Science and development of government policy post-Global Strategy for Plant Conservation: lessons for the future

Abstract

The Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (GSPC), adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 2002, came to the end of its first phase in 2010. Thus we felt that this was an appropriate theme for a discussion meeting jointly sponsored by the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, and the Royal Society of London (in June 2010). Adoption of the GSPC – by the parties to the CBD and implemented through international organizations – as a framework to address the importance of plants in sustaining biodiversity of all organisms is unique; it was also much more ambitious than any other conservation measure ever adopted. It consisted of 16 outcome-oriented targets across five major objectives and tried to describe the targets in ways that could be measured, to one degree or another. Like many international agreements, it was subject to varying interpretations and retained flexibility for implementation at national and local levels, so that interpretations were uniform in neither content nor intent. The GSPC nonetheless stands as a remarkable document and at least a limited success. The problem of bringing together scientists (from botanical gardens, museums and universities), conservation non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and politicians to develop policies that then need to be implemented by national governments was a major challenge. The limitations imposed by this process are reflected in the ambiguous wording of some of the targets in the GSPC. The flexibility of the targets also made the Strategy easier to promote and more adaptable to local conditions, so they were not necessarily a disadvantage. However, if the second phase (2011– 2020) is to succeed, there needs to be improved dialogue between all parties in both planning and implementation. Again, this process is pushing back the barriers that have previously prevented such concerted international activity, and so these too are worth considering further to determine how they can be minimized in the second phase. The successes of the GSPC were partly due to the formation of networks that promoted the Strategy and guided its implementation and the identification of a facilitating organisation that would be responsible for progress towards each target. Little or no progress was often a symptom of lack of engagement between, or availability of, appropriate actors and passive facilitation. Many botanical gardens and conservation NGOs accepted the challenges of the GSPC and played major roles in promoting it internationally and within their own respective spheres of influence, and without this involvement, successes would have been limited. One could argue that a document such as the GSPC really was not necessary for action to occur, but just having a formal, internationally agreed strategy provided a common focus for activity and made it more likely that governments would accept it and put resources into local implementation, so it acted as a nucleating agent, precipitating action when there would have been little or none without it. Having realized the enormous challenges facing the plant conservation community, scientists in the movement worked hard to translate their priorities into targets that governments could understand and believe to be tractable, thus making compromises but increasing the likelihood of broad adoption and implementation. It was an opportunity seized, and a timely evaluation of the GSPC in terms of the general process of combining science and policy could benefit not only phase II of the GSPC, but also the general process with the possible outcome of increased incorporation of science into policy-making. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2011, 166, 213–216.