070385 OTERO ET AL. 17 of 18 Stephens, P. A., Mason, L. R., Green, R. E., Gregory, R. D., Sauer, J. U. S. Census Bureau (1990). Selected historical decennial census pop- R., Alison, J., … Willis, S. G. (2016). Consistent response of bird ulation and housing counts. Population, housing units, area mea- populations to climate change on two continents. Science, 352(6281), surements, and density: 1790 to 1990. Retrieved from https://www. 84–87. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4858 census.gov/population/www/censusdata/hiscendata.html Stern, D. I. (2017). The environmental Kuznets curve after 25 years. van den Bergh, J. C. J. M. (2009). The GDP paradox. Journal of Eco- Journal of Bioeconomics, 19(1), 7–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/ nomic Psychology, 30(2), 117–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep. s10818-017-9243-1 2008.12.001 Strong, A., Tschirhart, J., & Finnoff, D. (2011). Is economic growth for van den Bergh, J. C. J. M. (2017). A third option for climate policy within the birds? Ecological Economics, 70(7), 1375–1380. https://doi.org/ potential limits to growth. Nature Climate Change, 7(2), 107–112. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.02.013 https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3113 Talberth, J., Cobb, C., & Slattery, N. (2007). The Genuine Progress van den Bergh, J. C. J. M., & Kallis, G. (2012). Growth, a-growth or Indicator 2006. A tool for sustainable development. Oakland, CA: degrowth to stay within planetary boundaries? Journal of Economic Redefining Progress. Issues, 46(4), 909–920. Talberth, J., & Weisdorf, M. (2017). Genuine progress indicator 2.0: Victor, P. A. (2008). Managing without growth: Slower by design, not pilot accounts for the US, Maryland, and City of Baltimore 2012– disaster. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. 2014. Ecological Economics, 142, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Victor, P. A. (2012). Growth, degrowth and climate change: A sce- ecolecon.2017.06.012 nario analysis. Ecological Economics, 84, 206–212. https://doi.org/ Tello, E., & Ostos, J. R. (2012). Water consumption in Barcelona and its 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.04.013 regional environmental imprint: A long-term history (1717–2008). Videira, N., Schneider, F., Sekulova, F., & Kallis, G. (2014). Improving Regional Environmental Change, 12(2), 347–361. https://doi.org/10. understanding on degrowth pathways: An exploratory study using 1007/s10113-011-0223-z collaborative causal models. Futures, 55, 58–77. https://doi.org/10. Tevie, J., Grimsrud, K. M., & Berrens, R. P. (2011). Testing the environ- 1016/j.futures.2013.11.001 mental Kuznets curve hypothesis for biodiversity risk in the US: A Vilà, M., Basnou, C., Pyšek, P., Josefsson, M., Genovesi, P., Gollasch, S., spatial econometric approach. Sustainability, 3, 2182–2199. … DAISIE Partners. (2010). How well do we understand the impacts Theurl, M. C., Haberl, H., Erb, K.-H., & Lindenthal, T. (2014). Con- of alien species on ecosystem services? A pan-European, cross-taxa trasted greenhouse gas emissions from local versus long-range assessment. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 8(3), 135– tomato production. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 34(3), 144. https://doi.org/10.1890/080083 593–602. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-013-0171-8 Vilà, M., & Hulme, P. (Eds.). (2017). Impact of biological invasions Tilman, D., & Clark, M. (2014). Global diets link environmental sus- on ecosystem services. Invading Nature, Springer Series in Invasion tainability and human health. Nature, 515(7528), 518–522. https: Ecology book series (INNA, Vol. 12). Berlin, Germany: Springer. //doi.org/10.1038/nature13959 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45121-3 Tilman, D., Fargione, J., Wolff, B., D’Antonio, C., Dobson, A., Howarth, Wächter, P. (2013). The impacts of spatial planning on degrowth. R., … Swackhamer, D. (2001). Forecasting agriculturally driven Sustainability, 5(3), 1067–1079. https://doi.org/10.3390/su50 global environmental change. Science, 292(5515), 281–284. https: 31067 //doi.org/10.1126/science.1057544 Walther, G.-R., Post, E., Convey, P., Menzel, A., Parmesan, C., Beebee, Tittensor, D. P., Walpole, M., Hill, S. L. L., Boyce, D. G., Britten, G. L., T. J. C., … Bairlein, F. (2002). Ecological responses to recent cli- Burgess, N. D., … Ye, Y. (2014). A mid-term analysis of progress mate change. Nature, 416(6879), 389–395. https://doi.org/10.1038/ toward international biodiversity targets. Science, 346(6206), 241– 416389a 244. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1257484 Ward, J. D., Sutton, P. C., Werner, A. D., Costanza, R., Mohr, S. H., & United Nations (n.d.). UN data. Retrieved from http://data.un.org/Data. Simmons, C. T. (2016). Is decoupling GDP growth from environmen- aspx?d=POP&f=tableCode%3a1 tal impact possible? Plos One, 11(10), e0164733. https://doi.org/10. Urban, M. C., Bocedi, G., Hendry, A. P., Mihoub, J.-B., Pe’er, G., Singer, 1371/journal.pone.0164733 A., … Travis, J. M. J. (2016). Improving the forecast for biodiversity Wernberg, T., Smale, D. A., Tuya, F., Thomsen, M. S., Langlois, T. under climate change. Science, 353(6304), aad8466. https://doi.org/ J., de Bettignies, T., … Rousseaux, C. S. (2013). An extreme cli- 10.1126/science.aad8466 matic event alters marine ecosystem structure in a global biodiver- U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (2005). National accounts (NIPA) sity hotspot. Nature Climate Change, 3(1), 78–82. https://doi.org/10. March 30, 2005. Retrieved from https://apps.bea.gov/histdata/ 1038/nclimate1627 fileStructDisplay.cfm?HMI=7&DY=2004&DQ=Q4&DV=3. Wessely, J., Hülber, K., Gattringer, A., Kuttner, M., Moser, D., %20Final&dNRD=March-30-2005 Rabitsch, W., … Essl, F. (2017). Habitat-based conservation strate- U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (2019). National accounts gies cannot compensate for climate-change-induced range loss. (NIPA) October 31, 2019. Retrieved from https://apps.bea. Nature Climate Change, 7(11), 823. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate gov/histdata/fileStructDisplay.cfm?HMI=7&DY=2019&DQ= 3414 Q3&DV=Advance&dNRD=October-31-2019 18 of 18 OTERO ET AL. Wiedmann, T. O., Schandl, H., Lenzen, M., Moran, D., Suh, S., West, ence, 10(12), 615–620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2005. J., & Kanemoto, K. (2015). The material footprint of nations. Pro- 10.002 ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(20), 6271–6276. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1220362110 S U P P O RT I NG IN FO R M AT I O N Winter, M., Schweiger, O., Klotz, S., Nentwig, W., Andriopoulos, P., Arianoutsou, M., … Kühn, I. (2009). Plant extinctions and intro- Additional supporting information may be found online in the ductions lead to phylogenetic and taxonomic homogenization of Supporting Information section at the end of the article. the European flora. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci- ences, 106(51), 21721–21725. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.09070 88106 Xue, J. (2014). Is eco-village/urban village the future of a degrowth How to cite this article: Otero I, Farrell KN, society? An urban planner’s perspective. Ecological Eco- Pueyo S, et al. Biodiversity policy beyond eco- nomics, 105, 130–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014. nomic growth. Conservation Letters. 2020;13:e12713. 06.003 Yamaguchi, T., & Blumwald, E. (2005). Developing salt-tolerant https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12713 crop plants: Challenges and opportunities. Trends in Plant Sci-