Biodiversity post‐2020: Closing the gap between global targets and national‐level implementation

Perino, Andrea; Pereira, Henrique M.; Felipe‐Lucia, María R.; Kim, Hye-Jin; Kühl, Hjalmar S.; Marselle, Melissa R.; Meya, Jasper N.; Meyer, Carsten; Navarro, Laetitia M.; Klink, Roel van; Albert, Georg; Barratt, Christopher D.; Bruelheide, Helge; Cao, Yun; Chamoin, Ariane; Darbi, Marianne; Dornelas, María; Eisenhauer, Nico; Essl, Franz; Farwig, Nina; Förster, Johannes; Freyhof, Jörg; Geschke, Jonas; Gottschall, Felix; Guerra, Carlos A.; Haase, Peter; Hickler, Thomas; Jacob, Ute; Kastner, Thomas; Korell, Lotte; Kühn, Ingolf; Lehmann, Gerlind U. C.; Lenzner, Bernd; Marques, Alexandra; Švara, Elena Motivans; Quintero, Laura C.; Pacheco, Andrea; Popp, Alexander; Rouet-Leduc, Julia; Schnabel, Florian; Siebert, Julia; Staude, Ingmar R.; Trogisch, Stefan; Švara, Vid; Svenning, Jens‐Christian; Pe’er, Guy; Raab, Kristina; Rákosy, Demetra; Vandewalle, Marie; Werner, A.; Wirth, Christian; Xu, Haigen; Yu, Dandan; Zinngrebe, Yves; Bonn, Aletta

doi:10.1111/conl.12848

Cited by 63 publications

(56 citation statements)

References 96 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A first possible extension would be the inclusion of the not yet formerly recognized Indigenous and Community Conservation Areas (ICCAs) and of Other Effective Conservation Measures (OECMs) which are increasingly being recognized as effective and potentially more inclusive conservation tools (Gurney et al 2021). Secondly the tool could be used at the national or subnational level to help prioritizing conservation decisions and support implementing the post-2020 global biodiversity framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity at this scale (Perino et al 2021). Overall, the proposed approach is a valuable tool to accomplish a transparent initial screening of potential priority sites, considering various stakeholder positions, views and preferences, and facilitate discourse and decision-making whilst working towards the overarching conservation goals.…”

Section: Implications For Conservationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Utilizing multi-objective decision support tools for protected area selection

Voskamp

Fritz

Koecke

et al. 2022

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The establishment and maintenance of protected areas (PAs) is viewed as a key action in delivering post-2020 biodiversity targets. PAs often need to meet a multitude of objectives, ranging from biodiversity protection to ecosystem service provision and climate change mitigation. As available land and conservation funding are limited, optimizing resources by selecting the most beneficial PAs is vital. Here we present a decision support tool that enables a flexible approach to PA selection on a global scale, allowing different conservation objectives to be weighted and prioritized according to user-specified preferences. We apply the tool across 1347 terrestrial PAs and highlight frequent trade-offs among different objectives, e.g., between biodiversity protection and ecosystem integrity. These results indicate that decision makers must usually decide among conflicting objectives. To assist this our decision support tool provides an explicitly value-based approach that can help resolve such conflicts by considering divergent societal and political demands and values.

show abstract

Section: Implications For Conservationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Utilizing multi-objective decision support tools for protected area selection

Voskamp

Fritz

Koecke

et al. 2022

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…With a new post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) 1 expected to be adopted at the 15 th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 2022, attention is shifting from debating goals and targets to the challenge of implementing actions to achieve real change against these aspirations 4 . While there appears to be broad acceptance of the role indicators will play in monitoring progress toward the achievement of agreed targets, surprisingly little focus is being placed on the other major contribution they can, and should, make to informing the prioritisation of specific actions (e.g.…”

Section: Integrity (Including Connectivity) Undermentioning

confidence: 99%

An integrative indicator linking area-based actions to national and global outcomes for forest biodiversity

Ferrier¹,

Ware²,

Austin³

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Indicators supporting implementation of the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) are likely to be used not only to monitor progress toward achieving agreed goals and targets, but also to help prioritise specific actions to address shortfalls in this achievement as efficiently as possible. To perform this dual role, adopted indicators must be derived from data of sufficient rigour and spatial resolution to inform decision-making at national and subnational scales. They also need to account for relevant interdependencies between, and within, individual goals and targets. Here we focus on a particularly prominent set of such dependencies – the impact that area-based actions under draft GBF Targets 1, 2 and 3 will have on outcomes for ecosystem area and integrity (including connectivity) under Goal A, and for the flow-on effect that these changes will, in combination, have on the persistence of species diversity. We show how these various linkages can now be addressed across all forests globally, by coupling state-of-the-art mapping of ecosystem integrity with the integrative analytical capability of an advanced habitat-based biodiversity indicator. Results generated for the world’s forest-supporting countries demonstrate that rigorous consideration of the above interdependencies can profoundly alter understanding of the present state of forest biodiversity, and of the spatial distribution of priorities for area-based action, relative

show abstract

“…However, existing NBSAPs have been criticized as primarily aspirational, and suffer from a lack of clear linkages to enforceable policy mechanisms in signatory states (Perino et al, 2021;Ray et al, 2021;Xu et al, 2021). This disconnect has contributed to the general failure of the world's nations to meet past CBD biodiversity targets (CBD, 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previous globally-comprehensive comparisons of national implementation of CBD goals, while valuable, have necessarily been limited in their ability to explore in detail the policies of any one nation (Perino et al, 2021;Priyadarshini et al, 2022). Both of the polities considered here (the US and EU) would merit standalone analysis on this topic, as both are major jurisdictions which contrast in their relationship to the CBD and in the structure of their biodiversity statutes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mainstreaming the Ambition, Coherence, and Comprehensiveness of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework Into Conservation Policy

Carroll

Rohlf²,

Epstein

2022

Front. Conserv. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity are finalizing a new Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) to more effectively guide efforts by the world’s nations to address global loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Each party is required to mainstream the new framework and its component targets into national conservation strategies. To date, such strategies have been criticized as largely aspirational and lacking clear linkages to national policy mechanisms, which has contributed to the world’s general failure to meet the Convention’s previous targets. We use the United States and European Union as examples to compare and contrast opportunities and barriers for mainstreaming the GBF more effectively into policy. The European Union and United States have unique relationships to the Convention, the former being the only supranational party and the latter, having signed but never ratified the treaty, adopting Convention targets on an ad hoc basis. The contrasting conservation policy frameworks of these two polities illustrate several conceptual issues central to biodiversity conservation and demonstrate how insights from the GBF can strengthen biodiversity policy even in atypical contexts. We focus on three characteristics of the GBF which are essential if policy is to effectively motivate and guide efforts to halt and reverse biodiversity loss: comprehensiveness, coherence, and ambition. Statutes in both the United States and European Union provide a strong foundation for mainstreaming the GBF’s comprehensiveness, coherence, and ambition, but policy development and implementation falls short. We identify six common themes among the reforms needed to successfully achieve targets for reversing biodiversity loss: broadening conservation focus to all levels of biodiversity, better coordinating conservation strategies that protect sites and landscapes with those focused on biodiversity elements (e.g., species), coordinating biodiversity conservation with efforts to safeguard ecosystem services including ecosystem-based climate mitigation and adaptation, more coherent scaling of targets from global to local extents, adoption of a more ambitious vision for recovery of biodiversity, and development of effective tracking and accountability mechanisms.

show abstract

Biodiversity post‐2020: Closing the gap between global targets and national‐level implementation

Cited by 63 publications

References 96 publications

Utilizing multi-objective decision support tools for protected area selection

Utilizing multi-objective decision support tools for protected area selection

An integrative indicator linking area-based actions to national and global outcomes for forest biodiversity

Mainstreaming the Ambition, Coherence, and Comprehensiveness of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework Into Conservation Policy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About