In 2010, the international community, under the auspices of the Convention on Biological Diversity, agreed on 20 biodiversity-related "Aichi Targets" to be achieved within a decade. We provide a comprehensive mid-term assessment of progress toward these global targets using 55 indicator data sets. We projected indicator trends to 2020 using an adaptive statistical framework that incorporated the specific properties of individual time series. On current trajectories, results suggest that despite accelerating policy and management responses to the biodiversity crisis, the impacts of these efforts are unlikely to be reflected in improved trends in the state of biodiversity by 2020. We highlight areas of societal endeavor requiring additional efforts to achieve the Aichi Targets, and provide a baseline against which to assess future progress.

No abstract

In BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/). 634A. Marques et al. / Basic and Applied Ecology 15 (2014) [633][634][635][636][637][638] on how to achieve it. Halfway through the Strategic Plan, it is time to prioritize actions in order to achieve the best possible outcomes for the Aichi Targets in 2020. Actions to achieve one target may influence other targets (downstream interactions); in turn a target may be influenced by actions taken to attain other targets (upstream interactions). We explore the interactions among targets and the time-lags between implemented measures and desired outcomes to develop a framework that can reduce the overall burden associated with the implementation of the Strategic Plan. We identified the targets addressing the underlying drivers of biodiversity loss and the targets aimed at enhancing the implementation of the Strategic Plan as having the highest level of downstream interactions. Targets aimed at improving the status of biodiversity and safeguarding ecosystems followed by targets aimed at reducing the direct pressures on biodiversity and enhancing the benefits to all from biodiversity and ecosystem services, were identified as having the highest levels of upstream interactions. Perhaps one of the most challenging aspects of the Strategic Plan is the need to balance actions for its long-term sustainability with the need for urgent actions to halt biodiversity loss. ZusammenfassungIm Jahre 2010 fasste die Biodiversitäts-Konvention einen Beschluss zum Schutz der Biodiversität für die Dekade 2011-2020. Das primäre Ziel dieses Strategischen Plans ist es, den Verlust von Biodiversität zu reduzieren, sowie ihre enorme Bedeutung für die Menschen zu veranschaulichen. In diesen Strategischen Plan sind die "20 Aichi -Ziele" integriert, die in fünf Kernziele kategorisiert sind und als Leitfaden zur Realisierung der Aichi-Ziele dienen. Im Rahmen des Strategieplans ist es an der Zeit die Maßnahmen zu priorisieren, welche maximale Erfolge zum Erreichen der "20 Aichi-Ziele" bis 2020 versprechen. Dabei muss betrachtet werden, dass bestimmte Maßnahmen zur Zielführung möglicherweise andere Ziele beeinflussen (s.g. abwärts gerichtete Interaktionen="downstream interactions"); im Gegensatz dazu können Ziele wiederum die Maßnahmen beeinflussen (s.g. aufwärts gerichtete Interaktionen="upstream interactions").Wir untersuchten die Wechselwirkungen zwischen den Kernzielen und den Zeitintervallen, zwischen den durchgeführten Maßnahmen und dem Eintreten der gewünschten Ergebnisse. Diese Untersuchungen sind notwendig, um die wichtigsten Maß-nahmen mit den höchsten Effekten innerhalb aller Ziele zu identifizieren. Dabei identifizierten wir Ziele, welche sich primär mit den Ursachen des Rückgangs biologischer Vielfalt beschäftigen und Ziele, in deren Fokus die Verfolgung des Strategischen Plans steht, als hochgradig abwärts gerichtete Interaktionen. Ziele, die sich vornehmlich mit der Sicherung von Ökosystemen zur Verbesserung der biologischen Vielfalt beschäftigen, gefolgt von d...

The Country Compendium of the Global Register of Introduced and Invasive Species (GRIIS) is a collation of data across 196 individual country checklists of alien species, along with a designation of those species with evidence of impact at a country level. The Compendium provides a baseline for monitoring the distribution and invasion status of all major taxonomic groups, and can be used for the purpose of global analyses of introduced (alien, non-native, exotic) and invasive species (invasive alien species), including regional, single and multi-species taxon assessments and comparisons. It enables exploration of gaps and inferred absences of species across countries, and also provides one means for updating individual GRIIS Checklists. The Country Compendium is, for example, instrumental, along with data on first records of introduction, for assessing and reporting on invasive alien species targets, including for the Convention on Biological Diversity and Sustainable Development Goals. The GRIIS Country Compendium provides a baseline and mechanism for tracking the spread of introduced and invasive alien species across countries globally. Design Type(s) Data integration objective ● Observation design Measurement Type(s) Alien species occurrence ● Evidence of impact invasive alien species assessment objective Technology Type(s) Agent expert ● Data collation Factor Type(s) Geographic location ● Origin / provenance ● Habitat Sample Characteristics - Organism Animalia ● Bacteria ● Chromista ● Fungi ● Plantae ● Protista (Protozoa) ● Viruses Sample Characteristics - Location Global countries

A recent ZooKeys’ paper (Mesibov, 2013: http://www.pensoft.net/journal_home_page.php?journal_id=1&page=article&SESID=df7bcb35b02603283dcb83ee0e0af0c9&type=show&article_id=5111) has highlighted data quality issues in aggregated data sets, but did not provide a realistic way to address these issues. This paper provides an aggregator’s perspective including ways that the whole community can help to address data quality issues. The establishment of GBIF and national nodes (national aggregators) such as the Atlas of Living Australia (ALA) have integrated and exposed a huge diversity of biological observations along with many associated issues. Much of the admirable work by Mesibov (2013) was enabled by having the data exposed.Data quality, one of the highest priorities for GBIF, the national nodes and other aggregators, depends on both automatic methods and community experts to detect and correct data issues. Not all issues can however be automatically detected or corrected, so community assistance is needed to help improve the quality of exposed biological data. We do need to improve the infrastructure and associated processes to more easily identify data issues and document all changes to ensure a full record is permanently and publicly available.