GBO-4: A mid-term assessment of progress towards the implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 20112020 Paul Leadley Professor, Univ. Paris-Sud, Coordinator of Technical Report on behalf of the contributors to GBO-4 Scope of the Global Biodiversity Outlook 4 GBO-4 addresses four questions: 1. Are we on track to reach the Aichi Targets by 2020? 2. What actions need to be taken to achieve the Aichi Targets? 3. How do the Aichi Targets and progress towards them position us to attain the 2050 Vision of the Strategic Plan? 4. How does implementation of the Strategic Plan and progress towards the Aichi Targets contribute to broader development goals? Organisation of the report • Scientific literature and other reports • National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPS) • National reports • Indicator-based extrapolations of trends to 2020 • Model-based scenarios to 2050… Sources of information used for the assessment CBD Technical Reports 78 (+79 & 81) detailed analysis Main report summaries Consortium Leading the Preparation of the Technical Report DIVERSITAS, UNEP-WCMC, PBL-Netherlands, the University of British Colombia Fisheries, Centre Faculty of Science, Lisbon and the German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDIV) Lead Authors of the Technical Report Paul Leadley coordinator; Lead Authors: Rob Alkemade, Patricia Balvanera, Céline Bellard, Ben ten Brink, Neil Burgess, Silvia Ceausu, William Cheung, Villy Christensen, Franck Courchamp, Barbara Gonçalves, Stephanie JanuchowskiHartley, Marcel Kok, Jennifer van Kolck, Cornelia Krug, Paul Lucas, Alexandra Marques, Peter Mumby, Laetitia Navarro, Tim Newbold, Henrique Pereira, Eugenie Regan, Carlo Rondinini, Louise Teh, Derek Tittensor, U. Rashid Sumaila, Peter Verburg, Piero Visconti, Matt Walpole. Contributing Authors of the Technical Report Michel Bakkenes, Jan Janse and Hans van Grinsven, Olaf Banki, Donald Hobern and Tim Robertson Katherine Blackwood, Alex Borisenko, Robert Hanner, Sujeevan Ratnasingham, Stuart H.M. Butchart, Marta Coll, Robert J. Diaz, Moreno Di Marco, Luca Santini, Britaldo Silveira Soares Filho, Fawziah Gadallah, Piero Genovesi, Ben Halpern, Serena Heckler, Mark Huijbregts, Lisa Ingwall-King, Miranda Jones, Daniel Karp, Christopher J. Kettle, Rainer Krug, Cui Lijuan, Georgina M. Mace, Peter B. McIntyre, Marc Metian, Scott E. Miller, Mans Nilsson, Thierry Oliveira, Shyama N. Pagad, James C. Russell, John Paolillo, Maria do Rosário Partidário, Alan Paton, Ben Phalan, Leo Posthuma, Kees Versluijs, Anne-Hélène Prieur-Richard, Andrew Purvis, Sandra Quijas, Alex Rogers, Belinda Reyers, Michiel Rutgers v.d. Loeff, René Sachse, Carlos Alberto de Mattos Scaramuzza, Santiago Saura, Kirsten Thonicke, Megan Tierney, Britta Tietjen, Ariane Walz. Contributions from the Secretariat of the CBD David Ainsworth, H. David Cooper, Olivier de Munck, DavidDuthie, Kathryn Garforth, Sarat Babu Gidda, Beatriz Gómez-Castro, Robert Höft, Markus Lehman, Kieran Noonan-Mooney, Nadine Saad, Junko Shimura, John Scott, Gisela Talamas, Tristan Tyrrell, Yibin Xiang and Atsuhiro Yoshinaka Preparation of the Main Report Tim Hirsch, Kieran Mooney, Robert Höft, David Cooper and David Ainsworth. Braulio F. de Souza Dias provided guidance. Biodiversity Indicators Partnership The Partnership is coordinated by UNEP-WCMC. Indicator partners include Biodiversity International, BirdLife International, Cardiff University, CITES, FAO of the United Nations, Forest Peoples Programme, Forest Stewardship Council, Global Biodiversity Information Facility, Global Footprint Network, International Nitrogen Initiative, IUCN, IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group, University of Auckland, Marine Stewardship Council, McGill University, National Centre for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, Organisation for Economic Co-operation, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), TEAM Network, Terralingua, TRAFFIC International, UBC Fisheries Centre (University of British Columbia), UNEP GEMS Water Programme, Union for Ethical BioTrade, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, University of Queensland, Australia, and WWF. GBO-4 Advisory Group Adjima Thombiano, Risa Smith, Haigen Xu, Teresita Borges Hernández, Jan Plesnik, Moustafa Mokhtar Ali Fouda, Anne Teller, Asghar Mohammadi Fazel, Tohru Nakashizuka, Roxana Solis Ortiz, Yvonne Vizina, Joji Carino, David Morgan, Linda Collette, Tim Hirsch, Thomas Lovejoy, Stuart Butchart, and Matt Walpole. Contributors to underlying technical studies Joseph Appiott, Didier Babin, Jennifer Bansard, Katherine Blackwood, Mateusz Banski, Charles Besancon, Catherine Bloom, Lijie Cai, Adam Charette Castonguay, Monique Chiasson, Annie Cung, David Coates, Edwin Correa, Gilles Couturier, Olivier de Munck, Matthew Dias, David Duthie, Joshua Dutton, Amy Fraenkel, Kathryn Garforth, Sarat Babu Gidda, Beatriz Gómez -Castro, Julie Freeman, Jennifer Gobby, Jacquie Grekin, Oliver Hillel, Lisa Janishevski, Elena Kennedy, Sakhile Koketso Kerri Landry, Jihyun Lee, Markus Lehmann, Andre Mader, Manoela Pessoa de Miranda, Ian Martin, Johany Martinez, Praem Mehta, Leah Mohammed, Brianne Miller, Jessica Pawly, Aliya Rashid, Chantal Robichaud, Cristina Romanelli, Nadine Saad, Atena Sadegh, Djeneba Sako, Catalina Santamaria, Simone Schiele, John Scott, Mitchell Seider, Junko Shimura , David Steuerman, Andrew Stevenson, Gisela Talamas, Tristan Tyrrell, Ardeshir Vafadari, Paige Yang, Atsuhiro Yoshinaka, Yibin Xiang and Tatiana Zavarzina. Assessment of progress towards the Aichi Targets in the “dashboard” of the GBO-4 Executive Summary Moving away from Target On track to achieve Target No progress towards target On track to exceed Target Progress towards target, but not sufficient to achieve it Insufficient information to evaluate progress No clear evaluation Dashboard for Target 9: Invasive Alien Species Assessment has been done by key elements of Targets Stars indicate level of confidence Giant Hogweed (Heracleum mantegazzianum) Overview of the “Dashboard” for the Aichi Targets Target elements Enhance benefits Status of biodiversity 1 A 2 3 4 Direct pressures 5 6 B 7 8 No clear evaluation 9 10 No clear evaluation Enhance Implementation Underlying Causes Target elements 11 C 12 13 14 D 15 16 17 18 E 19 20 No clear evaluation Trends and projections of country’s responses to Invasive Alien Species 100 Percentage of countries adopting invasive alien species legislation National Reports Based on an analysis of the 81 submitted reports and 30 advance drafts: • 12% - provide no information • 2% - moving away • 22% - no progress • 62% - progress, but insufficient • 2% - will meet Percent Butchart et al. (2010) + update NBSAPS 0 1970 Year 2010 2020 Example: EU Biodiversity Targets Comprehensive European IAS legislation due to take effect in 2015. Eradications of Invasive Alien Species brown rat (Rattus norvegicus) Database of Island Invasive Species Eradications (2014) Trends and projections of species introductions Introduction events in Europe 21 country studies of invasives EU Biodiversity Targets 2011 Cumulative Introductions Worsening EU IAS legislation adopted Oct 2014 Improving 40 1960 Year Pagad et al. (2014) Cumulative Introductions 100 2020 1800 Year 2000 Strong, comprehensive responses can work to control Invasive Alien Species and reduce impacts Example of New Zealand’s IAS program Stoat (Mustela erminea) Data compiled by M. Clout, P. Genovesi from Simberloff et al. (2012), updated by J. Russel Researchers, managers and policy makers have identified evidence-based actions for dealing with Invasive Alien Species Simberloff et al. (2012) Climate change and increasing global trade will pose long-term difficulties for managing invasive alien species Number of the “100 Worst” Invasive Alien Species that are projected to find suitable climate conditions in by 2050 latitude longitude Bellard et al. (2013) GBO-4 provides a rich set of case studies illustrating successful approaches Box 5.1. Pathways for reductions in habitat loss: Brazil case study. Deforestation rates Lower is better Box 6.1. Sustainability in UK Fisheries UK fish stocks harvested sustainabl y Higher is better Box 15.1. Ecosystem restoration in China Overview of trends and extrapolation of indices across the 20 Aichi Targets Tittensor et al. (2014) Science Target Synthesis of National Reports 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 0% Based on 65 national reports 100% Achieving the 2050 Vision and ties with Sustainable Development Goals Biodiversity (Mean Species Abundance) • Stop biodiversity loss by 2050 • Meet Millennium Development Goals, with a focus on eliminating hunger • Keep global warming below 2°C Contribution of measures to stopping biodiversity loss Reduce consumption and waste 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Three scenarios for achieving the 2050 vision PBL (2012) Leadley et al. (2014) Achieving the 2050 Vision and ties with Sustainable Development Goals Fisheries Terrestrial species status Fraction overexploited Species status (100% = current) GHG emissions Food production PBL (2012) Leadley et al. (2014) Conclusions • Progress is being made towards reaching the majority of the Aichi Targets. • However, this progress is insufficient to attain most of the Aichi Targets by 2020, meaning that a redoubling of efforts is needed. • Despite considerable progress in a wide range of actions to improve the status of biodiversity and ecosystems, most indicators of the status of biodiversity continue to decline, in part due to persistent increases in pressures. • Examples of coordinated national actions show that treating multiple drivers and multiple targets can lead to improvements of biodiversity status. • Scenarios show that it is possible with strong, concerted action to couple improvements in the status of biodiversity, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve the well-being of all people.