Relating characteristics of global biodiversity targets to reported progress.

Elizabeth J Green,Georgina M Chandler,Stuart H M Butchart,Neil D Burgess,Samantha L L Hill,Graeme M Buchanan,Richard D Gregory

doi:10.1111/cobi.13322

Abstract

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.

Highlights

The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is designed to provide an overarching framework on biodiversity conservation for the United Nations (UN) and other partners engaged in biodiversity management and policy development
We identified scientific literature relating to the Aichi Targets by searching the titles, abstracts, and keywords of publications since 2010 in Web of Science and Scopus on 19 October 2017 with the search string “biodivers∗ AND target∗ AND (Aichi OR CBD OR “Convention on Biological Diversity”).”
Others have reflected on the framing of the Aichi Targets (Wood 2011; Butchart et al 2016), but we are the first to carry out a SMART-based assessment of all 20 targets and to show evidence of associations between progress and the extent to which the Aichi Targets were perceived to meet certain criteria

Summary

Introduction

The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is designed to provide an overarching framework on biodiversity conservation for the United Nations (UN) and other partners engaged in biodiversity management and policy development. The strategic plan includes 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets (hereafter, Aichi Targets) organized into 5 strategic goals that aim to address the underlying causes of biodiversity loss by mainstreaming biodiversity across government and society (goal A); reduce the direct pressures on biodiversity and promote sustainable use (B); improve the status of biodiversity by safeguarding ecosystems, species, and genetic diversity (C); enhance the benefits to all from biodiversity and ecosystem services (D); and enhance implementation through participatory planning, knowledge management, and capacity building (E) (CBD 2010a). Lack of a definition (until 2018) of “other effective area-based conservation measures” under Target 11 has prevented governments from assessing their current coverage and implementing policies to increase these as a complement to formal protected area networks

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion