Monitoring biodiversity mainstreaming in development cooperation post-2020: Exploring ways forward

Brörken, Charlotte; Hugé, Jean; Dahdouh‐Guebas, Farid; Waas, Tom; Rochette, Anne-Julie; Bisthoven, Luc Janssens de

doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2022.05.017

Cited by 12 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Issues related to biodiversity monitoring, aspects of the importance of ensuring the long-term preservation of and access to data are considered in the works of Hardisty et al [3], Alblas and van Zeben [4], Alkemade et al [5], Navarro et al [6], Barral and Guillet [7], Moersberger et al [8], Schmeller et al [9], Schmidt et al [10], Blanco-Zaitegi et al [11], Brörken et al [12], Xie et al [13], Lu et al [14], Cipullo [15], Estoque et al [16], Ren et al [17], Tóth et al [18], Kong et al [19], Li and Lei [20], White et al [21], Spangenberg [22].…”

Section: Aim and Methodologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Information provision for monitoring the sustainable development of the land and biodiversity

Chala,

Korepanov,

Lazebnyk

et al. 2023

IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study is focused on gathering information to monitor sustainable land development and biodiversity. The article discusses the objectives and measures required to achieve Sustainable Development Goal 15 “Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss”. This paper shows the results of the analysis of key indicators and values for Ukraine. It also contains the developed conceptual diagram for managing the sustainable development of ecosystems and biodiversity. There were identified the main sources of statistical information, including traditional enterprise-level data and big data, and analyzed changes in indicators for monitoring the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals at micro level under section “Environmental area”. The study also identified potential sources of information for calculating the presented indicators and explored the use of big data to develop an information base for monitoring, evaluating, and policy development related to sustainable land development and biodiversity. Further research and studies are needed to determine the algorithms of data processing, modelling and constructing of integrated indicators.

show abstract

Section: Aim and Methodologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Information provision for monitoring the sustainable development of the land and biodiversity

Chala,

Korepanov,

Lazebnyk

et al. 2023

IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The KM‐GBF includes the aim to mobilize biodiversity finance (Biofin) of at least US$200 billion annually by 2030, based on funding from all sources, including international, domestic, public, and private (Ainsworth et al, 2022; Brörken et al, 2022). As some elements of the new target do not fit within the existing scope of the Global Environment Facility, a new Special Trust Fund (‘GBF Fund’) will be established to implement the Global Biodiversity Framework.…”

Section: Support For Successmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Post‐2020 Global Biodiversity Framework: How did we get here, and where do we go next?

Hughes

2023

Integrative Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

December 2022 finally saw the historic agreement of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KM-GBF), a landmark framework that sets to halt and reverse global biodiversity loss by remedying the multifaceted drivers behind biodiversity declines around the planet. The KM-GBF follows on from the Aichi targets, which aimed to prevent further biodiversity loss through a concerted effort between 2010 and 2020, but which were not successfully achieved. The KM-GBF builds on the drivers of biodiversity losses rather than their outcomes and sets a suite of targeted and measurable actions to reconcile losses. Developing the framework faced considerable challenges, especially in the face of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, and issues were often resolved at the very last moment. Consequently, compromises had to be made, useful elements were left out, or removed from the KM-GBF to achieve consensus, and some will need to be reflected in other ways, or incorporated into indicators. The final agreed KM-GBF includes 4 goals and 23 targets in addition to a package of annexes including a monitoring framework to set targets and benchmark progress. Particularly challenging issues included the flagship target of '30 × 30' of protecting 30% of land, freshwater, coastal, and high-sea in a representative way by 2030, which will require both new mechanisms and funding streams to enact effectively. Digital sequence information and funding mechanisms also presented major hurdles in the agreement of the KM-GBF. Ultimately, the success of the new GBF depends on implementation and mainstreaming. New targets can only be achieved through the inclusion of all sectors, clear communication, and effective funding mechanisms to guide change and provide the means to implement it. Furthermore, while common but differentiated responsibility is crucial to implementation, impacts of inaction are disproportionate in developing economies, and more resources and support are needed to enable them to develop sustainably and meet targets. This highlights the urgent need for action if we are to achieve the new targets and secure a future for all life on earth.

show abstract

“…A "nature-positive" global goal is needed to halt and reverse nature loss by 2030, benchmarked against 2020 conditions (Locke et al, 2021). This goal should guide Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) and UN SDGs aiming for an equitable, carbon-neutral, and nature-positive world (Bongaarts, 2019;Brörken et al, 2022).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biodiversity conservation by Korean corporations towards nature-positive goals

Cho,

Lee,

Senadheera

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Overbalance of ecosystems triggers global biodiversity loss and threatens the sustainability of society by emerging financial risks from the disruption of ecosystem services. Several initiatives and international organizations have developed guidelines on biodiversity conservation to support the increasing demand for the disclosure of nature-positive business practices. However, corporations’ biodiversity-related performances have yet to undergo a comprehensive assessment, either quantitatively or qualitatively. Here we analyze the biodiversity conservation practices, or the evolution of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) management, of the top 200 corporations by market capitalization in South Korea based on their sustainability reports published 2017–2021. We show that the number of corporations issuing sustainability reports doubled in five years, and over 70% issued sustainability reports in 2021. Based on the directionality of the COP15 agreement and the consistency with the targeted ecosystems, we identified that 22% of corporations report engagement with biodiversity conservation without substantive outcomes. The methodology developed can guide major corporations for biodiversity-related disclosures, including those required by the TNFD.

show abstract

Monitoring biodiversity mainstreaming in development cooperation post-2020: Exploring ways forward

Cited by 12 publications

References 57 publications

Information provision for monitoring the sustainable development of the land and biodiversity

Information provision for monitoring the sustainable development of the land and biodiversity

The Post‐2020 Global Biodiversity Framework: How did we get here, and where do we go next?

Biodiversity conservation by Korean corporations towards nature-positive goals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About