International benchmarking: policy responses to biodiversity and climate change in OECD countries

Abstract

Responding to global environmental issues like biodiversity loss and climate change challenge national governments and intergovernmental bodies. A conventional response has been to set targets. Yet to achieve targets, governments must implement effective policies. Indicators that track policy implementation could provide information on individual country progress towards targets and for international benchmarking. We take up a recommendation from Convention on Biological Diversity mandated experts to develop a policy indicator(s) for biodiversity. This expert group identified four indicator attributes: identification, establishment, strengthening and assessment. We review biodiversity (and climate change) policies implemented in the period 1952 2012 in 54 nations using an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) database. We find: the number of countries implementing biodiversity policies increased steadily until the end of the 2000s (identification); evidence of continuous innovation in the types of policy instruments implemented (establishment); and evidence of policy revision and shifts in jurisdiction (strengthening). To overcome a lack of data to evaluate policy effectiveness (assessment) we suggest improvements in data collection and the possibility to combine the OECD database with other databases.Keywords: benchmarking, biodiversity, climate change, indicator, environmental policy. Highlights: We utilise an OECD/EEA Database to provide policy-relevant information for CBD.  We implement four proposed operational indicators to track biodiversity/climate change policy.  We propose two further indicators to assess policy strengthening.  We link the operational indicators to international benchmarking goals.

Open access to science on ecosystem services and biodiversity

“…In order to enhance the provision of this cultural service, the author points, among other things, to increasing accessibility of nature areas through road improvement and investments in public transport. Bark and Crabot (2016) took up the recommendation from the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) mandated experts to develop policy indicators for biodiversity, especially with regard to monitoring progress towards Aichi Target 3. This Target 3 tracks the policy responses of signatory countries to, respectively, eliminate harmful incentives and introduce positive incentives to biodiversity by 2020.…”

“…This Target 3 tracks the policy responses of signatory countries to, respectively, eliminate harmful incentives and introduce positive incentives to biodiversity by 2020. Bark and Crabot (2016) reviewed biodiversity policies, in relation to climate-change policies, and implemented between 1952 and 2012 in 54 nations using an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) database. The authors found that the number of countries implementing biodiversity policies has increased steadily, which has been accompanied by continuous innovation and even evidence of policy revision and shifts in jurisdiction.…”

“…Therefore, the authors recommend that the database could be modified to include and better match biodiversity and ecosystem servicerelated policies. Finally, an important gap identified by Bark and Crabot (2016) is the scarce information on both the effectiveness and the efficiency of existing policy instruments and their transferability.…”