What are the main considerations that need to be taken into account in developing the post-2010 biodiversity target ? What type of evidence-base is required and how can we get that information?
I know that people are working on this - assessing the causes for failure to achieve the 2010 target, which is obvious by now. I think that it was an unrealistic aim to begin with, so we should take into account this fact when we start thinking of a new future target. I think that it would be useful to compile causes for not having been able to attain the 2010 target and this info will help us ellaborate a workable target for 2020.
submitted by firstname.lastname@example.org
An expert workshop led by international experts in the field of ecosystem restoration would jumpstart an important knowledge acquisition process that would aim to:
• Draft a information document covering all major issues related to ecological restoration policy and practice, including biodiversity (post-2010 targets), ecosystem approach (good/services), climate change (mitigation/adaptation), investment/funding (valuation), and the identification of priority areas;
• Explore the possibility of drafting a series of technical and policy documents on best practices for integrating ecological restoration into local, regional and national conservation planning;
• Establish an inter-sessional work programme specific to Article 8(f) that would assist the Secretariat in drafting recommendations for the SBSTTA-14 and WGRI-3 meetings.
submitted by Sasha Alexander
A primary consideration in developing the post-2010 target is the results of all assessments since the current Strategic Plan was written, including: the MA; the TEEB report, IPPC Fourth Assessment Report,review of Goals 1-4; assessment of Programs of Work; in-depth review of VIII/15 sub-goals and targets; Global Biodiversity Outlook 2 and 3; all National Reports; Global Environmental Outlook; regional assessments (e.g. Arctic Climate Impact Assessment).
The evidence-base for biodiversity loss is stronger at a regional and local level than it is at the national or global level. This is primarily because of a lack of standardized observation and information systems. Efforts such as Geo-BON and GBIF are just beginning to show results. More work needs to done in support of better observation and improved links between the maintenance of healthy biodiversity and all other aspects of human well-being (e.g. health and the economy) at both the global and local level. The evolving Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services is a potential means of improving the evidence-base for biodiversity.
It is also important to look at what has changed in the world since the 2010 Target was set and what is relevant to current and projected future world realities. This includes consideration of what issues are dominant, what is imminent, what are the obstacles and opportunities. For example, the current global financial crisis is already providing an opportunity to rethink basic economic assumptions and insert the principles of sustainability. Since the release of the IPPC Fourth Assessment Report climate change has become more widely accepted. Finally, the One World, One Health Initiative is resulting in policies that link infectious diseases with the animal/human/ecosystem interface.
The other five biodiversity related conventions (Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species (CMS), Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, Convention on Wetlands (RAMSAR), World Heritage Convention (WHC))can be important partners in contributing to the goals of the Strategic Plan, and also in providing components of the evidence base needed to support the strategic plan and any post 2010 biodiversity targets.
Finally the Bar Code of Life Initiative offers a unique opportunity to enhance the evidenced base on which the CBD depends.
submitted by Canada NFP
Data to accomplish the stated goal of avoiding species extinctions and hence broader biodiversity loss are already widely available through IUCN (species threat assessment), and species distribution databases held by a range of groups and governments, e.g. the World Biodiversity Database held by BirdLife International and Conservation International which identifies realistic and measurable targets for a comprehensive post-2010 biodiversity target.
submitted by Mike Parr
Progress toward the global biodiversity target can only be monitored if it is tied to meaningful national targets, which in turn need measurable indicators. Ideally, indicators or proxy variables should be available from verifiable and public sources that should be independent from the entities accountable for achieving the targets. This might not always be a realistic expectation but it should be a guiding principle in identifying suitable indicators and sources of verification.
The lack of baseline data and taxonomic inventories obtained through rigorous methods is a major constraint to the identification and monitoring of targets and indicators. This is also an unglamorous area of research that attracts little recognition and shrinking funding despite the lip service paid to its importance. More efforts need to be directed toward scientific methods, and Parties need to be encouraged to appropriately fund this area.
submitted by Michael Hermann
Effective conservation policy should ideally be based on the most appropriate analysis of the best available data. However, this is usually limited to better known (and popular) groups of organisms. Most speciose groups are not included in practical conservation planning in bio-diverse areas because simply not enough is known about them, at even a most basic level. There is no complete and reliable list of plant species for most tropical countries, for example.
There are institutions and organisations able to supply such data, relatively quickly, but these are all lacking in financial support and the funds available to undertake this work are insufficient and did not reach the most relevant organisations. We are undertaking many hundreds of plant assessments to complete an indicator for IUCN, for example, but all this work has been funded and carried out ourselves with no support from the CBD or IUCN. Instead, many broad-scale global reports were commissioned which re-cycle earlier studies and make recommendations that are difficult to translate to the local scale. The CBD seems detached and remote from the day-to-day concerns of most conservation practitioners.
The 2010 Biodiversity Target was probably always too ambitious to achieve, but the main reason it has failed is simple: it is a low priority for most of the world's governments. You just need to look at all the actions being taken and media coverage on the current financial crisis and ask yourself, where is the G20 Biodiversity Summit?
submitted by Neil Brummitt
One of the main consideration that should be taken into account is the inter-relationship between biodiversity, climate change, peoples' livelihoods and human wellbeing. This has already started to be addressed by the MEA and some of other assessements mentioned by previous participants, but further research and action needs to be taken in this direction. Recognizing rights can be a valuable tool to address these linkages. Among others, research data that should be taken into consideration include recent reports and ongoing research carried out by the Rights and Resources Initiative (http://www.rightsandresources.org). For example, two reports were launched in 2008 examining the shifts in forest tenure around the world and highlighting the critical role of rights recognition in addressing poverty, conflict and climate change (http://www.rightsandresources.org/blog.php?id=311). Similarly, recognising customary rights of indigenous and local communities over lands and water traditionally used by them can empower them to both protect biodiversity and secure human wellbeing (see for example case studies on customary use at http://www.forestpeoples.org/documents/conservation/bases/10c.shtml).
submitted by Maurizio Ferrari
Les objectifs doivent avoir une chance raisonnable d’être atteints et ne pas être complètement utopiques.
Ils doivent comporter des engagements financiers fermes
Ils doivent être différenciés selon l’état de développement des pays (prise en compte de l’état initial, des efforts à faire et de l’ampleur de la tâche, des moyens disponibles et mobilisables)
En particulier, les pays développés ont une situation de départ très mauvaises, doivent faire des efforts importants mais disposent de moyens) alors que les pays en développement ont une situation de départ souvent moins graves mais disposent de moyens faibles)
L’évolution du cadre général en raison de l’impact des changements climatiques
Il est nécessaire de disposer d’un organisme scientifique indépendant (type GIEC) susceptible de fournir des informations synthétiques utilisables pour la mise en œuvre des politiques
Les rapports coûts/bénéfices par rapport aux objectifs globaux (conservation de la diversité biologique et réduction de la pauvreté)
submitted by Jean-Patrick LE DUC
A significant reduction in human pressure on the biosphere must be achieved as quickly as possible; 2050 is too late to wait if significant additional biodiversity loss is to be avoided. Current moderate business-as-usual projections show humanity’s Ecological Footprint overshoot of biocapacity going from 30% in 2005 to more than 100% in the mid-2030s. While further research is needed to quantify the relationship between overshoot and biodiversity loss, given the losses already evident at the current level of overshoot it is clear that aggressive targets must be set for quick and substantial reductions in this level.
submitted by Steven Goldfinger
Measure, evaluate, monitor, sell it...
Indicator-based information, IPBES/TEEB work
submitted by Hanna Hoffmann