Maciej Czekajewski / Shutterstock
Taking stock of progress in implementing the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 133 each of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. The overall
picture is one of progress, but at levels generally insufficient to achieve the Aichi Biodiversity Targets.
On average, countries report that more than a third of all national targets are on track to be met (34%, green bars) or even exceeded (3%, blue bars). For another half of the national targets (51%, yellow bars), progress is being made but not at a rate that will allow the targets to be met. Only 11%
of countries report no significant progress (red bars) and only 1% report that they are moving in the wrong direction (purple bars). Progress is reported to have been greatest towards the national targets related to Aichi Biodiversity Targets 1, 11, 16, 17 and 19. Much less progress is reported towards the national targets related to Aichi Biodiversity Targets 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14 and 20.
However, as noted in the target assessments, national targets are generally poorly aligned with the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, in terms of scope and the level of ambition. Fewer than a quarter (23%) of the targets are well aligned with the Aichi Targets (darker shades of colour in the chart) and only about a tenth of all targets are similar to the Aichi Biodiversity Targets and are on track to be met. National targets were better aligned with Aichi Biodiversity Targets 1, 9, 16, 17, 19 and 20 than for others. Even for these targets, however, only about of one-fifth of countries with well-aligned targets reported that they were on track to meet them.
Taking into account both the levels of progress towards the national targets and their alignment with the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, the nation-ally-based assessment is broadly consistent with the global-level assessment.
Examples of success
Despite the limited progress globally towards the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, this Outlook has also documented some important examples in which actions in support of the goals and targets of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 have generated successful outcomes.
Notably, recent conservation actions have reduced the number of extinctions. It is estimated
that without such actions, extinctions of bird and mammal species would have been between two and four times their actual level over the past decade (see Aichi Target 12). These successes were achieved by a range of measures, including protected areas, hunting restrictions and the control of invasive alien species, as well as through ex situ conservation and re-introduction. Examples of species likely to have been saved from extinction between 2011 and 2020 include the Fatu Hiva monarch (Pomarea whitneyi), black stilt (Himantopus novaezelandiae), Javan rhinoceros (Rhinoceros sondaicus) and black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes). All of these species remain Endangered or Critically Endangered, however, so the success of the past decade in preventing their extinction will only be sustained with continuing, additional conservation efforts.3
There has also been significant expansion of the protected area estate increasing over the 2000-2020 period, from about 10% to 15% terres-trially, and from about 3% to 7% in marine areas (see Aichi Target 11). The protection of areas of particular importance for biodiversity (key biodi-versity areas) has also increased from 29% to 43%
over the same time period.
There are some notable examples of progress in addressing the direct drivers of biodiversity loss:
• Land-use change. The rate of deforestation has fallen globally by about a third compared to the previous decade (Aichi Target 5).
• Overexploitation. Where good fisheries management policies have been introduced, involving stock assessments, catch limits, and enforcement, the abundance of fish stocks has been maintained or rebuilt (Aichi Target 6).
• Pollution. There have been examples of reducing pollution from excess nitrogen-based fertilizers, for example in the European Union and China (Aichi Target 8).
• Invasive alien species. There have been an increasing number of successful cases of eradica-tion of invasive alien species from islands, and the targeting of priority species and pathways, including through international agreements, to avoid future introductions (Aichi Target 9).
Other examples of progress identified in the analysis of target achievement include:
• An apparent increase in awareness of biodiver-sity (Aichi Target 1).
• An increasing number of countries incorporating biodiversity values into national accounting systems (Aichi Target 2).
• Successful programmes to restore degraded ecosystems in many countries (Aichi Target 15).
• The bringing into force of the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization (Aichi Target 16).
• The development of national biodiversity strate-gies and action plans (NBSAPs) by 85% of Parties to the CBD (Aichi Target 17).
• An increased recognition of the value of tradi-tional knowledge and customary sustainable use of biodiversity in many countries (Aichi Target 18).
• A substantial increase in the data and informa-tion on biodiversity available to citizens, researchers and policy makers, including through the efforts of citizen science (Aichi Target 19).
• A doubling of financial resources available for biodiversity through international flows and official development assistance (Aichi Target 20).
These examples, and others documented in the target assessments, provide a strong justification to maintain and enhance investments in the conser-vation and sustainable use of biodiversity, as well as measures to address both indirect and direct drivers of biodiversity loss. They also provide some important lessons as discussed below.
Taking stock of progress in implementing the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 135 Figure 21.1. Trends in indicators of drivers, the state of nature, nature’s contributions to people, and
responses (policies and actions of institutions and governance) across all Aichi Targets, as assessed in 2014, and for the IPBES Global Assessment in 2018.8
2014
2014No changeNo change+100%+100%-100%-100%
2000
No changeNo change+100%+100%-100%-100%
2000
In the 2014 assessment 55 indicators were used while in the 2018 assessment 68 were used, may of which had updated time series.
Despite the difference in indicators, both assessments show similar patterns and trends. However, in the 2018 assessment the increase in the drivers of biodiversity loss and the responses to it are clearer as is the decline in state of biodiversity.
Lessons learned from the implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 Several overarching lessons from the experiences in implementing the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 help to inform the development of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. These lessons suggest that there is no single solution to improving the design and implementation of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework, and that a range of changes may be required:4
• Increasing efforts to address the direct and indirect drivers of biodiversity loss – Reducing the rate of biodiversity loss and ultimately halting it will require that the drivers of biodiversity loss are addressed, requiring greater interaction between ministries responsible for biodiversity and those addressing issues related to other sectors, as well as greater engagement across society. Most successful plans involve a package of actions comprising legal or policy frameworks, socioeconomic incentives, public and stakeholder engagement, monitoring and enforcement. Many of the issues addressed under the Convention are interrelated, and accordingly, they require integrated and holistic approaches to planning and implementation.
• Strengthening the integration of gender, the role of indigenous peoples and local communi-ties and stakeholder engagement – Analysis has shown that opportunities for effective action in support of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 were missed due to insufficient involve-ment of women, indigenous peoples and local communities, and a broad set of stakeholders in the design and implementation of NBSAPs (see especially Aichi Targets 14, 17 and 18). The new global framework can set stronger requirements for future action on biodiversity to include all of these considerations as foundational prerequisites.
• Strengthening national biodiversity strate-gies and action plans and associated planning processes – National biodiversity strategies and action plans have evolved to include issues beyond the direct drivers of biodiversity loss, and towards holistic approaches to biodiversity governance.
However, few countries have adopted NBSAPs as whole-of-government policy instruments, limiting their effectiveness in addressing other sectors and weakening the level of implementation (see Aichi Target 17).
• Well-designed, ‘SMART’ goals and targets – Aichi Biodiversity Targets which are formulated with clear, unambiguous, simple
language, with quantitative elements, (i.e. according to ‘SMART’ criteria)5 have, in general, seen greater levels of progress.6 At the same time, more progress appears to have been made for targets focussed on process, rather than those defining specific outcomes. Targets focussed on the intended outcome are important, but it may be difficult to monitor progress within the required time-frame, and to clearly attribute responsibility for achieving the targets. Thus, a combination of process and outcome targets may be useful, each supported by indicators to allow effective monitoring of progress.
It is also important to formulate targets such that they do not lead to perverse outcomes.7
• Increasing the ambition of national
commitments – The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 provided for the establishment of national biodiversity targets in support of the global Aichi Biodiversity Targets. However, the majority of national targets were lower in scope and levels of ambition than the Aichi Targets. There is a need to promote future national commitments that are commensurate with the aims of the global frame-work, and that align with its goals and targets.
• The need to reduce time lags in planning and account for time lags in implementation – Progress towards the Aichi Biodiversity Targets was hindered by various time lags. In most cases, updated national biodiversity strategies and action plans were not developed until well after the Strategic Plan was adopted, delaying action to implement the Plan (Figure 17.1). At the global level, many years elapsed before indicators were identified. In addition, given the dynamics of natural systems, when positive actions are taken, the impacts on biodiversity may not be visible for several years or decades.
Taking stock of progress in implementing the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 137
• The need for effective review and sustained and targeted support to countries – More progress has been made towards the achievement of targets which have been subject to regular review involving national experts, and for which sustained and ongoing support has been provided through capacity-building activities and through support networks at the regional and subregional levels.
There is also a need to ensure adequate funding.
• The need for learning and adaptive manage-ment – Greater efforts are needed to facilitate technical and scientific cooperation among countries to learn from the experience and to understand the reasons for the effectiveness or otherwise of policy measures. There is also an opportunity to make use of available policy support tools and methodologies, including those devel-oped under the Convention, and to adapt them to national circumstances.
• The need for attention to implementation – The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 includes a rationale, vision, mission, goals and
targets (the Aichi Biodiversity Targets) as well as provisions for implementation, monitoring, review and evaluation, and support mechanisms.
In practice, while the Aichi Biodiversity Targets have received the most visibility, some of the other elements, though equally important, have received less attention. This has arguably contributed to the poor levels of achievement of the targets.
Conclusions
The overall message of the assessment in GBO-5 remains similar to that of the mid-term assessment in GBO-4. It is also reinforced by more recent analysis in the IPBES Global Assessment. In summary: while there has been significant progress towards most of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, none has been fully achieved.
Overall, biodiversity loss is continuing, despite substantial ongoing efforts for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use. While current conservation and management actions are having positive impacts, their effects are overwhelmed by the growing pressures on biodiversity, which, in
Ondrej Prosicky / Shutterstock
turn, are related to increased levels of consumption of food, energy and materials and to the devel-opment of infrastructure.
Consequently, the world is not on track to achieve most of the current globally agreed targets for biodi-versity, or for land degradation or climate change, nor the other Sustainable Development Goals. However, this assessment provides further evidence that when well implemented, conservation actions and broader
policy measures are effective. There is an urgent need to build upon the progress made, learning from the examples of success, so as to tackle the direct and indirect drivers of biodiversity loss and realize the benefits of biodiversity conservation and sustainable use for people. Potential pathways towards the goal of ‘living in harmony with nature’ are explored in Part III of this Outlook.
Figure 21.2. Assessment of progress towards national targets and the alignment of these to the Aichi Biodiversity Targets.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Aichi Target 1 Aichi Target 2 Aichi Target 3 Aichi Target 4 Aichi Target 5 Aichi Target 6 Aichi Target 7 Aichi Target 8 Aichi Target 9 Aichi Target 10 Aichi Target 11 Aichi Target 12 Aichi Target 13 Aichi Target 14 Aichi Target 15 Aichi Target 16 Aichi Target 17 Aichi Target 18 Aichi Target 19 Aichi Target 20
On track to exceed On track to reach
Some progress but at an insufficient rate No significant change
Moving away from the target
Target has little relevance Target is significantly lower
Target is less ambitious or does not address all of elements Target is commensurate
Target surpasses the scope and/or level of ambition
The colour bars show the percentage of Parties reporting a given level of progress towards their national targets. Blue: exceeds target;
Green: on track; Yellow: some progress; Red: no change; Purple: moving away from target. The intensity of the colour indicates alignment of national targets with the Aichi Target. Darker colours indicate closer alignment. Further information is provided in Box 0.3.
139