GBO-4: A mid-term assessment of progress towards the implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020

Paul LeadleyProfessor, Univ. Paris-Sud,Coordinator of Technical Report

on behalf of the contributors to GBO-4

GBO-4 addresses four questions:

1. Are we on track to reach the Aichi Targets by 2020?

2. What actions need to be taken to achieve the Aichi Targets?

3. How do the Aichi Targets and progress towards them position us to attain the 2050 Vision of the Strategic Plan?

4. How does implementation of the Strategic Plan and progress towards the Aichi Targets contribute to broader development goals?

Scope of the Global Biodiversity Outlook 4

Organisation of the report

Main reportsummaries

CBD Technical Reports 78 (+79 & 81)

detailed analysis

• Scientific literature and other reports

• National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPS)

• National reports

• Indicator-based extrapolations of trends to 2020

• Model-based scenarios to 2050…

Sources of information used

for the assessment

Lead Authors of the Technical ReportPaul Leadley coordinator; Lead Authors: Rob Alkemade, Patricia Balvanera, Celine Bellard, Ben ten Brink, Neil Burgess, Silvia Ceausu, William Cheung, Villy Christensen, Franck Courchamp, Barbara Goncalves, Stephanie Januchowski-Hartley, Marcel Kok, Jennifer van Kolck, Cornelia Krug, Paul Lucas, Alexandra Marques, Peter Mumby, Laetitia Navarro, Tim Newbold, Henrique Pereira, Eugenie Regan, Carlo Rondinini, Louise Teh, Derek Tittensor, U. Rashid Sumaila, Peter Verburg, Piero Visconti, Matt Walpole.

Consortium Leading the Preparation of the Technical ReportDIVERSITAS, UNEP-WCMC, PBL-Netherlands, the University of British Colombia Fisheries, Centre Faculty of Science, Lisbon and the German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDIV)

Contributing Authors of the Technical ReportMichel Bakkenes, Jan Janse and Hans van Grinsven, Olaf Banki, Donald Hobern and Tim Robertson Katherine Blackwood, Alex Borisenko, Robert Hanner, Sujeevan Ratnasingham, Stuart H.M. Butchart, Marta Coll, Robert J. Diaz, Moreno Di Marco, Luca Santini, Britaldo Silveira Soares Filho, Fawziah Gadallah, Piero Genovesi, Ben Halpern, Serena Heckler, Mark Huijbregts, Lisa Ingwall-King, Miranda Jones, Daniel Karp, Christopher J. Kettle, Rainer Krug, Cui Lijuan, Georgina M. Mace, Peter B. McIntyre, Marc Metian, Scott E. Miller, Mans Nilsson, Thierry Oliveira, Shyama N. Pagad, James C. Russell, John Paolillo, Maria do Rosario Partidario, Alan Paton, Ben Phalan, Leo Posthuma, Kees Versluijs, Anne-Helene Prieur-Richard, Andrew Purvis, Sandra Quijas, Alex Rogers, Belinda Reyers, Michiel Rutgers v.d. Loeff, Rene Sachse, Carlos Alberto de Mattos Scaramuzza, Santiago Saura, Kirsten Thonicke, Megan Tierney, Britta Tietjen, Ariane Walz.

Preparation of the Main ReportTim Hirsch, Kieran Mooney, Robert Hoft, David Cooper and David Ainsworth. Braulio F. de Souza Dias provided guidance.

Contributions from the Secretariat of the CBDDavid Ainsworth, H. David Cooper, Olivier de Munck, DavidDuthie, Kathryn Garforth, Sarat Babu Gidda, Beatriz Gomez-Castro, Robert Hoft, Markus Lehman, Kieran Noonan-Mooney, Nadine Saad, Junko Shimura, John Scott, Gisela Talamas, Tristan Tyrrell, Yibin Xiang and Atsuhiro Yoshinaka

Contributors to underlying technical studiesJoseph Appiott, Didier Babin, Jennifer Bansard, Katherine Blackwood, Mateusz Banski, Charles Besancon, Catherine Bloom, Lijie Cai, Adam Charette Castonguay, Monique Chiasson, Annie Cung, David Coates, Edwin Correa, Gilles Couturier, Olivier de Munck, Matthew Dias, David Duthie, Joshua Dutton, Amy Fraenkel, Kathryn Garforth, Sarat Babu Gidda, Beatriz Gomez -Castro, Julie Freeman, Jennifer Gobby, Jacquie Grekin, Oliver Hillel, Lisa Janishevski, Elena Kennedy, Sakhile Koketso Kerri Landry, Jihyun Lee, Markus Lehmann, Andre Mader, Manoela Pessoa de Miranda, Ian Martin, Johany Martinez, Praem Mehta, Leah Mohammed, Brianne Miller, Jessica Pawly, Aliya Rashid, Chantal Robichaud, Cristina Romanelli, Nadine Saad, Atena Sadegh, Djeneba Sako, Catalina Santamaria, Simone Schiele, John Scott, Mitchell Seider, Junko Shimura , David Steuerman, Andrew Stevenson, Gisela Talamas, Tristan Tyrrell, Ardeshir Vafadari, Paige Yang, Atsuhiro Yoshinaka, Yibin Xiang and Tatiana Zavarzina.

GBO-4 Advisory GroupAdjima Thombiano, Risa Smith, Haigen Xu, Teresita Borges Hernandez, Jan Plesnik, Moustafa Mokhtar Ali Fouda, Anne Teller, Asghar Mohammadi Fazel, Tohru Nakashizuka, Roxana Solis Ortiz, Yvonne Vizina, Joji Carino, David Morgan, Linda Collette, Tim Hirsch, Thomas Lovejoy, Stuart Butchart, and Matt Walpole.

The Partnership is coordinated by UNEP-WCMC. Indicator partners include Biodiversity International, BirdLife International, Cardiff University, CITES, FAO of the United Nations, Forest Peoples Programme, Forest Stewardship Council, Global Biodiversity Information Facility, Global Footprint Network, International Nitrogen Initiative, IUCN, IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group, University of Auckland, Marine Stewardship Council, McGill University, National Centre for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, Organisation for Economic Co-operation, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), TEAM Network, Terralingua, TRAFFIC International, UBC Fisheries Centre (University of British Columbia), UNEP GEMS Water Programme, Union for Ethical BioTrade, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, University of Queensland, Australia, and WWF.

Biodiversity Indicators Partnership

Assessment of progress towards the Aichi Targets in the “dashboard” of the GBO-4 Executive Summary

Moving away from

Target

No progress towards target

Progress towards

target, but not sufficient to

achieve it

On track to achieve Target

On track to exceed Target

Insufficient information to evaluate

progress

No clear evaluation

Giant Hogweed(Heracleum mantegazzianum)

Dashboard for Target 9: Invasive Alien Species Assessment has been done by key elements of Targets

Stars indicate level of confidence

No clear evaluation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

No clear evaluation

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

No clear evaluation

Overview of the “Dashboard” for the Aichi Targets

A

B

C

D

E

Und

erly

ing

Caus

esTarget elements Target elements

Dire

ct p

ress

ures

Stat

us o

f bio

dive

rsity

Enha

nce

bene

fits

Enha

nce

Impl

emen

tatio

n

National ReportsBased on an analysis of the 81 submitted reports and 30 advance drafts: • 12% - provide no information• 2% - moving away• 22% - no progress• 62% - progress, but insufficient• 2% - will meet

NBSAPS Example: EU Biodiversity Targets - Comprehensive European IAS legislation due to take effect in 2015.

Percentage of countries adopting invasive alien species legislation

Perc

ent

Year202020101970

0

100

Trends and projections of country’s responses to Invasive Alien Species

Butchart et al. (2010) + update

Database of Island Invasive Species Eradications (2014)

Eradications of Invasive Alien Species

brown rat (Rattus norvegicus)

Introduction events in Europe

Cum

ulati

ve In

trod

uctio

ns

Year20201960

40

100EU

Biodiversity Targets

2011

EU IAS legislation adopted Oct 2014

Trends and projections of species introductions

21 country studies of invasives

Year

Cum

ulati

ve In

trod

uctio

ns

1800 2000

Pagad et al. (2014)

Worsening

Improving

Data compiled by M. Clout, P. Genovesi from Simberloff et al. (2012), updated by J. Russel

Strong, comprehensive responses can work to controlInvasive Alien Species and reduce impacts

Example of New Zealand’s IAS program

Stoat (Mustela erminea)

Researchers, managers and policy makers have identified evidence-based actions for

dealing with Invasive Alien Species

Simberloff et al. (2012)

Climate change and increasing global trade will pose long-term difficulties for managing

invasive alien species

Bellard et al. (2013)

Number of the “100 Worst” Invasive Alien Species that are projected to find suitable climate conditions in by 2050

latitude

longitude

Box 6.1. Sustainability in UK Fisheries

Box 5.1. Pathways for reductions in habitat loss: Brazil case study.

GBO-4 provides a rich set of case studies illustrating successful approaches

Box 15.1. Ecosystem restoration in China

Deforestation rates

Lower is better

UK fish stocks harvested sustainably

Higher is better

Overview of trends and extrapolation of indices across the 20 Aichi Targets

Tittensor et al. (2014) Science

Based on 65 national reports0% 100%

123456789

1011121314151617181920

Targ

etSynthesis of National Reports

Achieving the 2050 Vision and ties with Sustainable Development Goals

• Stop biodiversity loss by 2050• Meet Millennium Development Goals,

with a focus on eliminating hunger• Keep global warming below 2°C

Biod

iver

sity

(Mea

n S

peci

es A

bund

ance

)

Contribution of measures to stopping biodiversity loss

Three scenarios for achieving the 2050 vision

Reduce consumption and waste

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050PBL (2012)Leadley et al. (2014)

Achieving the 2050 Vision and ties with Sustainable Development Goals

Fisheries

GHG emissions Food production

Terrestrial species status

Frac

tion

over

expl

oite

dSpecies status (100%

= current)

PBL (2012)Leadley et al. (2014)

Conclusions

• Progress is being made towards reaching the majority of the Aichi Targets.

• However, this progress is insufficient to attain most of the Aichi Targets by 2020, meaning that a redoubling of efforts is needed.

• Despite considerable progress in a wide range of actions to improve the status of biodiversity and ecosystems, most indicators of the status of biodiversity continue to decline, in part due to persistent increases in pressures.

• Examples of coordinated national actions show that treating multiple drivers and multiple targets can lead to improvements of biodiversity status.

• Scenarios show that it is possible with strong, concerted action to couple improvements in the status of biodiversity, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve the well-being of all people.