Pr

1
GBO-4 A mid-term assessment of progress towards
the implementation of the Strategic Plan for
Biodiversity 2011-2020 Paul Leadley Professor,
Univ. Paris-Sud, Coordinator of Technical Report
on behalf of the contributors to GBO-4
2
Scope of the Global Biodiversity Outlook 4

• GBO-4 addresses four questions
• Are we on track to reach the Aichi Targets by
  2020?
• What actions need to be taken to achieve the
  Aichi Targets?
• How do the Aichi Targets and progress towards
  them position us to attain the 2050 Vision of the
  Strategic Plan?
• How does implementation of the Strategic Plan and
  progress towards the Aichi Targets contribute to
  broader development goals?

3
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
Main report summaries
CBD Technical Reports 78 (79 81) detailed
analysis
4
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, Celine Bellard,
Ben ten Brink, Neil Burgess, Silvia Ceausu,
William Cheung, Villy Christensen, Franck
Courchamp, Barbara Goncalves, Stephanie
Januchowski-Hartley, 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 Rosario Partidario, Alan Paton, Ben
Phalan, Leo Posthuma, Kees Versluijs,
Anne-Helene Prieur-Richard, Andrew Purvis,
Sandra Quijas, Alex Rogers, Belinda Reyers,
Michiel Rutgers v.d. Loeff, Rene 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 Gomez-Castro, Robert Hoft,
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 Hoft, David
Cooper and David Ainsworth. Braulio F. de Souza
Dias provided guidance.
5
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 Hernandez, 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 Gomez
-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.
6
(No Transcript)
7
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
8
Dashboard for Target 9 Invasive Alien Species
Assessment has been done by key elements of
Targets
Giant Hogweed (Heracleum mantegazzianum)
Stars indicate level of confidence
9
Overview of the Dashboard for the Aichi Targets
Target elements
Target elements
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
C
Status of biodiversity
A
Underlying Causes
No clear evaluation
D
Enhance benefits
B
Direct pressures
No clear evaluation
E
Enhance Implementation
No clear evaluation
10
(No Transcript)
11
Trends and projections of countrys responses to
Invasive Alien Species
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 NBSAPS Example EU
Biodiversity Targets - Comprehensive European IAS
legislation due to take effect in 2015.
100
Butchart et al. (2010) update
Percent
0
2020
2010
1970
Year
12
Eradications of Invasive Alien Species
brown rat (Rattus norvegicus)
Database of Island Invasive Species Eradications
(2014)
13
Trends and projections of species introductions
Introduction events in Europe
21 country studies of invasives
100
EU Biodiversity Targets 2011
Worsening
EU IAS legislation adopted Oct 2014
Cumulative Introductions
Pagad et al. (2014)
Cumulative Introductions
Improving
40
1800
2000
1960
2020
Year
Year
14
Strong, comprehensive responses can work to
control Invasive Alien Species and reduce
impacts Example of New Zealands IAS program
Stoat (Mustela erminea)
Data compiled by M. Clout, P. Genovesi from
Simberloff et al. (2012), updated by J. Russel
15
Researchers, managers and policy makers have
identified evidence-based actions for dealing
with Invasive Alien Species
Simberloff et al. (2012)
16
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
Bellard et al. (2013)
longitude
17
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
Box 15.1. Ecosystem restoration in China
UK fish stocks harvested sustainably Higher is
better
18
(No Transcript)
19
Overview of trends and extrapolation of indices
across the 20 Aichi Targets
Tittensor et al. (2014) Science
20
Synthesis of National Reports
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Target
Based on 65 national reports
0
100
21
Achieving the 2050 Vision and ties with
Sustainable Development Goals
Stop biodiversity loss by 2050 Meet
Millennium Development Goals, with a focus on
eliminating hunger Keep global warming below 2C
Contribution of measures to stopping biodiversity
loss
Biodiversity (Mean Species Abundance)
Reduce consumption and waste
PBL (2012) Leadley et al. (2014)
Three scenarios for achieving the 2050 vision
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
22
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)
23
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.