What lessons have we learned from the implementation of the existing Strategic Plan of the Convention on Biological Diversity at the local, sub-national, national, regional or global levels?
I would also urge the secretariat of CBD to closely study the operations the CITES secretariat who often play a serious role in enabling, though the legal status of both the secretariats are the same (that they are not implementing bodies as such). It is important to examine how the secretariat can play a more serious enabling role in implementation. If the CoP has to address this issue, then this has to be put on its agenda.
submitted by Ghanem A. Mohammad
I am not so sure if we have learned any lessons from this particular issue. Maybe a good proposal would be to actually hear from other countries about their experience in implementing the SP, then the usual procedure would be for the Secretariat to compile these experiences and make them available to Parties. Or this could be a product of this questionnaire.
submitted by email@example.com
In practice the link between biodiversity conservation and poverty alleviation made in the 2010 target has not yet been achieved. This is noted by the Ad Hoc Open-Ended Working Group on Review of Implementation of the Convention. In its recommendations to COP 9 the group notes ‘the inadequate mainstreaming of biodiversity… in national development and poverty eradication strategies’. The development of a new Strategic Plan represents an opportunity to strengthen the link and to better address the ‘missing half’ of the 2010 target.
Poverty reduction is arguably the dominant development agenda. Therefore the more that conservation activities demonstrate the contribution of biodiversity to poverty reduction, the better are the chances of the integration of biodiversity conservation into cross-sectoral development programmes.
It is important to recognise the distinction between the contribution of biodiversity to poverty reduction and the impact of conservation activities on poverty. Biodiversity and related ecosystem services underpin the livelihood security of rural communities. Adapted protected area management, for example, now provides for more community participation, thus decreasing the risk of resource conflicts and increasing sustainability at the landscape level. However, activities designed to enhance biodiversity conservation have also resulted in unintended negative impacts on rural communities, not only from displacement or restrictions connected to protected areas, but also from incentive mechanisms such as PES, which benefit the richer at the expense of the poor.
The submission was made on behalf of SGLCP (Steering Group on Linking Conservation and Poverty), endorsed by the following individuals who are members of the group: Barney Dickson, David Thomas, Dilys Roe, Mochamad Indrawan, Muhtari Aminu-Kano, Phil Franks, Robin Sharp, Bettina Hedden-Dunkhorst
submitted by Anonymous
As a result of this neglect, the CBD has left out an important tool for slowing biodiversity loss and meeting its 2010 targets. A coherent and science-based approach to ecosystem restoration would greatly assist the CBD in the implementation of future Strategic Plans and meeting post 2010 biodiversity targets at all levels.
submitted by Sasha Alexander
COMMON FACTORS OF SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION:
The new Strategic Plan should identify the common factors of success based on experience and promote mechanisms to replicate them to enable implementation at national, regional and global levels.
A series of common factors of success can be identified from lessons learned in the implementation of the existing Strategic Plan and the Convention’s various Programmes of Work. Promoting the replication of these factors of success at the national and regional level could promote more effective implementation of the Convention. For example, drawing from experience with the Programme of Work on Protected Areas, common factors of success include the presence of: a) inter-agency and multi-stakeholder steering committees to coordinate implementation at national and regional levels; b) regional transboundary collaboration to share experience and lessons learned and plan transboundary approaches; c) funding incentives in the form of small (up to $200,000) “Early Action Grants” to stimulate early action; and d) global inter-institutional collaboration between Parties, donors, and international NGOs, to coordinate support for implementation.
ACCESS AND BENEFIT SHARING:
Clearly, a post-2010 Strategic Plan needs to ensure the advancement of the 3 objectives of the Convention – conservation, sustainable use and access and benefit sharing. The perception that the conservation objective has been advancing relatively rapidly under the Convention while there has been little progress on sustainable use and especially benefit sharing from the use of genetic resources has created a polarization which is played out in protracted negotiations under the Convention and ultimately lack of buy-in and political will for its implementation. An effective way to resolve this situation is through high level dialogue (as proposed by the German government at COP 9) as well as bringing forward practical examples of benefit sharing in action. Access and Benefit Sharing should be given high priority in the new Strategic Plan.
This submission reflects the shared views of BirdLife International, Conservation International, IUCN – World Commission on Protected Areas, IUCN Countdown 2010, The Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund for Nature, and the Wildlife Conservation Society.
submitted by Anonymous
The Strategic Plan has provided a useful touchstone for the development of a number of national and sub-national planning frameworks in Canada. Although Canada’s Biodiversity Strategy was developed before the Strategic Plan and the work of sub-national and national governments in implementing Canada’s Biodiversity Strategy is not a direct result of the Strategic Plan, these efforts are consistent with the Strategic Plan. These implementation efforts include the creation of the Biodiversity Outcomes Framework, which is a federal/provincial/territorial framework for delivery of Canada’s Biodiversity Strategy, and the preparation of several sub-national biodiversity strategies and action plans, or equivalent strategies and plans (i.e. Saskatchewan, Northwest Territories, Ontario, Quebec). One province, Quebec, is preparing its third Strategy and Action plan. Several local and regional governments, including cities, have either developed biodiversity strategies and action plans or are incorporating biodiversity objectives into other planning processes. The number of local and regional governments taking this approach in Canada is continuing to increase. The revised Strategic Plan needs to be a flexible framework that it provides broad direction but that can easily be adapted to circumstances at the national, sub-national and local levels.
It is clear that there is a reluctance in many jurisdictions, including in Canada, to set measureable, time-bound targets at the global level. Setting targets is more appropriate as the geographic scale shrinks (i.e. it is easier at a local scale than a national scale). Recognizing this, the Strategic Plan should provide broad goals and indicators that inspire and challenge jurisdictions within their specific contexts to develop action-oriented plans and targets where relevant.
Implementation of existing plans has reinforced the critical need for buy-in and involvement of sub-national and local governments, the resource-sector, indigenous people and communities. Despite progress, we have not been entirely successful at mainstreaming biodiversity and/or making the case for biodiversity outside of the traditional biodiversity-oriented community. The involvement and commitment of decision-makers outside the biodiversity-oriented community is critical and new, innovative approaches are required. In addition, capacity issues remain a huge barrier. Canada has had some success in engaging the business community and cities in biodiversity conservation. Decisions at COP9 around engagement of cities and the business community were steps in the right direction. The CBD needs to build on these decisions and ensure links between these decisions and the strategic plan.
Another obstacle to moving forward on implementation is the lack of a consistent, credible and regular observation and information systems to assess the state of biodiversity. Recent efforts such as Geo-BON and GBIF are steps in the right direction. Reliable observation is critical to recognizing early warning signals, reducing the risk to biodiversity, ensuring maintenance of what remains, and providing links among reduction of stressors on biodiversity, human well-being and healthy biodiversity.
A final obstacle relates to the need for more coordinated research that provides the links to human well-being and biodiversity at different scales, across disciplines and looking to the future. Coordinated research like this will aid in providing solutions, particularly to the restoration of biodiversity where it has been degraded and to providing solutions for the reduction of stresses on biodiversity, that are in harmony with human well-being. The importance of coordinated research efforts, carried out simultaneously in different locations around the globe, has been proven. International Polar Year provides an outstanding example but there are other examples.
Biodiversity planning, assessing and reporting have been focussed on species and more recently ecosystems. The genetic diversity component has received little, if any, attention. This is partly because of the perceived difficulty in monitoring. The CBD could do more to promote research on methods to assess status and trends at the genetic level.
submitted by Canada NFP
On ne dispose pas de suffisamment d’informations sur les plans stratégiques existant pour être en mesure de tirer les leçons
submitted by Jean-Patrick LE DUC
We have learned the importance of more holistic approaches, of having indicators that look at the bigger picture, if we are to be able to understand and then show how many of the different pressures humanity places on ecosystems are related to each other. With aggregated metrics, like the Ecological Footprint, it is easier to see relationships between pressure on ecosystems and the state of biodiversity, and to ensure that solutions are addressing multiple problems in ways that are coordinated, not just reducing pressure in one place by shifting it elsewhere in the biosphere.
submitted by Steven Goldfinger
Lessons learned: Need for better understanding, involvement, buy-in/ownership of stakeholders
submitted by Hanna Hoffmann