AidData Research Highlighted In Science Article
More investment is needed to reach international biodiversity targets by 2020.
More investment needed to reach international biodiversity targets by 2020
2 October 2014. A new study published in Science today reveals that, despite some progress, more needs to be done to reach an internationally agreed set of biodiversity targets by 2020.
Ecosystems and the biodiversity that underpin them are vital for sustaining human life. Recognizing this, in 2010, 193 nations agreed on a set of 20 biodiversity-related goals, known as Aichi Biodiversity Targets.
At this mid-way point to the 2020 deadline, a team of 51 experts from over 30 institutions have assessed progress towards the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, and projected whether or not they will be met. They reveal that despite increasing management efforts and financial investment in protecting biodiversity, and a remarkable expansion in protected areas on land and at sea, accumulated and increasing pressures on the natural world mean it is unlikely that most of the targets will be met by 2020 if we remain on our current trajectory.
To assess progress towards the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, experts used a broad range of data on biodiversity and human indicators such as global bottom-trawl fishing pressure, efforts to manage invasive species, financial investment, and public understanding of biodiversity. They then projected these trends to assess the state of biodiversity in 2020.
“The Aichi Biodiversity Targets represent the most important international commitment towards preserving biodiversity,” says Derek Tittensor, Lead Author and Senior Marine Biodiversity Scientist at United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre and Adjunct Professor at Dalhousie University. “However, our projections show that the impact of current management and policy efforts is not enough to halt biodiversity declines and meet most of the targets by 2020.”
As shown in the Science paper, increased pressures on biodiversity suggest that the situation is worsening. The consumption of natural resources is increasing. Decreasing wetland extent and declining coral cover reflect large-scale habitat loss. At current rates, Aichi Biodiversity Targets to halve the rate of natural habitat loss and sustainably harvest all fish stocks will not be achieved - but there remains sufficient time to change this outcome.
“The Aichi Biodiversity Targets are still within reach,” says Dr Braulio Ferreira de Souza Dias, Executive Secretary of the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.“We have numerous examples of successful policy efforts to halt or slow biodiversity loss. This study acts as a wake-up call that these efforts should become more widespread.”
Substantial progress is being made on individual targets. Certification schemes for forests and fisheries are becoming more widespread. Policy interventions have resulted in reduced deforestation and led to better managed fisheries stocks in some regions. There is also growing public awareness of biodiversity. Financial resources are being made available to address the biodiversity crisis, but more investment is needed to fulfil all targets.
The results of this study feed into a global assessment of the status and trends of biodiversity – the fourth edition of the Global Biodiversity Outlook (GBO-4) – which is being released on 6 October during the upcoming meeting to the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity in Pyeongchang, Republic of Korea. During this meeting the necessary actions and novel solutions required to meet the Aichi Biodiversity Targets and preserve biodiversity will be discussed.
About the Aichi Biodiversity Targets
The Aichi Biodiversity Targets for 2011-2020 were adopted at the Convention on Biological Diversity’s tenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties in October 2010 in Nagoya, Aichi Prefecture, Japan. They formed part of the revised and updated Strategic Plan for Biodiversity which provides an overarching framework on biodiversity for biodiversity-related conventions, the United Nations system, and all partners engaged in biodiversity management and policy development.
The mission of the plan is to “take effective and urgent action to halt the loss of biodiversity in order to ensure that by 2020 ecosystems are resilient and continue to provide essential services, thereby securing the planet’s variety of life, and contributing to human well-being, and poverty eradication. To ensure this, pressures on biodiversity are reduced, ecosystems are restored, biological resources are sustainably used and benefits arising out of utilization of genetic resources are shared in a fair and equitable manner; adequate financial resources are provided, capacities are enhanced, biodiversity issues and values mainstreamed, appropriate policies are effectively implemented, and decision-making is based on sound science and the precautionary approach."
The United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) is the specialist biodiversity assessment centre of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the world’s foremost intergovernmental environmental organisation. The Centre has been in operation for over 30 years, combining scientific research with practical policy advice.
About Dalhousie University
Dalhousie University is Atlantic Canada’s leading research-intensive university and a driver of the region’s intellectual, social and economic development. Located in the province of Nova Scotia, Dal’s 18,500 students and 6,000 faculty and staff foster a vibrant, purpose-driven community. Across 12 faculties, Dal students and researchers conduct more than $140 million in funded research each year with hospitals, industry, governments, non-profit agencies and universities around the globe. Through learning and discovery, Dal is united in its quest to make a lasting impact on our world.
About the Convention on Biological Diversity
Opened for signature at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, and entering into force in December 1993, the Convention on Biological Diversity is an international treaty for the conservation of biodiversity, the sustainable use of the components of biodiversity and the equitable sharing of the benefits derived from the use of genetic resources. With 194 Parties up to now, the Convention has near universal participation among countries. The Convention seeks to address all threats to biodiversity and ecosystem services, including threats from climate change, through scientific assessments, the development of tools, incentives and processes for implementation, the transfer of technologies, sharing information on good practices and the full and active involvement of relevant stakeholders including indigenous and local communities, youth, NGOs, women and the business community. The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety is a supplementary agreement to the Convention. It seeks to ensure the safe use of LMOs obtained through modern biotechnology and to protect biological diversity from their potential adverse effects. To date, 167 countries plus the European Union are Parties to the Cartagena Protocol. The Secretariat of the Convention and its Cartagena Protocol is located in Montreal, Canada. For more information visit: www.cbd.int.
AidData makes development finance information more accessible and actionable by creating data, decision support tools and knowledge products that enable the global development community to more effectively target, coordinate and evaluate aid. With AidData’s comprehensive data portal – aiddata.org – development researchers and practitioners can compare data on over $40 trillion in remittances, foreign direct investment and aid from 90 donor agencies.
AidData Co-Executive Director Brad Parks is a co-author of the article detailed below, published by Science yesterday. The article draws upon AidData’s highly granular development finance data broken down by sector and activity type to measure the progress made towards the Aichi Biodiversity Targets.
The views expressed here are those of the authors alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the institutions to which the authors belong.