Three Key considerations for biodiversity conservation in multilateral agreements

Michael J Burgass,Emily Nicholson,Derek P Tittensor,Cecilia Larrosa,Carolina M Pinto,Shannon Hampton,Hernan Caceres,Simone L Stevenson,Kate E Watermeyer,Jessica A Rowland,William N S Arlidge,E.J Milner‐Gulland,Ciaran Mclaverty,Abbey Camaclang,Victor K Muposhi

doi:10.1111/conl.12764

Abstract

AbstractIt is nearly three decades since the world recognized the need for a global multilateral treaty aiming to address accelerating biodiversity loss. However, biodiversity continues to decline at a concerning rate. Drawing on lessons from the implementation of the current strategic plan of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the 2010 Aichi Targets, we highlight three interlinked core areas, which require attention and improvement in the development of the post‐2020 Biodiversity Framework under the Convention on Biological Diversity. They are: (1) developing robust theories of change which define agreed, adaptive plans for achieving targets; (2) using models to evaluate assumptions and effectiveness of different plans and targets; and (3) identifying the common but differentiated responsibilities of different actors/states/countries within these plans. We demonstrate how future multilateral agreements must not focus only on what needs to be done but also on how it should be done, using measurable steps, which make sense at the scales at which biodiversity change happens.

Highlights

Around 150 Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) are concerned directly with biodiversity (Velázquez Gomar, 2016)
Rapid biodiversity loss continues, suggesting that many agreements have failed and others such as the Aichi Targets set by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) are unlikely to be met (IPBES, 2019)
There remains considerable opportunity to translate lessons learnt over the past three decades into meaningful and actionable recommendations for future biodiversity MEAs, to give a better chance of success. This is of particular relevance as at the 15th Conference of the Parties to the CBD in 2021, governments will negotiate a new biodiversity framework to replace the current 2011–2020 Strategic Plan and Aichi Targets (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2020)

Summary

INTRODUCTION

Around 150 Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) are concerned directly with biodiversity (Velázquez Gomar, 2016). There remains considerable opportunity to translate lessons learnt over the past three decades into meaningful and actionable recommendations for future biodiversity MEAs, to give a better chance of success This is of particular relevance as at the 15th Conference of the Parties to the CBD in 2021, governments will negotiate a new biodiversity framework to replace the current 2011–2020 Strategic Plan and Aichi Targets (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2020). We focus on three interlinked core areas that are critical to the process of developing global biodiversity MEAs, and in particular a post-2020 framework, that could support significant improvement in outcomes for biodiversity. They are: (1) formulating robust theories of change to define agreed, adaptive plans for achieving each target; (2) using models to evaluate assumptions and effectiveness of different plans and targets; and (3) identifying common but differentiated responsibilities of different actors/states/countries within these plans

FORMULATING ROBUST THEORIES OF CHANGE TO LINK OUTCOMES AND ACTIONS

UNDERPINNED BY MODELS TO INTEGRATE COMPLEXITY AND UNCERTAINTY

TRANSCENDING SCALES TO SUPPORT MEANINGFUL DEVOLVED ACTION

Findings

CONCLUSION