Global-scale quantitative assessment for biodiversity on forest land use: applying the Global No Net Loss approach

  • Minoru YoshikawaEmail author
  • Yuko Motoki
  • Go Hibino
  • Kazuhiko Takeuchi
  • Keisuke Hanaki
  • Shinichi Arai
  • Toshihiko Masui
  • Toshihiro Inoue
Original Article


Here we propose a method to quantitatively assess and examine Global No Net Loss (GNNL) of forest biodiversity on a global scale. The method produces a GNNL index of existing forest and enables future predictions of forest loss under different assumptions. The method tests the feasibility of the GNNL index and enables discussion of policy for future global scale sustainable forest management up to 2050. The GNNL index was estimated from an equation including forest areas per country per forest type (primary forest, secondary forest and plantation forest), diversity of forest ecosystem, and species density. Estimates derived from historical data revealed an approximate 7% reduction in GNNL index between 1990 and 2005. Predictions of the GNNL index until 2050 emphasize the importance of regenerating large portions of forests felled for agricultural land (or other uses) with secondary forests.


Global No Net Loss Biodiversity Primary forest Secondary forest Plantation forest 



This study was conducted as part of the flagship project supported by Japan’s Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT). We would also like to thank Dr. Hirotaka Matsuda of IR3S for his invaluable feedback.


  1. Barlow J, Gardner TA, Araujo IS, Avila-Pires TC, Bonaldo AB, Costa JE, Esposito MC, Ferreira LV, Hawes J, Hernandez MIM, Hoogmoed MS, Leite RN, Lo-Man-Hung NF, Malcolm JR, Martins MB, Mestre LAM, Miranda-Santos R, Nunes-Gutjahr AL, Overal WL, Parry L, Peters SL, Ribeiro-Junior MA, da Silva MNF, da Silva Motta C, Peres CA (2007) Quantifying the biodiversity value of tropical primary, secondary and plantation forests. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 204(47):18555–18560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berndes G, Hoogwijk M, van den Broek R (2003) The contribution of biomass in the future global energy supply: a review of 17 studies. Biomass Bioenerg 25:1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Convention on Biological Diversity (2010) Strategic plan (2002–2010).
  4. Doornbosch R, Steenblik R (2007) Biofuels: is the cure worse than the disease? OECD’s Round Table on sustainable development.
  5. Fischer G (2008) Implications for land use change. Expert Meeting on Global Perspectives on Fuel and Food Security, RomeGoogle Scholar
  6. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2005) Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005.
  7. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2010) Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010.
  8. Gurgel A, Reilly JM, Paltsev S (2007) Potential land use implications of a global biofuels industry. J Agric Food Ind Org 5(2):Article 9. doi: 10.2202/1542-0485.1202
  9. International Energy Agency (2008) Energy technology perspectives 2008. IEA, ParisCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Itsubo N, Inaba A (2005) Life cycle environmental impact assessment methods (in Japanese). Japan Environmental Management Association for Industry, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  11. Maeda S (2007) Research and development trends in energy crops and biofuel conversion technologies. Sci Technol Trends Q Rev 25:50–72Google Scholar
  12. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  13. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development––Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2009) Agricultural Outlook 2009–2018. doi: 10.1787/agr_oecd-2009-en
  14. Ravindranath NH, Manuvie R, Fargione J, Canadell GJ, Berndes G, Woods J, Watson H, Sathaye J (2009) GHG implications of land use and land conversion to biofuel crops.
  15. RIVM (2006) Integrated modeling of global environmental change ––an overview of IMAGE 2.4.
  16. Scholes RJ, Biggs R (2005) A biodiversity intactness index. Nature 434:45–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Takeuchi K (2009) Rebuilding the relationship between human and nature and CBD Post 2010 Target. International Forum for Sustainable Asia and the Pacific (ISAP2009), HayamaGoogle Scholar
  18. Tanaka A, Ohtaguro S (2008) Current status of “no net loss policies” on natural ecosystems in various countries. Abstracts of papers at the 7th Annual Conference of Japan Society for Impact Assessment, OsakaGoogle Scholar
  19. TEEB (2010) The economics of ecosystem and biodiversity; mainstreaming the economics of nature: a synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB.
  20. Turner MG (2005) Landscape ecology: what is the state of the science? Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 36:319–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. United Nations (2009) World population prospect 2008 Revision.
  22. United Nations Environment Programme (2009) Assessing biofuels––towards sustainable production and use of resources.
  23. United Nations Environment Programme (2010) Global Biodiversity Outlook 3.
  24. U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (1980) Habitat evaluation procedures (HEP). Division of Ecological Service ESM 101-103, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  25. World Resource Institute (2000) World Resources 2000–2001: people and ecosystems: the fraying web of life.

Copyright information

© Integrated Research System for Sustainability Science, United Nations University, and Springer 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Minoru Yoshikawa
    • 1
    Email author
  • Yuko Motoki
    • 1
  • Go Hibino
    • 1
  • Kazuhiko Takeuchi
    • 2
  • Keisuke Hanaki
    • 2
  • Shinichi Arai
    • 2
  • Toshihiko Masui
    • 3
  • Toshihiro Inoue
    • 4
  1. 1.Environment, Natural Resources and Energy DivisionMizuho Information and Research InstituteTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Integrated Research System for Sustainability Science (IR3S)The University of TokyoTokyoJapan
  3. 3.The Integrated Assessment Section, Social and Environmental Systems DivisionNational Institute for Environmental StudiesTsukubaJapan
  4. 4.Center for Knowledge StructuringThe University of TokyoTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations