peoples and local communities to the achievement of other targets, for example through customary sustainable use and traditional agriculture. Actions commonly reported by Parties in their national reports to reach their targets include efforts to better document traditional knowledge, efforts to protect traditional knowledge and to ensure that indigenous peoples and local communities are fairly compensated for the use of their knowledge, and capacity-building programmes with a focus on traditional knowledge. Some national reports also refer to actions to improve the legal recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples and local commun-ities. A general challenge noted in the reports is the lack of capacity and resources for incorporating and reflecting traditional knowledge and customary sustainable use in issues related to conservation.2
Despite the increasing number of positive examples of national progress (Box 18.1), the
role of traditional knowledge and of indigenous peoples and local communities in conserving and sustainably using biodiversity generally remains poorly recognized in national processes. For example, only 40 Parties reported that indigenous people and local communities were involved in the revision processes of their national biodiversity strategies and action plans.3
There is limited global level information on the extent to which traditional knowledge and customary use are being integrated in the imple-mentation of the Convention. Despite growing documentation on the potential value of tradi-tional knowledge to conservation and sustainable use, there is often a lack of communication between indigenous peoples and local communities and the scientific community4 and assessments of biodi-versity often do not take local and traditional knowledge into account.5
Numerous examples have demonstrated the ways in which bringing traditional knowledge together with science can lead to constructive solutions to various challenges,6 and lead to the development of policies which are more tailored
TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE
Target 18
Strategic Goal E: Target 18 – Traditional knowledge 113
2
1 3
TARGET ELEMENTS
1. Traditional knowledge, innovations and practices respected 2. Traditional knowledge, innovations and practices integrated 3. Indigenous peoples and local communities participate
effectively
Box 18.1. Examples of country experiences and national progress
ɠ Australia: The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act established the Indigenous Advisory Committee (IAC) to provide advice to the Minister for Environment and the Australian Government on policy and implementation matters relating to indigenous land and sea management, specifically in relation to the implementation of the Act. The IAC has contributed advice ensuring recognition of and support for the transfer and integration of indigenous traditional knowledge with national biodiversity policy, programmes and regulatory decision processes. The Threatened Species Scientific Committee has engaged member expertise to improve indigenous engagement and understanding relating to the on-the-ground implications of their decisions on indigenous Australians.7
ɠ Eswatini: Ethno-botanical surveys are conducted, in consultation with traditional healers, to identify plant species commonly used in traditional medicine and rituals. These surveys help to inform decisions on sustainable use.8
ɠ Canada: Some indigenous communities protect and manage land and marine resources through Indigenous Guardians programmes. While these programs have existed for several decades, they have mostly worked in isolation. In 2017 Canada invested 25 million Canadian dollars over five years to support a pilot initiative to establish a national network of existing Indigenous Guardians programmes. The objective of this initiative is to give indigenous peoples greater responsibility and resources to manage their traditional lands and waterways. It will facilitate partnership with indigenous communities and provide additional funding to existing indigenous programmes to support their activities related to monitoring ecological health, maintaining cultural sites, and protecting sensitive areas and species. In addition, Canada is supporting the implementation of a pilot Guardian programme in Arctic Bay, Nunavut. The funding will support the Qikiqtani Inuit Association to explore how Inuit can be engaged in the management of the Tallurutiup Imanga National Marine Conservation Area, the newest and largest marine protected area in Canada.9
ɠ Costa Rica: In 2018, a mechanism for consultation with indigenous peoples was established.
The objective of this mechanism is to ensure consultation with indigenous peoples through appropriate procedures and through their representative institutions, whenever administrative measures or bills are likely to affect them. To help operationalize this mechanism the Costa Rican Government and 22 indigenous peoples’ representatives developed a guide that indicates to government institutions how to comply with the obligation to consult these peoples when a measure or project is likely to affect their collective rights.10
Status
to on-the-ground realities.11 One indication of progress in this regard is the conceptual framework of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) which gives explicit consider-ation of diverse scientific disciplines, stakeholders, and knowledge systems, including indigenous and local knowledge.12 Indigenous knowledge holders also contributed significantly to the IPBES Global Assessment on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Another example of an attempt to bring issues related to indigenous peoples and local communities into decision making processes at the international level is the Local Biodiversity Outlooks (Box 18.2).
A number of tools have been developed under the Convention to guide actions to promote respect for traditional knowledge during the past decade. These include the Mo’otz Kuxtal Voluntary Guidelines on prior informed consent for the use of traditional knowledge, innovations and practices, and the Rutzolijirisaxik Voluntary
Guidelines for the repatriation of traditional knowledge.13
More than two thirds (67%) of NBSAPs contain national targets related to Aichi Biodiversity Target 18. More than a third of Parties are on track to reach (35%) their national targets or exceed (5%) them. More than half of Parties (52%) have made progress towards their targets but not at a rate that will allow them to be met. A few Parties (8%) report that they are making no progress towards the target. However, only about a fifth (21%) have national targets that are similar to the scope and level of ambition set out in the Aichi Target. Many of the targets focus on respecting traditional knowledge, innovations and practices and their integration in the implementation of the Convention, but fewer focus on ensuring the full and effective participation of indigenous peoples and local communities. Of the reporting Parties, fewer than a tenth (9%) have national targets that are similar to Aichi Biodiversity Target 18 and are also on track to be met (see bar chart).14
RELEVANT SDG TARGETS
Target 1.4: By 2030, ensure that all men and women, in particular the poor and the vulnerable, have equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to basic services, ownership and control over land and other forms of property, inheritance, natural resources, appropriate new technology and financial services, including microfinance
Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels
115 Strategic Goal E: Target 18 – Traditional knowledge
TOM...foto / Shutterstock
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
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 close alignment).
Assessment of progress towards national targets
Box 18.2. Key Messages from the second edition of the Local Biodiversity Outlooks The Second edition of the Local Biodiversity Outlooks identified four high level and cross-cutting messages related to indigenous peoples and local communities and biodiversity:
1. Indigenous peoples and local communities make vital contributions to biodiversity conservation and sustainable use. Disregarding these contributions, including their limited recognition in national biodiversity strategies and action plans, is a missed opportunity. Better recognition and support for these actions will help to secure the future of both nature and cultures.
2. Securing customary land tenure and rights over knowledge and resources is fundamental to realizing community well-being as well as achieving goals on biodiversity, sustainable development and climate change.
3. Sustained interactions, collaboration and partnerships between the sciences and indigenous and local knowledge systems would enrich problem-solving and result in more effective and holistic decision making and reciprocity. Indigenous ways of knowing and being can evoke and inspire new narratives and visions of living in harmony with nature.
4. The values, ways of life, knowledge, resource governance and management systems, economies and technologies of indigenous peoples and local communities have much to offer in reimagining global systems that leave no one behind.
By 2020, knowledge, the science base and technologies relating to biodiversity, its values, functioning, status and trends, and the consequences of its loss, are improved, widely shared and transferred, and applied.
Summary of target achievement
Significant progress has been made since 2010 in the generation, sharing and assessment of knowledge and data on biodiversity, with big-data aggregation, advances in modelling and artificial intelligence opening up new opportunities for improved understanding of the biosphere. However, major imbalances remain in the location and taxonomic focus of studies and monitoring. Information gaps remain in the consequences of biodiversity loss for people, and the application of biodiversity knowledge in decision making is limited. The target has been partially achieved (medium confidence).1
Many Parties in their national reports refer to actions to promote education and training programmes on biodiversity, the development and promotion of scientific research programmes, undertaking species inventories, identifying key biodiversity areas and generally increasing the amount and quality of biodiversity infor-mation (Box 19.1). Some reports also refer to the development of national biodiversity databases, clearing-house mechanisms, the preparation of publications and the promotion of community-based monitoring (Box 19.2). Overall, the majority of actions appear to be related to the documentation and generation of knowledge on biodiversity, in particular in terrestrial ecosystems.
By comparison there appear to be fewer actions related to the generation of biodiversity-related information for marine and inland-water environ-ments, and for sharing information and applying it in decision-making.
The clearing-house mechanism (CHM) of the Convention on Biological Diversity helps to promote technical and scientific cooperation by facilitating the exchange of information, expertise, tools and technologies. It comprises a global network of national CHMs and of partners and a
central platform hosted by the CBD Secretariat. The number of national CHM websites has grown from 89 in 2010 to 101 in 2020 and more countries are in the process of developing sites and/or linking them to the central CHM.2 Parties are also making use of the Bioland Tool3, a turnkey solution developed by the Secretariat, to help Parties establish or improve their national CHMs.
The establishment of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) in 2013 and the production of its various assessments including the Global Assessment on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services represents a major advance in the infor-mation available to support policy and decisions on biodiversity.4
The number of indicators available to monitor changes relating to biodiversity, at varying spatial and temporal scales, and brought together under the Biodiversity Indicators Partnership (BIP), has increased.5 Further on average, the number of indicators used in sixth national reports was 84, compared to 49 in the fifth national reports.6
The development of Essential Biodiversity Variables (EBVs) through the Group on Earth Observations Biodiversity Observation Network