POSITION PAPER

INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE

IUCN’s position on selected issues Convention on Biological Diversity Twentieth meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA20) First meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Implementation (SBI1) 25-30 April and 2-6 May, 2016, Montreal, Canada

For more information, please contact : Dr Jane Smart Global Director, Biodiversity Conservation Group Head, Species Programme IUCN Headquarters jane.smart@iucn.org Mrs. Sonia Peña Moreno Senior Policy Officer- Biodiversity Global Policy Unit IUCN Headquarters sonia.penamoreno@iucn.org Ms. Victoria Romero Junior Policy Officer Global Policy Unit IUCN Headquarters victoria.romero@iucn.org IUCN World Headquarters Rue Mauverney 28 1196 Gland Switzerland Tel: +41 22 999 0000 Fax: +41 22 999 0002 mail@iucn.org www.iucn.org

Summary of Key Messages

The SDGs are critical for the achievement of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020. As Parties plan policies to fulfil the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, IUCN urges incorporation of biodiversity in all relevant Goals and targets beyond Goals 14 and 15.

Mid-way through the timeline of the Strategic Plan IUCN calls for improved synergies among not only the biodiversity-related conventions but also with related international processes: the Sendai framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030, the International Arrangement on Forests beyond 2015, and the Paris Agreement on climate change to achieve the Aichi targets.

IUCN applauds progress towards two elements of Target 11 by 2020 (terrestrial and inland water areas conserved and coastal and marine areas within national jurisdiction conserved) but underlines the need to advance other elements of the Target including the protection of “areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services”.

IUCN is developing guidance on “Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures (OECMs)” including criteria for distinguishing such areas, how they can be recognised and how reporting on OECMs can be conducted.

IUCN applauds the 50 Parties that have mapped their national targets against the 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets.

For implementation of Aichi targets 6, 10 and 11, IUCN stresses the need to address ocean acidification through reducing, preventing or eliminating anthropogenic pressures which exacerbate the impacts of acidification as well as strengthening ocean resilience through the protection of an effective network of marine protected areas.

For implementation of Aichi Target 9, IUCN draws attention to the Global Invasive Species Database which includes information on impacted IUCN Red List species, Islands and Protected Areas, and pathways of introduction; it thereby supports National Invasive Species Strategies and Action Plans. IUCN fully supports the balanced findings of a CBD-convened expert meeting (2015) on the use of biological control.

IUCN is concerned that the IPBES report’s coverage of drivers of pollinator declines gave undue attention to uncertainty at the expense of documented evidence which has been reflected in draft recommendations presented in SBSTTA/20/9; these propose only minor tweaks to agricultural practice rather than the fundamental changes that are urgently needed in many countries.

IUCN supports the emphasis on building existing indicators. IUCN notes the importance of the distinction between indicators for which methods and results have been peer-reviewed, published and available today versus those that are described concepts but that have not yet been published in the scientific literature.

IUCN urges Parties to explicitly report and monitor progress on the integration or mainstreaming of biodiversity at the national level.

IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature): Position Paper Page 2

Introduction

The Sustainable Development Goals adopted last year provide a global policy framework for the eradication of poverty, for a sustainable, more equitable world. At SBSTTA19, Parties widely recognized that in order for the Convention’s objectives to be fully met and for the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 to be achieved, biodiversity considerations need to be embraced and embedded in policies, practices and plans of governmental sectors as well as productive and economic sectors alike. Biodiversity has to be mainstreamed. As countries set national policies to fulfil the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, they must devise ways by which biodiversity and ecosystem services are conserved and sustainably used including beyond the remit of Goals 14 and 15, which specifically build on relevant Aichi Targets. Last November, Parties also recognized the limited progress made in the achievement of all elements of the Aichi Targets mid-way through the timeline of the Strategic Plan, and called for better coordination and synergies to be established not only among the biodiversity-related conventions but also with on-going and emerging related international processes like the Sendai framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030, the SDGs, the International Arrangement on Forests beyond 2015, and the new agreement on climate change (the Paris Agreement). Only by establishing strong linkages among these different but interrelated frameworks will the world community achieve the ambitious vision of the Strategic Plan of “Living in harmony with nature". In spite of some encouraging progress made at the international level to conserve the natural environment and meet the needs of the world’s growing population, the

biodiversity crisis continues unabated. The decline in the number of African rhinos due to the illegal wildlife trade, which has reached the highest level since the current crisis began to emerge in 2008, is just one yet a dramatic example of the limitations of international laws and their enforcement amidst rampant poverty (but also increasing human greed). The urgency to act on all fronts in order to effectively tackle this crisis remains as valid as ever.

IUCN’s key messages at SBSTTA20 and SBI1 are thus linked to this urgent call for action. For the next edition of the Global Biodiversity Outlook the biodiversity conservation community needs to consider not only a thorough assessment of what has been achieved so far, but also where have we failed to act and why. The shortcomings and negative trends identified in the GBO4 have to be assessed against progress reported in the fifth National Reports together with the revised national biodiversity strategies and action plans (NBSAPs) submitted to the Secretariat since the release of GBO4 and its latest updates. Undoubtedly, the IPBES Global Assessment on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (planned to be released in the second quarter of 2019) will contribute to this analysis but much more needs to be done and now. IUCN presents below its main messages linked to specific efforts by the different constituents of the Union. For some agenda items specific recommendations are made and some editorial changes are proposed to the recommendations and decisions. All in all, the views provided highlight IUCN’s commitment to the implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 in particular areas where IUCN has recognised expertise.

IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature): Position Paper Page 3

Review of progress in implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2010-2020 (Agenda item 3 – SBSTTA20; Agenda items under II – SBI1) IUCN highlights some of its most recent contributions to implement the Strategic Plan through various activities and processes and emphasizes the pressing need for Parties and partners to enhance implementation of the Strategic Plan and accelerate efforts to address biodiversity loss. Achievement of Aichi Target 11 and progress on activities on Protected Areas IUCN welcomes the progress made in advancing the various elements of Aichi Target 11 as reported in SBSTTA/20/2. Particularly encouraging are the Parties’ reports which indicate important increases in the coverage of terrestrial, inland waters, coastal and marine protected areas. Nevertheless, the number of Parties reporting such progress is still very small to allow for a wider and encompassing assessment of progress. The predicted achievement of two elements of Target 11 by 2020 (terrestrial and inland water areas conserved and coastal and marine areas within national jurisdiction conserved) is however applauded and should constitute an incentive to advance other elements of the Target. As correctly pointed out in SBSTTA/20/2, Parties recognize protected areas at various levels, including those formally managed by Governments, co-managed, private protected areas and indigenous peoples and community conserved areas (ICCAs). However, the lack of consistency in the information provided by Parties and included into the World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) complicates the aggregation of information and might even bias the way this information is reported to and collected by the CBD Secretariat and partners. To contribute to the Parties’ better understanding of “other effective area-based conservation measures” the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) created a Task Force on “Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures”. The Task Force convened a meeting of experts from 20-22 January 2016 to discuss the criteria for distinguishing areas that could be described as “other effective area-based conservation measures (OECM)” as a first contribution towards developing substantive guidance. Draft

guidance will be circulated to Parties in advance of the Conference of the Parties at its thirteenth meeting to facilitate further discussion on key issues arising from the work of the Task Force. It will consider how appropriate recognition can be given to all sites, and how reporting on OECMs can be conducted. Furthermore, it will be necessary to establish which “area based conservation measures” are (and are not) considered to be “effective”, the key variable under consideration. In Decision XI/24, the Conference of the Parties welcomed the organization of the IUCN World Parks Congress 2014 (WPC). It also invited IUCN, the IUCN WCPA and other partners, in conjunction with the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, to report progress, develop technical guidance and build capacity towards achieving the full scope of Aichi Biodiversity Target 11. With this mandate, IUCN together with the WCPA has advanced efforts to provide technical guidance to protected area managers on key topics pertinent to the implementation of the Programme of Work and the achievement of the Strategic Plan. Best Practice Guidelines are all available online at the IUCN website. Further guidance on Protected Areas and Climate Change, Protected Areas and Tourism, Protected Areas and Human Health and Well-being is currently being developed. In addition, IUCN WCPA, with support from the Australian National University and many volunteer experts, published comprehensive and freely available guidance on all aspects of Protected Area Governance and Management. IUCN has also provided expert technical support to the CBD-led Regional Capacity Building Workshops for achieving Aichi Targets 11 and 12, including for East Asia, Central and South Asia, Latin America and Africa, and has facilitated the identification of priority action plans for each country in each region. Particular emphasis has been given to better understanding and applying protected area governance and equity assessments, to furthering protected area quality standards through the development of the IUCN Green List of Protected and Conserved Areas, and to ensuring that protected areas are mainstreamed into issues in the wider landscape and seascape, including climate change mitigation and adaptation. Mindful of the importance of an agreed definition of effective and equitable management of protected areas, IUCN has been piloting and

IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature): Position Paper Page 4

testing a new international standard for measuring the performance of protected areas. IUCN piloted the application of the Green List in eight countries during 2014, green-listing 24 areas. In 2015, lessons learned were incorporated into a revised standard and will be applied in the second phase starting in 2016. IUCN will continue to develop this standard for consideration as an internationally agreed definition of effective and equitable management measured at the level of impact and outcomes for protected area sites and systems. With respect to the element in Target 11 which considers “the areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services”, it is important to recall the IUCN-led development of a Global Standard for the Identification of Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs). The soon to be released KBA Standard is a key tool to assist Parties in the identification of sites that contribute significantly to the global persistence of biodiversity in terrestrial, inland water and marine environments. The Standard will harmonize existing approaches to the identification of important sites for biodiversity, support the identification of these sites for elements which have not been considered by other approaches, and provide a system that can be applied consistently and in a repeatable manner by a variety of users in different places over time. Application of the Standard will assist Parties’ achievement of Aichi Target 11. IUCN highlights information document SBSTTA/20/INF/40 prepared by IUCN and which contains the outcomes of the World Parks Congress 2014, as well as a progress report on the work of the IUCN WCPA to develop guidance on criteria for other effective conservation measures. IUCN welcomes the suggested recommendations for a decision by COP13 as contained in SBSTTA/20/2. IUCN encourages all Parties to report

progress made in fulfilling all elements of Aichi Target 11 on a regular basis in order to take appropriate nationally targeted actions to ensure achievement of the Target as a whole by 2020.

IUCN invites Parties to apply the global Standard for the identification of KBAs, which builds on the experience in identifying important sites for different taxonomic, ecological and thematic subsets of biodiversity (i.e. IBAs, AZEs, B-ranked sites, Important Fungus Areas,

Important Plant Areas, etc). To this end, IUCN proposes the following addition to the decision: 1. Invites Parties:

(f) To use the global list of the Key

Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) developed through the application of the KBA Standard as a critical input to support the strategic expansion of protected-area networks, support the identification of potential sites for designation under international conventions, including the World Heritage Convention and the Ramsar Convention, work with the private sector to inform safeguard policies, environmental standards and certification schemes, and support conservation planning and priority-setting at national and regional level;

Achieving Aichi Target 12 IUCN commends the work of the Secretariat towards the regional workshops and the important progress in developing country dossiers that, among others, document success stories on species conservation, establish road maps of priority actions, and thus contribute to a much needed better understanding of this Target. Although IUCN recognizes that The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species is not the only source of species information used in the reports, it considers the Red List and other knowledge products as critical tools to aid decision making at a national level through the provision of disaggregated nationally relevant data from the global list of threatened species. Both the utility and the limitations of The IUCN Red List are outlined in SBSTTA/20/2. The ‘gaps’ in the Red List are being addressed through IUCN’s campaign, The Barometer of Life, which aims to assess 160,000 species by 2020. This will make The IUCN Red List much more representative of currently under-represented taxa including plants, fungi and invertebrates, as well as provide an increased focus on marine and freshwater realms. IUCN is also working to address the mismatch between national and global reporting of species’ extinction risk. Options to improve the availability of nationally relevant species assessment data are being actively considered. Prior to COP13 changes will be made to the IUCN Red List website in order to make information more accessible to Parties, and

IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature): Position Paper Page 5

systems will be developed to allow for the transfer of data to and from the Red List. Notably, tools being piloted by the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew and the South African National Biodiversity Institute will allow assessments to be directly uploaded to The IUCN Red List. Furthermore, IUCN has been working with the United Nations Environment Programme’s World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC), BirdLife International and Conservation International (the IBAT Partnership), to develop a sustainable approach to data delivery, through the provision of an integrated biodiversity decision-support tool to aid national reporting. This tool will provide nationally relevant information that is disaggregated from global datasets, to provide information about species’ extinction risk, the coverage of protected areas and the location of key biodiversity areas. IUCN invites Parties and the CBD Secretariat to provide feedback on this tool, to ensure that it is fit for purpose. As mentioned in SBSTTA/20/2 and SBSTTA/20/INF/44, species conservation management plans are a key step in helping to improve the overall conservation status of threatened species. However, IUCN notes with concern the fact that specific data on the number of threatened species which have conservation management plans is reported by Parties only occasionally. The lack of this critical information is problematic as it prevents the development of a global and conclusive assessment of progress on Target 12. IUCN agrees with the elements highlighted in SBSTTA/20/2, paragraph 60, as those that are essential to enhance progress towards Aichi Target 12, and suggests that these activities should be fleshed out and added to the list of recommendations. IUCN invites all Parties to continue to

make conservation assessments of species, following IUCN Standards and Guidance1, as a step towards achieving Aichi Target 12.

IUCN proposes a further addition to the recommendations as follows:

Invites Parties:

1IUCN-led Guidance is available for Parties at:

http://cmsdocs.s3.amazonaws.com/keydocuments/Reg_Guidelines_en_web%2Bcover%2Bbackcover.pdf – also available in other languages here: http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/red-list-documents

(g) To strengthen investment in order to undertake assessments of species extinction risk, particularly for nationally endemic invertebrate, fungi, and plant species (including marine and freshwater species) not yet assessed at the global level;

(h) To develop national species conservation plans for species that are most threatened or at least critically endangered or endemic species;

(i) To work towards the expansion of protected area networks in areas identified as important for biodiversity or other effective area-based conservation measures, as a means to improve and sustained the conservation status of species, particularly those species most in decline.

Update on progress in revising/updating and implementing National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs), including national targets IUCN welcomes the efforts by the Secretariat to compile out of the NBSAPs, 5

th National Reports

and other sources in a database which, by December 2015, contained 2,229 separate national “targets”. IUCN applauds the 50 Parties that have mapped their national targets against global targets and insists that this explicit correlation between the nationally established targets and the 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets is necessary in order to assess global progress to meet the Targets and the Strategic Plan by 2020. IUCN encourages all Parties, especially

those that have yet to submit their revised NBSAPs, to map their national targets to the global targets.

IUCN welcomes the proposed online reporting tool which will undoubtedly contribute to simplify reporting and will provide a mechanism through which Parties can submit updated information on their national targets and on progress towards the Aichi Targets. Aichi Target 17 calls on Parties to adopt their revised NBSAPs as policy instruments. IUCN applauds the intent of this target: to enable NBSAPs to become “whole-of-government” policies and not solely “owned” by the environmental sector, thus facilitating the mainstreaming of biodiversity into all sectors of society and decision-making. It is thus encouraging to see that some Parties have

IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature): Position Paper Page 6

reported to the Secretariat the adoption of their NBSAP by a variety of authorities including

Royalty, cabinet, councils of ministers, etc. However, the requirement to integrate biodiversity and its sustainable use into national decision-making processes at all levels and mainstream biodiversity across all sectors of the national economy, policy and governance, continues to be an enormous challenge for the implementation of the Convention. IUCN thus salutes the attention the Convention has given to this issue in its recent meetings, welcomes the discussions and key messages stemming from the International Workshop on Biodiversity Mainstreaming hosted by the Government of Mexico in November last year, and applauds the inclusion of this issue in the agendas of SBSTTA20 and SBI1 as well as COP13. The statistics included in the revised NBSAPs so far and reported in SBI/1/2/Add.1 are nevertheless worrying. Out of the 64 NBSAPs submitted after COP10, only 15 Parties report having conducted valuation studies of biodiversity and ecosystem services in their countries; 17 report integration of biodiversity into national development plans; only 12 mention integration between the NBSAP and their sustainable development plans; 21 countries mention links to poverty eradication plans; and 23 make reference to gender issues or women’s involvement in biodiversity conservation. IUCN reminds Parties that the SDGs and targets provide a universal framework from which to build on the integration of nature into the wider governmental agenda. Nature is “woven” throughout these 17 goals and 169 targets that effectively acknowledge that biodiversity is fundamental to human well-being. The links between biodiversity and development policy are made clearer than ever before in relation to poverty eradication, food security, health, education, gender equality, water security, access to energy, sustainable economic growth, sustainable consumption and production, alongside climate change, oceans, ecosystems and biodiversity. IUCN calls on Parties to make every

effort to advance on the adoption and implementation of their revised NBSAPs as “whole-of-government” instruments, allowing for the mainstreaming of biodiversity across sectors, policies and plans; and

IUCN urges Parties to use the framework provided by the SDGs to support this process.

SBSTTA20

Marine and coastal biodiversity (Agenda item 4) - Aichi Targets 6, 10 and 11 Ecologically or biologically significant marine areas (EBSAs) (agenda item 4.1.) IUCN emphasises the importance of scientific processes to document sites contributing significantly to the global persistence of biodiversity as input data into EBSA processes and workshops. Existing mechanisms for such documentation, notably the identification of marine Important Bird & Biodiversity Areas through the BirdLife International partnership, have already provided extensive contributions in this respect, and further contributions stand to be forthcoming from identification of Important Marine Mammal Areas through the Marine Mammal Protected Areas Taskforce of IUCN’s Species Survival Commission and WCPA. More generally, the Global Standard for the Identification of Key Biodiversity Areas builds from, strengthens, and unifies existing approaches such as Important Bird & Biodiversity Areas and Important Marine Mammal Areas, and fills the gaps among them to ensure the identification of important sites across all elements of biodiversity, taxonomic groups, and ecosystems. Therefore, in SBSTTA/20/3 IUCN proposes addition of explicit reference to this new Standard into suggested recommendation 5 (and into Annex IV, Section 1, accordingly). Ocean acidification (agenda item 4.2) IUCN stresses the importance of addressing the problem of ocean acidification, as it is threatening the marine ecosystems equilibrium and consequently the ecosystem services many coastal populations rely on. IUCN welcomes the “Specific Workplan on Biodiversity and Acidification in cold-water areas” as contained in Annex II of SBSTTA/20/4. IUCN further agrees that the workplan should be implemented alongside efforts to reduce anthropogenic emissions by sources and by increasing removals by sinks of greenhouse gases under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Collaboration between the CBD and UNFCCC to effectively tackle ocean

IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature): Position Paper Page 7

acidification is not only desired but utterly needed. It is worth highlighting that IUCN’s efforts to address the ocean acidification issue include the release of the guidance document “Ocean Acidification International Policy and Governance Options” to help conservation professionals better understanding the ocean acidification policy and governance landscape, and the report “Bridging the gap between ocean acidification impacts and economic valuation: regional impacts of ocean acidification on fisheries and aquaculture” that includes findings about the level of risk, and the resilience or vulnerability of defined regions of the world ocean in terms of fishery and aquaculture species as well as an assessment of the economic impacts related to ocean acidification. Furthermore, IUCN chairs the International Reference User Group on Ocean Acidification (OAi-RUG), one of the major global mechanisms to enable the effective science policy exchanges required to underpin international, regional and national actions.

IUCN stresses the need to:

Take actions to reduce, or - where

possible - prevent or eliminate, other environmental and anthropogenic pressures, such as overfishing, pollution, nutrient loadings and eutrophication which are considered to exacerbate the impacts of acidification;

Strengthen ocean resilience through the designation and the protection of an effective network of marine protected areas and by implementing effective marine planning; and

Support the international coordination of integrated ocean acidification research aiming at assessing the current and projected impacts of ocean acidification in terms of fish population levels, coral reefs or other vulnerable ecosystems, threatened species and loss of ecosystem service value.

Addressing impacts of marine debris (Agenda Item 4.3) IUCN stresses the importance of addressing the problem of marine debris and plastic waste in particular, as it constitutes a major threat to the marine ecosystem equilibrium and consequently to the ecosystem services many coastal populations rely on.

Aware of the major knowledge gaps regarding sources, quantities and impacts of marine debris, IUCN has been conducting scientific research to explore the extent and implications of plastic debris in the marine environment as well as in advancing the discussion for best practises solutions for the mitigation of the problem2. Moreover, IUCN is currently coordinating expanded research in the Azores to establish a baseline for marine litter in the region, and has launched a new research project on microplastics pollution in the Arctic and its effects on ecosystems, human health and ice formation and melting. IUCN welcomes the suggested recommendation for a decision from the Conference of the Parties and the practical guidance on preventing and mitigating the impacts of marine debris on marine and coastal biodiversity and habitats, included in document SBSTTA/20/5. IUCN also welcomes the report of the Expert Workshop to prepare the practical guidance (SBSTTA/20/INF/7) and stresses that the implementation of the practical guidance consider the more detailed deliberations of the workshop, such as linking the marine debris issue to Aichi Target 8 that would encourage countries to include marine debris in their NBSAPs and provide progress on implementation through the CBD national reporting process. Marine Spatial Planning (Agenda item 4.4) IUCN contributes directly to marine spatial planning (MSP) through knowledge products on climate change, ocean acidification, as well as with regional projects like the Marine and Coastal Biodiversity Management in Pacific Island Countries (MACBIO) project and the Marine Spatial Planning in the Western Indian Ocean. IUCN considers that sustainable management of ecosystems should be at the heart of marine spatial planning, and therefore recommends that more efforts be directed to further develop MSP both at national and regional levels taking into account the connectivity of marine and coastal ecosystems and necessary regional cooperation on marine issues. Applied consistently as a tool which addresses precautionary and cross-sectoral approaches at the ecosystem level, MSP constitutes an iterative and inclusive process which can support in synergy the

2 Thevenon, F., Carroll C., Sousa J. (editors), 2014. Plastic

Debris in the Ocean: The Characterization of Marine Plastics and their Environmental Impacts, Situation Analysis Report. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. 52 pp.

IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature): Position Paper Page 8

achievement of relevant Aichi targets and contribute to the SDGs. IUCN also stresses the importance of linking MSP with climate change strategies in order to include the anticipated evolution of human activities and climate change impacts in the planning process. IUCN generally supports the suggested recommendations in SBSTTA/20/6. In particular, IUCN welcomes the collaboration called for with the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) in paragraph 6(a) “To compile … national experiences and lessons learned on the development, and effective and equitable management, of ecologically representative and well-connected systems of marine protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, and their integration into the wider landscapes and seascapes, as an input to an expert workshop;…”. IUCN is supportive of the organization of such expert workshop and stands ready to play its part as called for by Parties.

Invasive alien species: addressing the risks associated with trade; biological control; and decision support tools (Agenda item 5) - Aichi Target 9 IUCN has contributed significantly in the development of decision support tools to address the threats posed by invasive alien species. IUCN would like to highlight the launch of the CBD mandated Global Register on Introduced and Invasive Species (GRIIS)

3,

developed within the framework of the Global Invasive Alien Species Information Partnership (GIASI). GRIIS compiles annotated and validated country inventories of introduced and invasive species for each CBD Party. In addition, IUCN is also relaunching the Global Invasive Species Database (GISD)

4 with

enhanced search and download function that now includes information on impacted IUCN Red List species, Islands and Protected Areas, and information on pathways of introduction. This has been supported by the Abu Dhabi Environment Agency, the Italian Ministry of Environment and ISPRA - the Institute for Environmental Protection and Research, Italy. These decision support tools (GRIIS & GISD) provide critical information to Parties to allow them to prioritise invasive alien species and develop National Invasive Species Strategies and Action Plans, ultimately helping advance towards achieving Aichi Target 9.

3 www.griis.org

4 http://www.iucngisd.org

As requested by the Conference of Parties through Decision XII/17, IUCN worked on an information document reporting preliminary global pathways analyses based on data from its knowledge products. Understanding and prioritizing pathways is key aspect of Aichi Target 9, and is essential for invasive species risk assessments and management plans. IUCN has also made progress on the development of a method to rank invasive species based on their environmental impact, with the publication of the framework and guidelines for the Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (EICAT)

5. It has

also undertaken the first assessment using these criteria focusing on selected groups of mammals, birds and amphibians. IUCN welcomes collaboration with Parties, other Governments, relevant organisations and partners to further develop and apply the EICAT. IUCN fully supports the balanced findings of the “Expert Meeting on alien species in wildlife trade, experiences in the use of biological control agents and development of decision support tools for management of invasive alien species” that took place in Montreal, October, 2015, and considers a major priority to develop a synthesis of information and case studies on the use of biological control agents. IUCN welcomes the note by the Executive Secretary in SBSTTA/20/7 to which significant inputs were provided as requested through COP Decision XII/17. Furthermore, IUCN also welcomes the collaboration called for in the same document with the secretariats of international agreements, such as CBD, WTO SPS-Agreement, IPPC, OIE, FAO, and experts from CABI and the International Organization for Biological Control (IOBC) to promote, support and contribute to technical and scientific cooperation related to the use of biological control agents against invasive alien species. More specifically, IUCN recommends the following changes to the proposed decision for the Conference of the Parties as contained in SBSTTA/20/7. Under decision support tools we propose two new additional paragraphs as follows:

5 Hawkins, C.L. et al. 2015. Framework and guidelines for

implementing the proposed IUICN Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa. Diversity and Distributions. 21(11):1360-1363 [OPEN ACCESS]

IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature): Position Paper Page 9

12. Welcomes the publication of the IUCN Global Register of Introduced and Invasive Species (GRIIS) which presents annotated and validated checklists of introduced and invasive species for each Party, developed by the IUCN Invasive Species Specialist Group within the framework of the Global Invasive Alien Species Information Partnership;

13. Encourages Parties, other Governments and relevant organisations to make use of the new Global Register of Introduced and Invasive Species (GRIIS) to inform the development of National Invasive Species Strategies and Action Plans

(NISSAPS).

Synthetic Biology (Agenda item 6) Synthetic Biology is an emerging field of science that has the potential to provide solutions to many of the world’s most difficult challenges, including the crisis of global biodiversity loss. However, it may also pose risks to the goals of conservation and sustainable development thereby deepening the current crisis. Particular areas of concern include the potentially positive or negative impacts of ecosystems with artificial components and engineered species, and how this affects the resilience of existing species and ecosystems. Addressing the challenges and opportunities posed by synthetic biology will require preparation and improved understanding by the conservation community. IUCN appreciates the consideration of this issue at this SBSTTA20, and concurs that there are numerous reasons why synthetic biology is important for the objectives of the Convention. In this light, IUCN convened a meeting on “Biodiversity Conservation in the Context of Synthetic Biology” in Bellagio, Italy, in December 2015, generously supported by the Rockefeller Foundation. Emerging from this meeting, IUCN Member organisations have drafted a draft decision on “Development of an IUCN policy on biodiversity conservation and synthetic biology”, for debate and potential adoption by the IUCN Members’ Assembly at the World Conservation Congress in Hawai‘i, USA, 1–10 September 2016. This motion will be available in IUCN’s Congress Portal for discussion during the months of May and June, and IUCN Members are encouraged to contribute their opinions here accordingly.

IUCN is generally content with the proposed recommendations emerging from SBSTTA and the AHTEG’s work and agrees with the draft decision for the Conference of the Parties as contained in SBSTTA/20/8. In light of the work that the Union is carrying out on synthetic biology, IUCN will like to propose the following small amendment to the COP decision as follows:

(f) Requests the Executive Secretary:

(vi) To cooperate with other United Nations and

international organizations whose mandates are relevant to synthetic biology, such as the World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, including its Committee on World Food Security and Codex Alimentarius, the World Intellectual Property Organization, the World Organisation for Animal Health, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and the Technology Facilitation Mechanism of the United Nations;

IPBES assessment on pollinators, pollination and food production (Agenda item 7) - Aichi Target 19 IUCN is pleased to note that the thematic assessment on pollination drew powerfully from the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, to consider the extinction risk facing vertebrate pollinator species globally and bee and butterfly species in Europe, the only region where comprehensive assessments of the extinction risk of these invertebrate pollinator species groups have been conducted. This reveals not only the prevalence of extinction risk facing pollinator species, but also the urgent need to accelerate assessments of invertebrate extinction risk elsewhere in the world. In addition, IUCN welcomes the degree to which the report delved into the importance of the practices of indigenous and local communities in maintaining pollinator biodiversity. Nevertheless, IUCN is concerned that the IPBES report’s coverage of drivers of pollinator declines gave undue attention to uncertainty at the expense of documented evidence. This has in turn been reflected through to the draft recommendations presented in SBSTTA/20/9, which propose only minor tweaks to the farming system rather than the fundamental changes that are urgently needed in many countries. This is particularly the case for the section on

IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature): Position Paper Page 10

“reducing risk from pesticides”, regarding which IUCN has specific expertise thanks to the efforts of the Commission on Ecosystem Management and Species Survival Commission’s Task Force on Systemic Pesticides (http://www.tfsp.info/). IUCN offers some specific edits to this section in this light. IUCN suggests strengthening

recommendation 5(j) by: o adding mention of “regional” as well as

“national” strategies; o mentioning “regulation” as well as

“risk reduction”; o specifying promotion of Integrated Pest

Management “instead of prophylactic treatments”; and

o taking into account “alternative techniques” as well as FAO’s “International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides”.

IUCN recommends strengthening recommendation 5(k) by changing the word “used” to “necessary”;

IUCN suggests strengthening recommendation 5(m) by adding in parentheses “e.g., in soils” to give a key example of pollinator nesting sites that should be taken into account;

IUCN suggests strengthening recommendation 5(o) by adding mention of “support and advice to farmers on alternatives to pesticides” among agricultural extension services; and

IUCN recommends strengthening recommendation 5(p) by adding mention of “support for alternative forms of agriculture, such as organic” into the list of possible incentive measures.

Biodiversity and climate change (Agenda item 8) - Aichi Target 15 IUCN highlights that, while biodiversity and ecosystems are threatened by climate change, their conservation, restoration and sustainable management generate significant and practical nature-based solutions to climate change that can simultaneously contribute towards both mitigation and adaptation objectives across multiple levels, while also yielding other important economic, social and environmental co-benefits. IUCN welcomes the Paris Agreement on Climate Change adopted at UNFCCC COP21 in December 2015. IUCN particularly welcomes its recognition of the role that ecosystems can play

in combatting climate change, including its call on Parties to take action to conserve and enhance sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gases referred to in Article 4, paragraph 1(d) of the Convention, which explicitly refer to ‘biomass, forests and oceans as well as other terrestrial, coastal and marine ecosystems’. It is evident that strong mutually-reinforcing synergies exist between the CBD and the UNFCCC in the context of biodiversity and climate change, which need to be capitalised on. As noted in SBSTTA/20/10, actions undertaken under the CBD – including for the implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and achievement of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets – can contribute positively to addressing climate change under the UNFCCC and SDG 13. Likewise, the effective implementation of the Paris Agreement and its associated decisions can aid the implementation of the CBD in both the pre-2020 and post-2020 periods. IUCN strongly supports the further advancement and implementation of ecosystem-based approaches for mitigation, adaptation and disaster risk reduction which can yield benefits for both climate change and biodiversity conservation, while helping to meet other developmental challenges. A recent IUCN study (Synergies between climate mitigation and adaptation in forest landscape restoration) explores such integrated mitigation-adaptation options at international and national policy levels in the context of forests. IUCN calls on Parties to incorporate

ambitious ecosystem-based measures as they revise and finalise their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement.

IUCN welcomes the technical study commissioned by the CBD Secretariat on the potential contribution of a wide range of, especially non-forest based, ecosystems to climate change mitigation (SBSTTA/20/INF/3). This is a timely report and a valuable addition to the existing body of literature on this subject. A worthwhile next step would be integrating within this the mitigation contribution of those ecosystems that have not yet been considered, including, for instance, forests and oceans. This would enable a more aggregated and comprehensive understanding of the role of natural ecosystems in climate change mitigation. In the case, of oceans, for example, IUCN has undertaken a study, The Significance and Management of Natural Carbon Stores in the

IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature): Position Paper Page 11

Open Ocean which Parties may wish to consider. IUCN also welcomes the synthesis report prepared by the Secretariat on ecosystem-based approaches to climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction (SBSTTA/20/INF/2). IUCN urges all Parties to adopt and

implement ecosystem-based approaches to mitigation, adaptation and disaster risk reduction across various levels, as appropriate, and also to incorporate them within both their national climate change and biodiversity conservation policies and plans in a synergistic and streamlined manner.

IUCN is supportive of the suggested recommendation to the Conference of the Parties included in SBSTTA/20/10 with the following considerations. IUCN calls on Parties to consider adding

‘mitigation’ in the existing text on ‘ecosystem based approaches (paragraphs 3 and 4) to climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction’ in order to make it more comprehensive and effective.

IUCN urges Parties to make use of the developing IUCN Red List of Ecosystems in paragraph 4(b), as it is a key tool for assessing the status of ecosystems, applicable at local, national, regional and global levels.

Sustainable wildlife management (Agenda item 9)

Effective actions to counter unsustainable and illegal wildlife use and trade and to promote sustainable wildlife management are urgently required to conserve biodiversity and the livelihoods, food security, and human wellbeing that depend on it. IUCN supports the emphasis placed in SBSTTA20/11 on the importance of understanding the complex socio-economic dynamics that shape patterns of sustainable and unsustainable use, including of bushmeat. The focus on the necessity to strengthen the rights and responsibilities of indigenous and local communities in developing effective response is critical. There is a strong need now to move beyond the development and analysis of technical guidance on sustainable wildlife management (SWM) to promoting implementation. To achieve this IUCN suggests a regional approach - focused on

examination of successful and unsuccessful case studies of achieving SWM, enabling Parties and other stakeholders to understand how guidance can be operationalized in practice, what the key challenges and obstacles are, what works and where. IUCN recommends some specific edits on the operative text as follows: Paragraph 72, point 2: Rather than

"technical guidance" the following is suggested: "promote increased understanding of how to effectively and equitably operationalize guidance on sustainable wildlife management"

Paragraph 73, point 3. Before "by elaborating the elements within the road map" insert "by promoting increased understanding of and implementation of existing guidance for achieving sustainable wildlife management".

GBO5, sixth national reports and indicators for assessing progress towards the Aichi Targets (Agenda item 11 – SBSTTA; agenda item 13 – SBI) Indicators for assessing progress IUCN considers the use of indicators to track progress towards intergovernmental commitments and targets as essential, and views the review of the current suite of available indicators as vital, in order to ensure that the indicators are fit for purpose

6.

IUCN consistently argues that the top priority action regarding indicators is to strengthen investment in the maintenance of existing indicators and the information which underpin them. Furthermore, IUCN supports building on existing indicators, with the incorporation of new indicators based on new datasets and emerging technology where generic indicators have no specific indicators proposed. This approach is vital for best use of resources and to avoid duplication of effort.

6 Brooks, TM, Butchart

, SHM, Cox, NA, Heath

M, Hilton-

Taylor, C, Hoffmann, M, Kingston

, N, Rodríguez, JP, Stuart

,

SN and Smart, J. (2015) Harnessing biodiversity and conservation knowledge products to track the Aichi Targets and Sustainable Development Goals, Biodiversity 16 (2-3): 157-174; www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14888386.2015.1075903

IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature): Position Paper Page 12

Regarding the information related to indicators that is made available to Parties and partners in SBSTTA/20/13, IUCN notes the importance of the distinction between indicators for which methods and results have been peer-reviewed, published and available today versus those that are described concepts but that have not yet been operationalized, peer-reviewed, and/or published in the scientific literature. IUCN views the system of scoring of indicators for their ease of communication and global or national disaggregation as hugely beneficial for the application of indicators. IUCN notes that protected area coverage of key biodiversity areas has now been proposed by the UN as an indicator towards SDG target 15.1 (in the specific formulation “Proportion of important sites for terrestrial and freshwater biodiversity that are covered by protected areas, by ecosystem type”

7). This should be reflected

in the Annex to SBSTTA/20/13 (4th specific indicator for Aichi Target 11) accordingly. Finally, IUCN welcomes the online guidance prepared by the Biodiversity Indicators Partnership (BIP), as a useful resource to assist Parties in the development of national indicators or disaggregation of global indicators, to track national progress towards the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity and its Aichi Targets

8. We further

commend the efforts of the BIP to address the gaps in the current indicators suite. Guidelines for the sixth National Reports IUCN welcomes and supports the efforts of the Secretariat to assist Parties towards more coherent and consistent reporting through the “Guidelines for the sixth national report” in SBSTTA/20/13, SBSTTA/20/13/Add.1, SBI/1/11/Add.1. IUCN considers that the proposed online reporting tool and its accompanying reporting templates will significantly improve overall aggregation of the information being reported, allow for better assessments and analysis of global trends in biodiversity conservation, enduring threats and challenges and most importantly, by requesting the explicit referencing (mapping) of national targets against the Aichi Targets, and hence allow for clearer assessment of the global achievement of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity by 2020. Importantly, offline versions of the reporting templates should be made available to Parties that face internet

7 See: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/statcom/47th-

session/documents/2016-2-SDGs-Rev1-E.pdf, p. 56 8 http://www.bipindicators.net/nationalindicatordevelopment

connection problems as mentioned in the document. IUCN encourages Parties to start testing

the online reporting tool and templates as soon as possible in order to allow for their adaptation before the next reporting cycle.

The reporting tool suggests reporting on national contributions to the achievement of each target for the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation. This approach will reduce duplicative reporting formats and effort, and may allow for global level analysis of progress towards the Strategic Plan and other programmes of work. IUCN recommends that Parties consider the inclusion of reporting towards SDGS in their reports of progress towards other Conventions, in a manner that is not duplicative of other national reporting processes. IUCN suggests that a simple addition to the current 6

th National

Reports template could suffice in this regard, as work is already underway and information is available to Parties relating to indicators that track progress to both the SDGS and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets; this should streamline and reduce reporting burden.

Mainstreaming biodiversity across sectors, including agriculture, forests and fisheries (Agenda item 13 – SBSTTA; agenda item 7 - SBI) There is no single definition of “biodiversity mainstreaming”; nevertheless it is generally understood as ensuring that biodiversity and the services it provides, is appropriately and adequately integrated into the policies and practices that impact it. These include cross-sectoral and sector-specific plans. Tackling biodiversity loss and its drivers implies addressing the sectors that impact and also depend on biodiversity. In spite of significant progress made in sharpening the arguments for the integration of biodiversity considerations into sectors, efforts must now meet the challenges of translating the theory of mainstreaming into practice more widely and in a sustained manner. Forests, fisheries and agriculture depend and impact biodiversity in various ways and at different levels. Sectoral and economic policies and practices have advanced and adapted to the changing conditions and the complex web of interactions between our natural environment and human livelihoods have been increasingly

IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature): Position Paper Page 13

well documented. The numerous resolutions and recommendations adopted by IUCN Members at the World Conservation Congresses over the years are a good example of the evolution in the understanding of the linkages between agriculture and biodiversity. Resolutions related to agriculture in the most recent Congresses for instance, have stressed the connection between poverty reduction, food security and conservation, expressed concern about the increase in the use of systemic pesticides in agricultural practices and its impact on global biodiversity, recognized the fundamental role biodiversity and ecosystem services play in achieving food and nutrition security and highlighted the potential benefits of organic and other forms of agriculture in contrast with agricultural practices that use GMOs (and the threats that this may pose to biodiversity). IUCN concurs with the need to further develop comprehensive and coherent policy frameworks, engaging all relevant stakeholders including indigenous peoples and local communities, improving awareness and coordination across sectors, providing additional guidance and technical support on issues related to spatial planning and management to promote integrated landscape and seascapes approaches, understanding and applying economic and social incentives for biodiversity conservation, among others as highlighted in SBSTTA/20/15, SBI/1/5/Add.1. IUCN is of the view that reporting on how the integration or mainstreaming of biodiversity is being conducted at the national level needs to be strengthened in the revised NBSAPs (and National Reports) and monitored in their implementation. So far, information about national mainstreaming efforts is scattered in a myriad of sources and lessons learned about what has worked in specific cases, projects or countries are equally dispersed. Furthermore, not all Parties include information about mainstreaming efforts and their national plans in their revised NBSAPs in a similar way, something that hampers the development of a global assessment of progress on the mainstreaming aspects of Aichi Target 17. The inclusion in the online reporting tool for the 6

th National Reports of a section where “case

studies illustrating actions taken which have resulted in (or are expected to result in) outcomes in the implementation of national targets, including relevant cases from the implementation of the updated NBSAP or the mainstreaming of biodiversity into relevant sectors” is an encouraging development.

Aiming at documenting in simple and practical way success stories of mainstreaming biodiversity, IUCN together with BirdLife International has produced a series of factsheets showcasing examples where challenges to biodiversity integration have been overcome and positive impacts on biodiversity and human well-being have been observed. Parties are encouraged to contribute with their own case studies and experiences. In this context, it is important to note the work of the Fisheries Expert Group of the IUCN Commission on Ecosystem Management (CEM FEG). The CEM FEG recently convened together with the CBD Secretariat and FAO, an Expert Meeting which brought together representatives of both the conservation and fisheries communities to explore further opportunities and feasible pathways to jointly achieve better reporting on policies, governance and results to advance Aichi Target 6. Finally, IUCN generally agrees with the scope and intention of the suggested recommendation for a decision by the Conference of the Parties as contained in SBSTTA/20/15, SBI/1/5/Add.1.

SBI1

Review of progress towards Aichi Biodiversity Target 16 on the Nagoya Protocol (Agenda item II.5) IUCN welcomes the significant progress made in advancing the full implementation of Aichi Target 16 on the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-Sharing. After the Protocol entered into force in October 2014, 73 Parties have ratified, acceded, accepted or approved (by March 20, 2016). The first part of the Target is effectively already achieved as stated in SBI/1/3. Now all efforts have to turn to making the Protocol operational and consistent with national legislation. IUCN thus strongly encourages Parties

to the Convention that have not yet done so, to complete their national ratification, accession, acceptance or approval processes before the next Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Protocol (COP-MOP2).

IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature): Position Paper Page 14

Operationalization of the Protocol at the national level requires careful analysis of country circumstances concerning the existence and status of administrative, legislative and policy measures regarding the management, access and benefit-sharing modalities of genetic resources. This situation analysis is important as it should provide for a better assessment of the national context, the existing gaps and best entry points for a step-wise Action Plan. However, the compilation and reporting of information about the specific national ABS circumstances is not always systematic and varies from country to country, complicating the global assessment of progress towards the implementation of the second part of Aichi Target 16. Nonetheless, IUCN commends Parties that have provided information on their institutional structures for operationalization of the Protocol, administrative, policy and legislative measures to the Secretariat as reported in SBI/1/3. Particularly encouraging are the additional measures and steps taken by some Parties (and some non-Parties too) in the implementation of their national ABS frameworks. IUCN also applauds the efforts made by the Secretariat in trying to gather as much information from a variety of sources, including the material reported by Parties through the ABS Clearing-House, the revised NBSAPs and 5

th National

Reports, among others.

IUCN urges Parties to make national level information concerning the operationalization of the Nagoya Protocol available in a timely manner to the CBD Secretariat to allow for better understanding and assessment of progress towards meeting Aichi Target 16;

IUCN equally urges Parties to use the various communication and reporting channels already available to provide this information and in case of impediments to fulfil this requirement, equally communicate existing challenges to the Secretariat.

IUCN wishes to highlight and commend the number of access and benefit-sharing capacity-building and development initiatives (activities, projects and programmes) that have been initiated or implemented to support the ratification and implementation of the Protocol since its adoption in 2010. IUCN is supportive of targeted and well-coordinated capacity-building and development initiatives to advance on the

implementation of the Protocol. IUCN participated in the Informal Advisory Committee on Capacity-Building for the implementation of the Nagoya Protocol held in September 2015 and invites Parties to consult the document that was prepared for that occasion and which compiles information on capacity-building and development projects and initiatives. IUCN insists that effective capacity-building initiatives are those that respond to nationally determined demands and has focused on offering such assistance when needed. For instance, recent efforts have concentrated in better understanding capacity needs and gaps in the ten countries members of the Commission of Central African Forests (COMIFAC) thanks to the financial support of the French Government. More targeted work stemming from an initial situation analysis is being planned for the near future in close collaboration with other partners in the region and the COMIFAC Secretariat. Finally, IUCN supports the proposed recommendations as included in SBI/1/3.

Strengthening support for implementation - Cooperation with other conventions, international organizations and initiatives: enhancing synergies among biodiversity-related conventions (Agenda item 11) IUCN welcomes the inclusion of this issue in the agenda of SBI. The importance of enhancing synergies among the biodiversity-related conventions, thus avoiding duplication of efforts, increasing efficiency and coherence, has been recognized in the decisions of the governing bodies of these agreements over the years. However, there is still ample room to strengthen efforts further in that regard, taking into account relevant experiences. The options proposed under the UNEP project on “improving the effectiveness of and cooperation among biodiversity-related conventions and exploring opportunities for further synergies”, the UNEP 2015 Sourcebook of opportunities for enhancing cooperation among the Biodiversity-related Conventions at national and regional levels, and the discussions held at the CBD workshop on synergies among the biodiversity-related conventions (Geneva, 8–11 February, 2016), are some of the examples of recent efforts to strengthen synergies and propose practical options for collaboration. IUCN is supportive of all these efforts.

IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature): Position Paper Page 15

IUCN agrees that the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020, the Aichi Biodiversity Targets and NBSAPs provide a framework for action which is key to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystem services. More specifically, they provide a framework with which biodiversity-related conventions and United Nations bodies align themselves, and within which synergies in the implementation of such conventions may be addressed in a systematic and integrated way. Moreover, the universal framework provided by the SDGs provides an opportunity for common synergistic action at all levels. IUCN considers it essential that attention is now focused on developing and providing more

specific and targeted guidance to the National Focal Points of the various biodiversity-related conventions in order to enhance synergies using NBSAPs as the basis for such harmonised actions. IUCN welcomes the invitation stemming from the recent Geneva workshop to look for coordinated actions to create and implement synergies among the biodiversity-related conventions (NBSAPs and other strategic plans). IUCN looks forward to working together with relevant organizations, FAO, UNEP and UNESCO on this important endeavor.