Sufficiency and Suitability of Global Biodiversity Indicators for Monitoring Progress to 2020 Targets

Abstract

Biodiversity indicators are widely used tools to help determine rates of biodiversity change and the success or failure of efforts to conserve it. However, their sufficiency and suitability in providing information for decision-makers is unclear. Here, we review the indicators brought together under the Biodiversity Indicator Partnership to monitor progress towards the Aichi Targets to determine where there are gaps. Of the 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets, Targets 2, 3, and 15 are missing indicators entirely. Scoring the indicators in relation to their alignment, temporal relevance and spatial scale shows additional gaps under Targets 1, 13, and 16-20. Predominately, gaps were found to be socioeconomic in nature (i.e., benefits, pressures, and responses) rather than statusrelated (i.e., states), principally due to a poor alignment between the indicator and the text of the Aichi Target. Hence, it is critical that existing indicators are properly resourced and maintained and new indicators developed to be able to effectively monitor biodiversity and its influencing factors to 2020 and beyond.

Biodiversity change is uncoupled from species richness trends: Consequences for conservation and monitoring

“…For example, the 2002 CBD agreed to monitor biodiversity trends to meet CBD targets by developing indicators to capture changes in biodiversity spanning genes, populations, species and ecosystems (Butchart et al, 2010;Convention on Biological Diversity, 2006). The chosen indicators are a mix of data types compiled to maximise many factors including relevance, breadth of geographical and biodiversity coverage, and cost-effectiveness (Mace & Baillie, 2007), yet in spite of this, considerable gaps remain (Butchart et al, 2010;Mace & Baillie, 2007;McOwen et al, 2016). Furthermore, most of these metrics fail to capture the rates of immigration and extinction, which are critically important for characterising the rate and effects of ecosystem change on community composition and function (Shimadzu et al, 2015).…”

Traditional fishing activities enhance the abundance of selected waterbird species in a wetland in India

“…The quantity of captured fish significantly decreased from 2012 to 2015 probably due to overfishing, insufficient management and habitat degradation, pollution (Bijoy 2008) and nutrient enrichment . Providing high quality habitats for waterbirds as well as effective sustainable livelihood through traditional fisheries is of critical importance to biodiversity conservation (Weber and Haig 1996;Erwin 2002;Taft et al 2002;Klein et al 2008;CBD 2010;Mcowen et al 2016). The interactions between waterbirds and traditional fish traps have not caused any mortality of waterbirds in the KVCR.…”

The Species Awareness Index (SAI): a Wikipedia-derived conservation culturomics metric for public biodiversity awareness

“…Specifically, the Aichi Targets set out 20 goals on which the international community should act to alleviate biodiversity decline (UNEP CBD, 2010). Three of the Aichi Targets are well-evidenced (6, 9, and 11), four have intermediate sufficiency (4, 7, 12, and 14), ten are insufficient (1,5,8,10,13,16,(17)(18)(19)(20), and 3 have no indicators (Mcowen et al, 2016). Concerned with public awareness of biodiversity, Aichi Target 1 states that by 2020 the public should be aware of the value of biodiversity.…”

“…Conventional indicators for Target 1 (i.e. the Biodiversity Barometer, UEBT 2019)) are of low spatial and temporal coverage (Leadley, 2013;Mcowen et al, 2016), and do not incorporate awareness of biodiversity itself (i.e. species).…”