A mid-term analysis of progress toward international biodiversity targets.

Cities have a critical role to play in meeting global-scale biodiversity targets. Urban socio-ecological systems connect human and ecological well-being. The outsized impact of cities reaches well-beyond their geographic borders through cultural, ecological, and economic interactions. Although cities account for just 2% of the earth's surface, they host over half of the human population and are responsible for 75% of consumption. The Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and others have acknowledged the important role cities can play in achieving global targets. In response, at least 110 cities have produced plans focused on biodiversity, but we do not know the extent to which these city plans align with global targets or what role they play in achieving these targets. Here, we explore the relationship between global biodiversity conservation targets and local biodiversity plans to identify how elements at the two scales align or diverge. We compared the CBD Strategic Plan 2011–2020 (Aichi Targets) with 44 local biodiversity plans (often called LBSAPs) from cities around the world. We analyzed more than 2,800 actions from the local plans to measure the relationship with these global targets. Our results show how local approaches to biodiversity conservation can inform post-2020 global frameworks to improve coordination between global and local scale processes. We identify actions particular to the local scale that are critical to conserve global biodiversity and suggest a framework for improved coordination between actors at different scales that address their respective roles and spheres of influence.

To Achieve Big Wins for Terrestrial Conservation, Prioritize Protection of Ecoregions Closest to Meeting Targets

Biodiversity underpins the fundamental elements for human well-being including food security, human health and access to clean water. In 2010, the Aichi Targets were adopted by world leaders to address the crisis of biodiversity loss. Despite conservation efforts, none of the Aichi Targets have been fully met. However, comprehensive analysis of the reasons for failure in terms of implementation mechanisms is, to date, rare and limited in scope. Here, we demonstrate that most parties did not set effective national targets in accordance with the Aichi Targets, and investments, knowledge and accountability for biodiversity conservation have been inadequate to enable effective implementation. We recommend that the new global targets under the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework should be adopted by parties as the minimum national targets to achieve the 2050 Vision. We propose that financial resources for biodiversity conservation are substantially increased through a variety of sources, including the deployment of new economic instruments such as payments for ecosystem services. In addition, science-policy interfaces at all levels need to be strengthened to integrate scientific, Indigenous and local knowledge to support decision-making. We suggest that a compliance and accountability mechanism, based on monitoring systems, is created to provide transparent and credible review of parties' implementation of the new global targets.

A hard instrument goes soft: The implications of the Convention on Biological Diversity's current trajectory

In their Report “A mid-term analysis of progress toward international biodiversity targets” (10 October, p. [241][1]; published online 2 October), D. P. Tittensor and colleagues concluded that despite accelerating policy and management responses to the biodiversity crisis on a global scale, these efforts are unlikely to improve the state of biodiversity by 2020. They did not acknowledge that sustained national policies in China have already produced positive effects on biodiversity. The Chinese government initiated in 1999 the Natural Forest Resources Conservation Program and the Restoring Farmland into Forest Program. Logging has been prohibited in most natural forests, and cultivated land on areas with slopes of more than 25 degrees must be restored to forests or grasslands ([ 1 ][2]). The central government subsidized forest management and conservation, as well as seedling cultivation and reforestation ([ 2 ][3], [ 3 ][4]). Households that have returned their cultivated land to forests received subsidies from the central government ([ 2 ][3], [ 3 ][4]). Recently, the State Council updated the policies and increased subsidies to further promote ecosystem restoration ([ 2 ][3]). A number of other key ecological programs continue to be implemented, such as forest belt construction in the Yangtze River basin. More than US$80 billion has been invested in these programs ([ 1 ][2]). Ecological conditions have improved ([ 2 ][3]). Forest area, growing stock (the total stock volume of trees growing in land), and coverage rate (the percentage of area of afforested land compared with total land) all increased between 2009 and 2013 ([ 4 ][5]–[ 6 ][6]). These programs have contributed to progress toward Aichi Targets 5, 14, and 15 ([ 2 ][3]), although these policies need to be fine-tuned to best fit the local environment. 1. [↵][7] Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Global Biodiversity Outlook 4 (Montreal, 2014). 2. [↵][8] Ministry of Environmental Protection, “China's 5th national report to the CBD” ([www.cbd.int/doc/world/cn/cn-nr-05-en.pdf][9]). 3. [↵][10] 1. P. W. Leadley 2. et al ., “Progress towards the aichi biodiversity targets: An assessment of biodiversity trends, policy scenarios, and key actions” (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, 2014). 4. [↵][11] State Forestry Administration, “China Forestry Statistics” (China Forestry Press, Beijing, 2013). 5. State Forestry Administration, “The promulgation of the eighth national forest resource inventory” ([www.forestry.gov.cn/][12]). 6. [↵][13] 1. H. Xu 2. et al ., BioScience 59, 843 (2009). [OpenUrl][14][Abstract/FREE Full Text][15] [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.1257484 [2]: #ref-1 [3]: #ref-2 [4]: #ref-3 [5]: #ref-4 [6]: #ref-6 [7]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1 in text [8]: #xref-ref-2-1 View reference 2 in text [9]: http://www.cbd.int/doc/world/cn/cn-nr-05-en.pdf [10]: #xref-ref-3-1 View reference 3 in text [11]: #xref-ref-4-1 View reference 4 in text [12]: http://www.forestry.gov.cn/ [13]: #xref-ref-6-1 View reference 6 in text [14]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DBioScience%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1525%252Fbio.2009.59.10.6%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [15]: /lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MTA6ImJpb3NjaWVuY2UiO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6OToiNTkvMTAvODQzIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6MjM6Ii9zY2kvMzQ2LzYyMTMvMTA2OC5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=

Past shortfalls to meet global biodiversity targets have simultaneously prompted questions about the relevance of global environmental conventions, and sparked renewed ambition, for example, in the form of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. While progress toward the Aichi Targets through the Convention on Biological Diversity is well‐documented globally, less is known at the national level. We conducted a systematic content analysis of 154 documents to assess the nature and extent of national implementation of the Aichi Targets using Canada as a case study. Results indicate that most responses are aspirational, with only 28% of responses implemented. Implemented responses tend to be associated with targets with specified levels of ambition that emphasize biophysical values, or targets that are relatively straightforward to achieve in this context (e.g., knowledge capacity and awareness). In contrast, targets focused on equity, rights, or policy reform were associated with fewer actions. Implementation of this latter class of targets is arguably stalled not solely because of a lack of effective target design, but because of lack of fit within existing institutional commitments. This suggests that solutions—in terms of improving implementation—lie not only in overcoming known dilemmas of quantifiability, but also in fostering institutional transformation.

In 2010, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) outlined an international strategic plan, which included the twenty Aichi Biodiversity Targets to be met by 2020. Target 12 refers to preventing extinctions and halting species declines. Despite some local conservation successes, this target is not on track to be met at the global level. We aimed to understand what is needed to achieve this target according to two invested but contrasting groups: species conservation experts and global conservation policy makers. We surveyed a diversity of species conservation experts and contrasted their views with those of policy makers engaged with CBD. Species experts considered that the greatest need was for increased political will, while policy makers most frequently cited the need for increased knowledge of species conservation status. Both groups did, however, emphasise that achieving species conservation targets requires greater progress to be made towards many of the other Aichi Targets. We suggest that improved communication, collaboration and data sharing among institutions should be a priority to help overcome the perceived knowledge-gap. Doing so could help to align the views of practitioners and policy makers, and develop a shared understanding of the key actions needed to accelerate progress towards global biodiversity targets.

To inform governmental discussions on the nature of a revised Strategic Plan for Biodiversity of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), we reviewed the relevant literature and assessed the framing of the 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets in the current strategic plan. We asked international experts from nongovernmental organizations, academia, government agencies, international organizations, research institutes, and the CBD to score the Aichi Targets and their constituent elements against a set of specific, measurable, ambitious, realistic, unambiguous, scalable, and comprehensive criteria (SMART based, excluding time bound because all targets are bound to 2015 or 2020). We then investigated the relationship between these expert scores and reported progress toward the target elements by using the findings from 2 global progress assessments (Global Biodiversity Outlook and the Intergovernmental Science‐Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services). We analyzed the data with ordinal logistic regressions. We found significant positive relationships (p < 0.05) between progress and the extent to which the target elements were perceived to be measurable, realistic, unambiguous, and scalable. There was some evidence of a relationship between progress and specificity of the target elements, but no relationship between progress and ambition. We are the first to show associations between progress and the extent to which the Aichi Targets meet certain SMART criteria. As negotiations around the post‐2020 biodiversity framework proceed, decision makers should strive to ensure that new or revised targets are effectively structured and clearly worded to allow the translation of targets into actionable policies that can be successfully implemented nationally, regionally, and globally.

The Convention on Biological Diversity and its Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 form the central pillar of the world's conservation commitment, with 196 signatory nations; yet its capacity to reign in catastrophic biodiversity loss has proved inadequate. Indicators suggest that few of the Convention on Biological Diversity's Aichi targets that aim to reduce biodiversity loss will be met by 2020. While the indicators have been criticized for only partially representing the targets, a bigger problem is that the indicators do not adequately draw attention to and measure all of the drivers of the biodiversity crisis. Here, we show that many key drivers of biodiversity loss are either poorly evaluated or entirely lacking indicators. We use a biodiversity-crisis hierarchy as a conceptual model linking drivers of change to biodiversity loss to evaluate the scope of current indicators. We find major gaps related to monitoring governments, human population size, corruption and threat-industries. We recommend the hierarchy is used to develop an expanded set of indicators that comprehensively monitor the human behaviour and institutions that drive biodiversity loss and that, so far, have impeded progress towards achieving global biodiversity targets.

Introduction Daffodil Day, usually held in spring, raises funds for cancer awareness and research using this symbol of hope. On that day, people who donate money to this good cause are usually given a yellow daffodil pin to wear. When I lived in Auckland, New Zealand, on the last Friday in August most people walking around the city centre proudly wore a cheerful yellow flower. So many people generously participated in this initiative that one almost felt obliged to join the cause in order to wear the ‘uniform’ – the daffodil pin – as everyone else did on that day. To donate and to wear a daffodil is the social expectation, and operating in social environment people often endeavour to meet the expectation by doing the ‘appropriate things’ defined by societies or communities. After all, who does not like to receive a beam of acceptance and appreciation from a fellow daffodil bearer in Auckland’s Queen Street? States in international society are no different. In some ways, states wear ‘uniforms’ while executing domestic and foreign affairs just as human beings do within their social groups. States develop the understandings of desirable behaviour from the international community with which they interact and identify. They are ‘socialised’ to act in line with the expectations of international community. These expectations are expressed in the form of international norms, a prescriptive set of ideas about the ‘appropriate behaviour for actors with a given identity’ (Finnemore and Sikkink 891). Motivated by this logic of appropriateness, states that comply with certain international norms in world politics justify and undertake actions that are considered appropriate for their identities. This essay starts with examining how international norms can be spread to different countries through the process of ‘state socialisation’ (how the countries are ‘talked into’ wearing the ‘uniform’). Second, the essay investigates the idea of ‘cultural match’: how domestic actors comply with an international norm by interpreting and manipulating it according to their local political and legal practices (how the countries wear the ‘uniform’ differently). Lastly, the essay probes the current international normative community and the liberal values embedded in major international norms (whether states would continue wearing the ‘uniform’). International Norms and State Socialisation: Why Do States Wear the ‘Uniforms’? Norm diffusion is related to the efforts of ‘norm entrepreneurs’ using various platforms to convince a critical mass of states to embrace new norms (Finnemore and Sikkink 895-896). Early studies of norm diffusion tend to emphasise nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) as norm entrepreneurs and advocates, such as Oxfam and its goal of reducing poverty and hunger worldwide (Capie 638). In other empirical research, intergovernmental organisations (IGOs) were shown to serve as ‘norm teachers,’ such as UNESCO educating developing countries the value of science policy organisations (Finnemore 581-586). Additionally, states and other international actors can also play important roles in norm diffusion. Powerful states with more communication resources sometimes enjoy advantages in creating and promoting new norms (Florini 375). For example, the United States and Western European countries have often been considered as the major proponents of free trade. Norm emergence and state socialisation in a normative community often occurs during critical historical periods, such as wars and major economic downturns, when international changes and domestic crises often coincide with each other (Ikenberry and Kupchan 292). For instance, the norm entrepreneurs of ‘responsible power/state’ can be traced back to the great powers (mainly the United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union) and their management of international order at the end of WWII (see Bull). With their negotiations and series of international agreements at the Cairo, Tehran, Yalta, and Potsdam Conference in the 1940s, these great powers established a post-World War international society based on the key liberal values of international peace and security, free trade, human rights, and democracy. Human beings are not born to know what appropriate behaviour is; we learn social norms from parents, schools, peers, and other community members. International norms are collective expectations and understanding of how state governments should approach their domestic and foreign affairs. States ‘learn’ international norms while socialising with a normative community. From a sociological perspective, socialisation summarises ‘how and to what extent diverse individuals are meshed with the requirement of collective life’ at the societal level (Long and Hadden 39). It mainly consists of the process of training and shaping newcomers by the group members and the social adjustment of novices to the normative framework and the logic of appropriateness (Long and Hadden 39). Similarly, social psychology defines socialisation as the process in which ‘social organisations influence the action and experience of individuals’ (Gold and Douvan 145). Inspired by sociology and psychology, political scientists consider socialisation to be the mechanism through which norm entrepreneurs persuade other actors (usually a norm novice) to adhere to a particular prescriptive standard (Johnston, “Social State” 16). Norm entrepreneurs can change novices’ behaviour by the methods of persuasion and social influence (Johnston, “Treating International Institutions” 496-506). Socialisation sometimes demands that individual actors should comply with organisational norms by changing their interests or preferences (persuasion). Norm entrepreneurs often attempt to construct an appealing cognitive frame in order to persuade the novices (either individuals or states) to change their normative preferences or adopt new norms. They tend to use language that can ‘name, interpret and dramatise’ the issues related to the emerging norm (Finnemore and Sikkink 987). As a main persuasive device, ‘framing’ can provide a singular interpretation and appropriate behavioural response for a particular situation (Payne 39). Cognitive consistency theory found in psychology has suggested the mechanism of ‘analogy’, which indicates that actors are more likely to accept new ideas that share some similarities to the extant belief or ideas that they have already accepted (see Hybel, ch. 2). Based on this understanding, norm entrepreneurs usually frame issues in a way that can associate and resonate with the shared value of the targeted novices (Payne 43). For example, Finnemore’s research shows that when it promoted the creation of state science bureaucracies in the 1960s, UNESCO associated professional science policy-making with the appropriate role of a modern state, which was well received by the post-war developing countries in Latin America, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia (Finnemore 565-597). Socialisation can also emanate actors’ pro-norm behaviour through a cost-benefit calculation made with social rewards and punishments (social influence). A normative community can use the mechanism of back-patting and opprobrium to distribute social reward and punishment. Back-patting – ‘recognition, praise and normative support’ – is offered for a novice’s or member’s cooperative and pro-norm behaviour (Johnston, “Treating International Institutions” 503). In contrast, opprobrium associated with status denial and identity rejection can create social and psychological costs (Johnston 504). Both the reward and punishment grow in intensity with the number of co-operators (Johnston 504). A larger community can often create more criticism towards rule-breakers, and thus greatly increase the cost of disobedience. For instance, the lack of full commitment from major powers, such as China, the United States, and some other OECD countries, has arguably made global collective action towards mitigating climate change more difficult, as the cost of non-compliance is relatively low. While being in a normative environment, novice or emerging states that have not yet been socialised into the international community can respond to persuasion and social influence through the processes of identification and mimicking. Social psychology indicates that when one actor accepts persuasion or social influence based on its desire to build or maintain a ‘satisfying self-defining relationship’ to another actor, the mechanism of identification starts to work (Kelman 53). Identification among a social group can generate ‘obligatory’ behaviour, where individual states make decisions by attempting to match their perceptions of ‘who they are’ (national identity) with the expectation of the normative community (Glodgeier and Tetlock 82). After identifying with the normative community, a novice state would then mimic peer states’ pro-norm behaviour in order to be considered as a qualified member of the social group. For example, when the Chinese government was deliberating over its ratification of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety in 2003, a Ministry of Environmental Protection brief noted that China should ratify the Protocol as soon as possible because China had always been a country ‘keeping its word’ in international society, and non-ratification would largely ‘undermine China’s international image and reputation’ (Ministry of Environmental Protection of PRC). Despite the domestic industry’s disagreement with entering into the Protocol, the Chinese government’s self-identification as a ‘responsible state’ that performs its international promises and duties played an important role in China’s adoption of the international norm of biosafety. Domestic Salience of International Norms: How Do States Wear the ‘Uniforms’ Differently? Individual states do not accept international norms passively; instead, state governments often negotiate and interact with domestic a

Loss of biological diversity continues at alarming rates, despite valiant UN efforts aided by the international community. The 2010 Target for biodiversity has been missed. The Aichi Targets, adopted in 2010, may also not be met by their timeline of 2020. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and its partners are now preparing a post‐2020 global framework for biodiversity, to be adopted in October 2020, at its 15th Conference of the Parties. The initiative presented here is meant to provoke further thought on how to accelerate efforts toward stopping biodiversity loss. Ten proposals are briefly introduced and discussed, with emphasis on three priority fast track initiatives: (1) the creation of as extensive as possible a worldwide protected area network; (2) a complete halt to deforestation and the restoration of forest ecosystems; and (3) a massive reduction in or (ideally) a halt to further environmental pollution. Following a discussion of approaches at national, regional and global levels, the proposals are related to a generic scenario comprising the biodiversity‐related institutional landscape and its governance systems and trends in biodiversity and its global distribution resulting from the interplay between human impacts, conservation efforts and uncertainties about the future course of evolution.

Connectivity of protected areas (PAs) is crucial for meeting their conservation goals. We provide the first global evaluation of countries' progress towards Aichi Target 11 of the Convention on Biological Diversity that is to have at least 17% of the land covered by well-connected PA systems by 2020. We quantify how well the terrestrial PA systems of countries are designed to promote connectivity, using the Protected Connected (ProtConn) indicator. We refine ProtConn to focus on the part of PA connectivity that is in the power of a country to influence, i.e. not penalizing countries for PA isolation due to the sea and to foreign lands. We found that globally only 7.5% of the area of the countries is covered by protected connected lands, which is about half of the global PA coverage of 14.7%, and that only 30% of the countries currently meet the Aichi Target 11 connectivity element. These findings suggest the need for considerable efforts to improve PA connectivity globally. We further identify the main priorities for improving or sustaining PA connectivity in each country: general increase of PA coverage, targeted designation of PAs in strategic locations for connectivity, ensuring permeability of the unprotected landscapes between PAs, coordinated management of neighbouring PAs within the country, and/or transnational coordination with PAs in other countries. Our assessment provides a key contribution to evaluate progress towards global PA connectivity targets and to highlight important strengths and weaknesses of the design of PA systems for connectivity in the world's countries and regions.

Fresh waters and their resources continue to be one of the most imperilled ecosystems on Earth, yet very little emphasis has been placed on identifying and developing in situ conservation mechanisms, such as freshwater protected areas. In the southern region of the Western Ghats Hotspot, India, a globally important eco‐region harbouring unique freshwater taxa, there has been very little effort to identify the role played by terrestrial protected areas in freshwater biodiversity conservation. Around 130 species of freshwater‐dependent fauna belonging to five taxonomic groups (fish, amphibians, crabs, shrimps and odonates) are endemic to the region, of which 25% have a high risk of extinction. More than half of the 130 species are not represented in the current protected area (PA) network, and the distributions of 12 endemic and threatened species (10 fish, one amphibian and one shrimp), of which five are single‐location species, also fall wholly outside the PA network. Although 44% (58 species) of endemic freshwater‐dependent fauna of the region occur either wholly (25 species) or partly (33 species) inside terrestrial PAs, they are rarely subject to species‐specific management or monitoring plans. To improve freshwater biodiversity conservation at the local level, and to achieve global conservation targets, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity's Aichi targets (for example targets 11 and 12), the PA network of the region should be doubled. This may be achieved by expanding the area of existing PAs to incorporate priority sites for freshwater taxa, creating new PAs by specifically targeting areas that are of significance to freshwater biodiversity, and developing and implementing freshwater‐specific management plans in existing PAs of the region. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd.

A continuing debate between environmental scientists and fisheries biologists on the sustainability of fisheries management practices, and the extent of fishing impacts on marine ecosystems, is unlikely to be resolved without fishery‐independent data spanning large geographic and temporal scales. Here, we compare continental‐ and decadal‐scale trends in fisheries catches with underwater reef monitoring data for 533 sites around Australia, and find matching evidence of rapid fish‐stock declines. Regardless of a high global ranking for fisheries sustainability, catches from Australian wild fisheries decreased by 31% over the past decade. The biomass of large fishes observed on underwater transects decreased significantly over the same period on fished reefs (36% decline) and in marine park zones that allow limited fishing (18% decline), but with a negligible overall change in no‐fishing marine reserves. Populations of exploited fishes generally rose within marine reserves and declined outside the reserves, whereas unexploited species showed little difference in population trends within or outside reserves. Although changing climate and more precautionary fisheries management contribute to declining fish catches, fisheries‐independent transect data suggest that excessive fishing also plays a major role. The large number of fishery stocks that remain unmanaged or have poor data, coupled with continuing declines in the stock biomass of managed fish species, indicate that Aichi Target 6 of the Convention on Biological Diversity (i.e. ‘by 2020, all fish and invertebrate stocks and aquatic plants are managed and harvested sustainably’) will not be achieved in Australia, or elsewhere. In order to maintain some naturally functioning food webs supported by large predators and associated ecosystem services in this era of changing climate, a greatly expanded network of effective, fully protected marine protected areas is needed that encompasses global marine biodiversity. The present globally unbalanced situation, with &gt;98% of seas open to some form of fishing, deserves immediate multinational attention.

Action plans for species conservation are an important tool to meet global and national biodiversity targets – A study case in Brazil