1.There is an abundance of policy support tools and methodologies available to Parties that enable action to implement the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and achieve the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. The lack of tools or guidance, for some targets, or the difficulties of applying them in some countries, should not prevent most countries from taking effective action to implement the Strategic Plan. New tools should only be developed when there is a clearly demonstrated need. The focus should be on facilitating the use of existing tools by making them easily available, explaining their conditions of use, and by adapting them to specific national circumstances, bearing in mind the sovereign right of countries to choose their own approaches, visions, models and tools in accordance with national circumstances and priorities.

2.A limited number of additional tools and methodologies are needed, which include:

3.Technical and scientific cooperation among Parties should be promoted through the clearing-house mechanism. This could include the sharing of experiences and good practices on the development and application of national tools; and the application of global tools for use at national level.

4.The Convention's clearing-house mechanism should enable Parties, especially developing countries Parties, in particular the least developed countries and small island developing States, and countries with economies in transition, to express their specific technical and scientific needs. The clearing-house mechanism should also enable Parties, as well as scientific networks, relevant organizations and funding bodies to indicate their areas of competence and expertise. The mechanism could thereby facilitate the matching of needs and capabilities.

5.Citizen and community based initiatives have an important and growing role to play in helping deliver in-situ monitoring, while innovative application of remote sensing and other sensor technologies can complement this with measurements at larger scales. Standardization of protocols for both, as well as platforms and mechanisms for their use and integration, will help make individual efforts more effective and enable aggregation to support needs at larger scales.

6.There are opportunities for much greater systematic use of remote sensing data and of cost-effective and standardized in-situ observations.

7.Indigenous and local knowledge systems are an important element of sustainable management of many ecosystems. Local knowledge and monitoring efforts are often a critical source of information, complementing scientific approaches and frequently covering different temporal and spatial scales. Respect, trust, equity and transparency are essential for enabling monitoring that draws on combinations of indigenous, traditional and scientific knowledge systems.

8.There is a need for long-term data series to facilitate the monitoring of change in the status of biodiversity over time, and for the measuring of progress towards 2020 and beyond.

9.Better access to near-real-time biodiversity monitoring data can promote greater public interest in biodiversity policymaking and enable the participation of a wider range of stakeholders.

10.There is a need to continue and enhance the dialogue between policymakers and the Earth observation community with a view to enhancing the collection and access to data for monitoring progress in achieving the Aichi Biodiversity Targets and associated national targets and indicators.

11.Free and open access to satellite data has enabled greater use of remote sensing data for the monitoring of biodiversity. The salience of remote sensing data is much improved if it can be made available in near-real-time and processed into key products that are useful to decision makers and environmental protection agencies (e.g. land-use maps).

12.Establishing and sustaining biodiversity observing systems at national, regional and global levels require data standards, interoperability and coordination among institutions as well as capacity-building and sustained funding, especially to developing country Parties, in particular the least developed countries and small island developing States, and countries with economies in transition.

13.Regional collaborative programmes, or regional centres, could promote biodiversity observation networks and support data analysis for use by countries of the region.

14.Essential Biodiversity Variables developed by GEO BON and other comparable approaches or variables, once clearly defined and tested, have a potential to improve the efficiency of monitoring by focusing observations on a limited number of key attributes. Such information on the types of observations most useful to the biodiversity community will enable space agencies to deploy appropriate sensors for the relevant variables.

15.A toolkit ("BON-in-a-Box") that can be tailored to national and regional needs would fill a major gap. Such a toolkit might include a handbook, Essential Biodiversity Variables in support of indicators and database structures, strategies to integrate remotely-sensed and in-situ data, and guidance on terminology, methods and standards.

16.The Global Biodiversity Informatics Outlook (GBIO) represents a roadmap and a framework to enhance access to and sharing of historic and legacy data, as well as new observations and measurements from remote sensing, local monitoring activities and citizen science. It thereby allows for the analysis of data across different data sets. GBIO thus promotes a globally coordinated approach, to mobilize biodiversity information and to enhance efforts to make data public and accessible for use in policy and research.

17.Implementing the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 presents significant challenges to all Parties, especially developing countries Parties, in particular the least developed countries and small island developing States, and Parties with economies in transition. Challenges relate to, inter alia:

18.A multitude of efforts is being undertaken to overcome the challenges and limitations noted in the subparagraphs above, both through innovative local solutions and by fostering partnership and collaboration among Parties and other partners.

19.There are many areas in which good progress has been made to support implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020, including, inter alia:

20.While policy evaluation is a commonly applied approach, it is difficult to discriminate and measure the specific effects of policies, especially those which have multiple objectives and which are delivered in a complex policy landscape. The feasibility of such evaluations should be explored by undertaking pilot assessments of the effects of measures taken in specific thematic areas or case studies.

1.Implementation of Aichi Targets 1 to 4 is critical as it will provide a significant stimulus to the implementation of many other Aichi Targets and to resource mobilization.

2.It is essential for effective mainstreaming to achieve better policy coherence, that is, the development and application of common objectives across sectors, and the implementation of activities that are mutually supportive activities. Good governance arrangements are critical in achieving this.

3.Further research is needed on the social, economic, and cultural drivers motivating behavioural change, their interplay, and the implications for policy design.

4.It is important to reaffirm that the values of biodiversity include intrinsic value as well as ecological, genetic, social economic, scientific, educational, cultural, recreational and aesthetic values of biological diversity and its components.

5.It is critical to align policies, incentives and business within safe ecological limits.

6.The programme of work on communication, education and public awareness (CEPA) provides the main framework for action towards this target. Toolkits and other support resources have been developed by the Secretariat as well as by other relevant global, regional and national actors. These resources are adequate but additional resources are needed for adaptation of these to local conditions and languages.

7.In order to overcome remaining gaps, create the additional tools and methodologies needed, and integrate these actions to promote behavioural change, there is a need to:

8.Recent good practice includes integrating biodiversity into the curriculum of primary and secondary formal education, as well as developing informal education tools in collaboration with botanical gardens, natural history museums, zoos and aquariums.

9.Monitoring progress against this target, using a range of methodologies and indicators, is advancing, but challenges remain. Comprehensive data remains limited at the global level. The Biodiversity Barometer of the Union for Ethical BioTrade was recognized as an indicator of global significance. Progress could be further improved by agreeing on core concepts and common methodologies for use by Parties.

10.Given their particular role as traditional stewards of biodiversity, the role of indigenous and local communities needs to be reflected in public awareness indicators, such as for instance in the form of measurement of the number of cooperative activities between Governments and indigenous and local communities.

11.There are a variety of tools and methodologies available to help assess the values of biodiversity at different levels, including in the private sector. While many tools and methodologies focus on economic values, guidance has been developed in some countries on integrated assessments of values of biodiversity. While there are indications that such tools and methodologies are increasingly being applied, there is a need to further develop and apply tools and methods that, in conjunction, are able to recognize the full range of biodiversity values, including its social, spiritual, and cultural importance.

12.There is also a need to further develop, through inter-scientific dialogue and the use of different knowledge systems, tools that reflect and strengthen alternative approaches, such as collective action of indigenous and local communities in biodiversity management and the conservation of the system of life, in order to achieve well-being in harmony and balance with Mother Earth.

13.Reflecting the values of biodiversity in development and poverty reduction strategies and national accounting systems can rely on a broad range of policies, tools and methodologies, in accordance with national circumstances and priorities. This can be a technically challenging task and there are major obstacles to the implementation of the policies, tools and methodologies associated with this target.

14.The work of several international partner organizations and initiatives, such as the United Nations Committee of Experts on Environmental-Economic Accounting, The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB), and the global partnership on Wealth Accounting and Valuation of Ecosystem Services (WAVES), is critical for advancing implementation of some aspects of this target. Guidance and tools have been developed by these organizations and initiatives and several pilot initiatives are already ongoing to further adjust and test them.

15.Applying these tools and methodologies requires significant expertise and capacity, as well as data, and collaboration with local and subnational governments. This is further compounded by the complexity of establishing national development strategies, poverty reduction plans, national accounting and reporting processes. The continuation and expansion of capacity-building will be important to speed up the use of such tools and methodologies and implement Aichi Target 2.

16.It is important to follow a two-pronged approach that would consist of both promoting positive incentive measures, bearing in mind potential budgetary implications, while simultaneously eliminating, phasing out or reforming harmful incentives, as a critical and necessary step that would also generate net socioeconomic benefits.

17.Several relevant policy tools and associated guidance material have been developed under the Convention, while international organizations and initiatives have also prepared analysis and guidance on incentive measures. Considering that incentives, including subsidies, have case-specific contexts, some countries have further developed step-by-step guidance tools and analyses at national level, such as on existing incentives, including subsidies, harmful to biodiversity, in order to identify priority candidates for elimination, phase-out, or reform.

18.Tools and methodologies could be further developed to address non-economic incentives and implement associated measures, such as the incentive impacts of institutions, including collective property and associated governance arrangements, the capacity to enforce regulation, and the availability of information.

19.Good practice guidance could be developed in identifying incentives that are harmful for biodiversity and means to reform these, based on successful case studies and lessons learned.

20.There is significant information on subsidies and incentives more generally, available at least for some sectors at the global level; however, indicators need to be further developed to be ready for use at global level.

21.Additional assessments may be needed in order to ensure that incentive measures are implemented in a manner that is consistent and in harmony with the Convention and other relevant international obligations.

22.Existing policy support tools and methodologies are of a general nature and need to be adapted to different governance levels (regional/national/subnational/local) and for economic sectors. In particular, in order to effectively engage businesses, there is a need for information and policy support tools as well as practical management tools for assessing corporate dependency and impact on biodiversity and ecosystem services, and to integrate biodiversity into corporate decision-making and reporting. Such tools could be disseminated for instance through the Business and Biodiversity Platform. There is also a need to reflect on potential incentives for businesses to support sustainable consumption that reflects biodiversity considerations.

23.The United Nations 10-Year Framework of Programmes on Sustainable Consumption and Production provides the general structure for taking action and existing processes thereunder could be harnessed.

24.Changing production and consumption models implicate awareness of biodiversity and behaviour change - there is a need for integrated systems, including back-casting approaches, the application of social sciences, non-market tools, and collective action.

25.While tools and methodologies seem to be available for cleaner production, recent progress includes tools and methodologies on achieving sustainable consumption, such as footprint measurement approaches that evaluate the impact of consumption at national, subnational/local, or household levels.

26.Exchange of information, including on good practices and lessons learned, could provide further guidance, such as on national targets aligned with Aichi Biodiversity Target 4.

27.The leadership and contribution of ministries of economy and finance is perceived as key to mobilize the various industry sectors and mainstream implementation.

28.Overall policies and guidance are well developed for Strategic Goal B. Implementation of existing policies and guidance remains the major challenge. There is also a need to develop tools to assess the impact of these policies and guidance.

29.Many tools and much experience on Goal B are now available. Therefore, there is an opportunity for focussed research on the effectiveness of tools and guidance for addressing habitat loss, while balancing multiple demands on habitats, and of approaches for sustainable agriculture, forestry and aquaculture, including the role of certification schemes, as well as how effectiveness of tools and guidance varies with the scale of their deployment (local, national, regional and global).

30.Particularly, with regards to Targets 5 and 7, there is a need to strengthen policies, tools and guidance with regards to more integrated and holistic land use planning that can also take into account other relevant Aichi Biodiversity Targets (such as Targets 11, 14 and 15), including landscape scale approaches to biodiversity management such as Satoyama and related initiatives.

31.Policies, tools and guidance are relatively well developed, although there is a need to develop remote sensing tools, in combination with integrated data management and analysis as well as in-situ observations, that can be applied at fine scales to measure habitat change. New tools may be needed for decisions makers to account for the costs related to habitat loss and degradation.

32.In terms of monitoring, data are needed to enable the assessment of the short- and long-term impacts of land use change in order to help address the drivers leading to the loss of habitat. Challenges include monitoring sectoral pressures associated with habitat loss, especially the implications of land-use change on critical ecosystems such as wetlands and fresh water.

33.Further guidance is required for classifying and mapping natural habitats and the establishment of baselines to measures progress. Lack of definitions for terms such as "degraded", "natural habitats" and "fragmentation" remains a constraint. Some Parties recognize fragmentation as a form of degradation.

34.The proposed FAO Voluntary Guidelines for Forest Monitoring and the FAO Voluntary Guidelines on Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security are relevant to activities aimed at achieving a range of Aichi Biodiversity Targets, in particular Target 5, as well as Targets 7, 11 and 15.

35.At the global, regional, and often national levels, policies, tools and guidance are relatively well developed with regards to fish stocks and the impacts of fishing. Monitoring of fish catches is relatively well developed, although not without gaps and constraints. At the global level this topic is already covered by FAO including attempts to improve monitoring and data.

36.Major challenges remain in monitoring the impacts of fishing on ecosystems and biodiversity (other than the fish catch itself) and the application of the term "safe ecological limits" at the population and ecosystem levels. As an interim measure, indicators and monitoring should focus on inland, coastal and pelagic fisheries to address gaps on harvesting and other aspects of fisheries management.

37.A combination of good governance, surveillance approaches, accountability among, and capacity-building for, stakeholders and law enforcement were also noted as important factors for the conservation and management of fishery resources.

38.For agriculture, besides the programme of work on agricultural biodiversity, and for aquaculture, there is limited guidance specifically provided under the Convention on Biological Diversity but considerable guidance available at the global, regional and national levels through partners including in particular FAO, the CGIAR centres and many intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, and farmers' and producers' organizations. In this regard, the upcoming FAO report on the State of the World's Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture will further assess the contribution made by biodiversity to sustainable agriculture.

39.Measures to foster policy coherence among different sectors, including agriculture, aquaculture and forestry, were underscored. In many countries interministerial dialogues and networks have been created to enhance greater coordination and cross-sectoral cooperation. These measures have proved useful, for example, in balancing agricultural intensification, and in promoting small-scale ecosystem-related production systems.

40.The current guidance does not adequately address the important positive or negative influence of indirect drivers, such as incentives, trade and consumption patterns, on biodiversity.

41.Challenges that remain include finding the appropriate balance between intensive (high input) and smaller scale production systems, as well as sustaining the health of soil.

42.While there are no universally agreed criteria for sustainability for agriculture, aquaculture, and forestry, there are internationally agreed elements of sustainability, such as for forests, that should be considered. Sustainability criteria should be comparable, and support desired biodiversity outcomes.

43.The monitoring framework can use a small number of globally consistent indicators that work across ecosystems to provide an overview; as well as flexible, ecosystem specific indicators that reflect local circumstances and are consistent with national priorities and conditions. However, there is a need to ensure that indicators reflect the area sustainably managed and not just the area certified.

44.Global and regional level criteria and indicator processes have made some advances in the collection of data that are consistent among processes and reduce the burden of reporting on countries to report on areas that are sustainably managed.

45.There is much policy guidance and tools available at global, regional and national levels, although with significant gaps in implementation of measures to significantly reduce pollution.

46.The Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM) is a policy framework to guide efforts on the sound management of chemicals globally.

47.A major gap is with regards to soils as sinks for pollutants and as a substrate for biodiversity.

48.National invasive species strategies and action plans are developed and integrated in NBSAPs in a number of countries.

49.International standards for sanitary and phytosanitary measures were developed within the context of other international agreements and not fully focused on biodiversity. Therefore it is not simple for Parties to apply the measures under environment-related policies. Explanatory materials (decision XI/28) would assist Parties to apply these international standards and guidance to achieve Target 9 (measures to be in place) if such materials are associated with capacity-development opportunities.

50.Information on invasive alien species is needed and the Global Invasive Alien Species Information Partnership is filling gaps in this regard. Further information on pathways and measures to control them would be useful.

51.Tools for cost benefit analysis of the relative feasibility of eradication versus management for established invasive alien species as well as tools for prioritizing pathways for invasions and for identifying species of high impact (consistent with decision XI/28, paragraph 26 (b)) can facilitate decision-making and should be developed as a priority.

52.Given the 2015 deadline for this target and the threats faced by coral reefs in particular, urgent measures are needed to achieve this target.

53.A major gap is the identification of vulnerable ecosystems at the national and regional levels using consistent assessments of relative vulnerability to climate change, other pressures and the effects of multiple pressures.

54.At the global/regional levels, these assessments should explore which areas are most vulnerable and assess the reasons for differences among them.

55.There are many useful and technically sound tools for achieving the targets under Strategic Goal C and the main focus should be on using and implementing the already available tools rather than developing new ones.

56.Limitations for using existing tools and methodologies in some cases are their level of generality and there is a need for adjusting them to national circumstances, priorities and capacities.

57.Recent innovative approaches to support and enhance data recording, capture and flow - such as developments in sampling (e.g., through Earth Observation or DNA/eDNA survey), and developments in data capture techniques (for example, recording species observations online and through "apps" for mobile phones) are valuable tools with scope for much wider application and merit further consideration and development.

58.The programme of work on protected areas provides guidance on elements of Target 11 and many organizations have contributed to the significant number of tools covering most aspects of Target 11 as well as providing support to the implementation of activities aimed to achieve the target at national, regional and global levels.

59.The organization of a series of regional workshops on ecologically or biologically significant marine areas (EBSAs) has fostered valuable scientific collaboration and contributed to capacity-building at the regional scale.

60.Marine spatial planning at a broader regional scale, building upon scientific understanding of ecological or biological values and threats, can contribute to a coordinated use of various conservation and management tools, such as Marine Protected Areas, fisheries management measures, and other policy and management interventions toward implementing the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020.

61.Further efforts in the following areas, inter alia, would be useful:

62.The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, and assessment of threatened species at the national level, can be used to trigger conservation action, particularly where they are aligned with existing initiatives on species conservation, including those under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). National Red Lists, or comparable assessments, can also assist with land use planning and responsible impact assessments.

63.Scientific and technical needs related to achieving Target 12 include a better understanding of the drivers of the decline of species, including illegal trade in wildlife, the impacts of invasive alien species, the long-term implications of climate change and the role of multi-species and ecosystem approaches in recovery planning.

64.Additional efforts should be made in a number of areas, including, inter alia:

65.The programme of work on agricultural biodiversity and Target 9 of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation are important frameworks for the development of policies for achieving Target 13.

66.The Global Plans of Action for Plant, Animal and Forest Genetic Resources, developed and adopted by the FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture,² and the preparation of the State of the World Report on Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture, are particularly relevant frameworks to support Target 13.

67.The FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture has developed guidance and tools which support achieving Target 13 and is developing a small number of higher order indicators relevant to this target.

68.Most of the monitoring, data, tools, policies and guidance for Target 13 are within the realm of genetic resources for food and agriculture, including forest genetic resources. Progress towards this target is highly dependent upon partners in the food and agriculture field.

69.Additional efforts should be made in a number of areas, including, inter alia:

70.The information documents presented to the eleventh meeting of the Conference of the Parties on ecosystem restoration provide a wide range of guidelines, tools and technologies for addressing the targets under Strategic Goal D; therefore the few gaps identified should not constrain the implementation of this goal.

71.The work being undertaken by Executive Secretary in pursuance of request contained in decision XI/16 should also provide additional tools and guidance relevant to Targets 14 and 15.

72.The cultural, spiritual, economic, ecological and traditional linkages with ecosystem services should be recognized and integrated in national, regional and global policy frameworks. In that context the Satoyama Initiative may be a useful tool to facilitate such recognition.

73.One of the important benefits of ecosystem services is in building resilience to the impacts of climate change and natural disasters.

74.There is a need to promote the application and use of ecosystem-based management and ecosystem-based adaptation.

75.Additional efforts should be made in a number of areas including, inter alia:

76.Both conservation and restoration are often ecosystem- and situation-specific and guidance needs to be adapted to local situations. Conservation and restoration projects should be conducted using adaptive management, i.e. with pre-defined targets and indicators, multiple trials to determine the best method of treatment, monitoring of results, and reporting.

77.Guidance is available to identify ecosystems that are vulnerable and which also maintain large carbon stocks.³

78.Guidance is available on ways to better map degraded ecosystems.⁴

79.There is limited capacity and knowledge on the restoration of coastal and marine ecosystems.

80.There is a need for efficient and effective dissemination of best practices and further development of pilot projects for achieving this target.

81.The importance of soil conservation for the achievement of Aichi Target 15 should be emphasized, particularly in those ecosystems that are rich in carbon stocks and organic soils.

82.Additional efforts should be made in a number of areas, including, inter alia: