2010年生物多样性目标:指标与进展

针对全球生物多样性急剧下降的态势,2002年<生物多样性公约>缔约方大会通过了2010年生物多样性目标,即"到2010年大幅度降低全球、区域和国家的生物多样性丧失速度".文章分析了2010年生物多样性目标的产生背景和主要内容,讨论了2010年目标评估指标,阐述了全球和国家层次的2010年目标实施进展.最后,展望了2020年生物多样性目标及其战略重点、实施支持机制.     

农业相关“爱知生物多样性目标”实施进展分析

农业是全球景观和土地利用变化的主要驱动力,其不合理使用造成的生境丧失对生物多样性造成巨大威胁。国际《生物多样性战略计划》"爱知目标(Aichi Biodiversity Targets)"的实施是推动全球生物多样性保护的重要举措,其中目标7提到的农业可持续利用与农业生物多样性保护直接相关,同时目标1、4、5、8、13、14、15、18也促进了目标7的实现,掌握和评估相关"爱知目标"的进展状况,是调整、修改和确定全球农业生物多样性目标的关键。该研究以农业相关"爱知目标"为基础,统计所有提交《生物多样性公约》(Convention on Biological Diversity, CBD)秘书处的缔约方目标进展信息,对比分析各大洲或农业大国的进展情况。结果表明,亚洲、非洲、南美洲的完成情况总体较好,高于全球各目标的完成水平,而北美洲和欧洲完成情况则低于全球平均水平;选择的7个国家中,南非和中国完成情况较好,印度和巴西次之,法国、德国、加拿大靠后,总体表现出和大洲相似的趋势;目标总体有进展,但是仍无法有效实现农业生物多样性的保护。通过分析目标的进展情况和问题,研究提出从有差异地制定目标、增加新的可量化目标、设定新的技术指标、加强交流和合作4个方面入手完善农业生物多样性指标的制定思路,以期为《生物多样性公约》第十五次缔约方大会(Fifteenth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties, COP15)农业相关目标和指标的制定提供科学依据。     

《生物多样性公约》下有关农药化肥减量化要求及我国的对策建议

化肥农药的长期、不合理施用,导致环境污染等一系列连锁反应,引发越来越多缔约方、非政府组织和专家的关注。作为《生物多样性公约》(以下简称《公约》)履约的重要内容之一,化肥农药问题对环境污染、农业生物多样性、可持续供应链、激励措施和主流化等议题具有实践意义。通过系统搜集、对比国内外化肥农药施用现状,梳理与《公约》相关目标的进展及演变进程,深入分析该领域面临的严峻形势及存在问题。在此基础上,提出如下4点建议:(1)建立生态农业生产体系,平衡《公约》3大目标,提升化肥农药利用效率;(2)完善可持续供应链体系,减少供应链过程产生的污染和生物多样性损失;(3)明确我国在2020年实现农药化肥零增长,以及在该领域已不存在不利于生物多样性保护的补贴政策的客观事实;(4)将化肥农药因素纳入国家农业政策,并将其与绿色发展、循环经济等其他部门战略相结合。作为《公约》第十五次缔约方大会(COP15)的东道国和候任主席国,中国将以COP15召开为契机,实现污染与主流化、有害补贴、可持续供应链等重难点议题的协同和有效解决,为"2020年后全球生物多样性框架"的达成奠定基础,也为中国农业可持续转型提供重要支持。     

《生物多样性公约》框架下描述具有重要生态或生物学意义的海洋区域的进程与展望

受人类活动以及气候变化影响,海洋生物多样性面临严重威胁,为保护和合理利用海洋资源,2008年《生物多样性公约》缔约方大会第9次会议通过了在开阔洋水域和深海生境描述具有重要生态或生物学意义的海洋区域(EBSAs)的科学标准。2010年,《生物多样性公约》缔约方大会第10次会议决定召开一系列区域性研讨会,利用上述标准在全球范围内开展EBSAs描述。回顾了EBSAs的诞生背景与进程,概括了区域性EBSAs研讨会以及可持续海洋倡议研讨会对EBSAs描述所取得的成果。最后,展望了EBSAs进程下一步工作并提出了我国应采取的应对措施,以切实维护我国的海洋权益,促进我国海洋生物多样性的保护与可持续利用。     

《保护人类赖以生存的生命系统:〈生物多样性公约〉回顾与展望》简介

20世纪80年代以来,生物多样性逐渐成为全球环境保护的热点问题之一,国际社会于1992年制定了《生物多样性公约》(以下简称《公约》)。《公约》生效以来,强化了对全球生物多样性的保护和管理,提高了人们的生物多样性保护意识。     

中国农业生物多样性保护主要政策、措施回顾及2020年后展望

农业生物多样性是生物多样性的重要组成部分,可提供人类可持续发展所需的多种生态服务,但公众对于其重要性的认识远不及自然保护。作为全球生物多样性最为丰富之一、最早加入《生物多样性公约》及重要的农业国家,中国进一步加强农业生物多样性保护,对履行公约及推动农业可持续发展具有重要意义。该研究回顾了过去几十年中国农业生物多样性保护政策的发展过程、具体措施及成效,指出中国农业生物多样性的保护程度逐年加强,在种质资源保护、渔业资源保护、牧业资源保护、外来物种入侵防治方面开展了很多工作,并取得一定成效,但是仍然面临生境退化和破坏、外来物种入侵、遗传资源锐减、环境污染、气候变化等威胁。鉴于2020年后农业生物多样性保护在全球生物多样性保护中的受重视程度增加,笔者对于中国如何进一步加强农业生物多样性保护提出了6个方面的建议,包括:建立农业生物多样性调查和监测体系;建立农区生物多样性保护的国家计划,整合农业多样性保护、生态修复和农业可续发展,推动多目标的协同实现;推动建立完善的农业生物多样性保护政策、法律和生态补偿措施;完善针对外来物种防控的法律和政策;加强农业生物多样性保护利用的方法和技术研究;加强科普教育和推动公众参与。     

全球生物多样性评估方法及研究进展

评估和预测全球生物多样性丧失趋势及其对人类福祉的影响,是当前国际生物多样性研究的重要方向之一。结合全球生物多样性评估的最新研究进展,对全球生物多样性评估的内涵、方法和成果进行了阐述。驱动力-压力-状态-影响-响应(DPSIR)概念框架是当前生物多样性评估项目主要使用的评估框架。按照评估目的的不同,可将生物多样性评估方法划分为指标评估、模型模拟和情景分析3种主要方法,其中全球2010年目标评估指标框架、全球环境综合评估模型(IMAGE)/全球生物多样性评估模型(GLOBIO)组合以及政府间气候变化专门委员会(IPCC)的《排放情景特别报告》(SRES)以及千年生态系统评估(MA)、全球环境展望(GEO)和世界经济合作组织(OECD)环境展望等项目建立的情景模式是全球评估项目中主要采用的评估方法。多个全球评估项目的研究结果表明,全球生物多样性丧失趋势没有得到有效遏制,在21世纪,其速度将进一步加快。在今后的研究中,仍需在理解生物多样性、生态系统服务和人类福祉之间的关系,全球2020年评估指标框架,以及发展基于多情景、多模型和多生态系统的综合评估方法等方面进行深入探讨。中国应认真总结全球生物多样性评估理论和方法方面的研究经验,加强中国2020年目标评估指标体系和中国生物多样性监测网络建设,发展适合中国区域特点的具有自主知识产权的生物多样性综合评估模型和情景分析方法,定期对全国生物多样性进行综合评估,切实掌握全国生物多样性现状及变化趋势,为中国生物多样性保护和管理决策提供服务。     

《生物多样性公约》第十五次缔约方大会(COP15)将于2020年在昆明召开

<正>《生物多样性公约》(以下简称《公约》)于1993年12月29日正式生效,目前共有196个缔约方。我国于1992年6月11日签署《公约》,是最早签署和批准《公约》的国家之一。缔约方大会(COP)是《公约》的最高议事和决策机制,每两年举行一     

《生物多样性公约》第十五次缔约方大会(COP15)会议简介

正作为《生物多样性公约》(简称CBD)的最高议事和决策机制,缔约方大会每两年召开一次,大会成果将主导CBD进程的发展走向,为全球生物多样性保护指明方向。2016年12月举行的CBD-COP13决定COP15将在中国召开。2019年2月,我国宣布CBD-COP15会议地点确定为云南省昆明市。2019年9月3日,时任生态环境部部长李干杰与《生物多样性公约》执行秘书共同发布COP15主题:"生态文明:共建地球生命共同体"(Ecological Civilization:Building a Shared Future for All Life on Earth),这一主题旨在倡导推进全球生态文明建设,强调人与自然是生命共同体,强调尊重自然、顺应自然和保护自然。     

《遗传资源获取与惠益分享的〈名古屋议定书〉诠释》简介

<正>2010年10月29日,《〈生物多样性公约〉关于获取遗传资源和公正公平分享其利用所产生惠益的名古屋议定书》(简称《名古屋议定书》)在日本名古屋被采纳。作为《生物多样性公约》的补充协议,它是近年来被采纳的至关重要的多边环境条约之一。《遗传资源获取与惠益分享的〈名古屋议定书〉诠释》(简称《诠释》)是IUCN环境法中心和IUCN全球政策小组长达一年半合作的结果,是IUCN诠释指南系列的第4部分,其主要目的是促进人们了解《名古屋议定书》缔约方的法律义务。     

Improving collaboration in the implementation of global biodiversity conventions

Eight conventions make up the biodiversity cluster of multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) that provide the critical international legal framework for the conservation and sustainable use of nature. However, concerns about the rate of implementation of the conventions at the national level have triggered discussions about the effectiveness of these MEAs in halting the loss of biodiversity. Two main concerns have emerged: lack of capacity and resources and lack of coherence in implementing multiple conventions. We focused on the latter and considered the mechanisms by which international conventions are translated into national policy. Specifically, we examined how the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and the associated Aichi Biodiversity Targets have functioned as a unifying grand plan for biodiversity conservation. This strategic plan has been used to coordinate and align targets to promote and enable more effective implementation across all biodiversity-related conventions. Results of a survey of 139 key stakeholders from 88 countries suggests streamlining across ministries and agencies, improved coordination mechanisms with all relevant stakeholders, and better knowledge sharing between conventions could improve cooperation among biodiversity-related conventions. The roadmap for improving synergies among conventions agreed to at the 13th Convention on Biological Diversity's Conference of Parties in 2016 includes actions such as mechanisms to avoid duplication in national reporting and monitoring on conventions and capacity building related to information and knowledge sharing. We suggest the scientific community can actively engage and contribute to the policy process by establishing a science-policy platform to address knowledge gaps; improving data gathering, reporting, and monitoring; developing indicators that adequately support implementation of national plans and strategies; and providing evidence-based recommendations to policy makers. The latter will be particularly important as 2020 approaches and work to develop a new biodiversity agenda for the next decade is beginning.     

Using decision science to evaluate global biodiversity indices

Global biodiversity indices are used to measure environmental change and progress toward conservation goals, yet few indices have been evaluated comprehensively for their capacity to detect trends of interest, such as declines in threatened species or ecosystem function. Using a structured approach based on decision science, we qualitatively evaluated 9 indices commonly used to track biodiversity at global and regional scales against 5 criteria relating to objectives, design, behavior, incorporation of uncertainty, and constraints (e.g., costs and data availability). Evaluation was based on reference literature for indices available at the time of assessment. We identified 4 key gaps in indices assessed: pathways to achieving goals (means objectives) were not always clear or relevant to desired outcomes (fundamental objectives); index testing and understanding of expected behavior was often lacking; uncertainty was seldom acknowledged or accounted for; and costs of implementation were seldom considered. These gaps may render indices inadequate in certain decision-making contexts and are problematic for indices linked with biodiversity targets and sustainability goals. Ensuring that index objectives are clear and their design is underpinned by a model of relevant processes are crucial in addressing the gaps identified by our assessment. Uptake and productive use of indices will be improved if index performance is tested rigorously and assumptions and uncertainties are clearly communicated to end users. This will increase index accuracy and value in tracking biodiversity change and supporting national and global policy decisions, such as the post-2020 global biodiversity framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity.     

Bolder science needed now for protected areas

Recognizing that protected areas (PAs) are essential for effective biodiversity conservation action, the Convention on Biological Diversity established ambitious PA targets as part of the 2020 Strategic Plan for Biodiversity. Under the strategic goal to “improve the status of biodiversity by safeguarding ecosystems, species, and genetic diversity,” Target 11 aims to put 17% of terrestrial and 10% of marine regions under PA status by 2020. Additionally and crucially, these areas are required to be of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services, effectively and equitably managed, ecologically representative, and well‐connected and to include “other effective area‐based conservation measures” (OECMs). Whereas the area‐based targets are explicit and measurable, the lack of guidance for what constitutes important and representative; effective; and OECMs is affecting how nations are implementing the target. There is a real risk that Target 11 may be achieved in terms of area while failing the overall strategic goal for which it is established because the areas are poorly located, inadequately managed, or based on unjustifiable inclusion of OECMs. We argue that the conservation science community can help establish ecologically sensible PA targets to help prioritize important biodiversity areas and achieve ecological representation; identify clear, comparable performance metrics of ecological effectiveness so progress toward these targets can be assessed; and identify metrics and report on the contribution OECMs make toward the target. By providing ecologically sensible targets and new performance metrics for measuring the effectiveness of both PAs and OECMs, the science community can actively ensure that the achievement of the required area in Target 11 is not simply an end in itself but generates genuine benefits for biodiversity.     

How should regional biodiversity be monitored?

We consider quantification of biodiversity in the context of targets set by the Convention on Biological Diversity. Implicit in such targets is a requirement to monitor biodiversity at a regional level. Few monitoring schemes are designed with these targets in mind. Monitored sites are typically not selected to be representative of a wider region, and measures of biodiversity are often biased by a failure to account for varying detectability among species and across time. Precision is often not adequately quantified. We review methods for quantifying the biodiversity of regions, consider issues that should be addressed in designing and evaluating a regional monitoring scheme, and offer a practical guide to what types of survey are appropriate for addressing different objectives for biodiversity monitoring.     

Perspectives on area-based conservation and its meaning for future biodiversity policy

During 2021, Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) are expected to meet in Kunming, China, to agree on a new global biodiversity framework aimed at halting and reversing biodiversity loss, encouraging the sustainable use of biodiversity, and ensuring the equitable sharing of its benefits. As the post-2020 global biodiversity framework evolves, parties to the convention are being exposed to a range of perspectives on the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, relating to the future framework as a whole or to aspects of it. Area-based conservation measures are one such aspect, and there are diverse perspectives on how new targets might be framed in relation to these measures. These perspectives represent different outlooks on the relationship between human and nonhuman life on Earth. However, in most cases there is a lack of clarity on how they would be implemented in practice, the implications this would have for biodiversity and human well-being, and how they would contribute to achieving the 2050 Vision for Biodiversity of “living in harmony with nature.” We sought to clarify these issues by summarizing some of these perspectives in relation to the future of area-based biodiversity conservation. We identified these perspectives through a review of the literature and expert consultation workshops and compiled them into 4 main groups: Aichi+, ambitious area-based conservation perspectives, new conservation, and whole-earth conservation. We found that although the perspectives Aichi+ and whole earth are in some cases at odds with one another, they also have commonalities, and all perspectives have elements that can contribute to developing and implementing the post-2020 global biodiversity framework and achieving the longer term CBD 2050 Vision.     

Evaluating global interest in biodiversity and conservation

The first target of the Convention for Biological Diversity (Aichi target 1) was to increase public awareness of the values of biodiversity and actions needed to conserve it—a key prerequisite for other conservation targets. Monitoring success in achieving this target at a global scale has been difficult; however, increased digitization of human life in recent decades has made it easier to measure people's interests at an unprecedented scale and allows for a more comprehensive evaluation of Aichi target 1 than previously attempted. We used Google search volume data for over a thousand search terms related to different aspects of biodiversity and conservation to evaluate global interest in biodiversity and its conservation. We also investigated the correlation of interest in biodiversity and conservation across countries to variables related to biodiversity, economy, demography, research, education, internet use, and presence of environmental organizations. From 2013 to 2020, global searches for biodiversity components increased, driven mostly by searches for charismatic fauna (59% of searches were for mammal species). Searches for conservation actions, driven mostly by searches for national parks, decreased since 2019, likely due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Economic inequality was negatively correlated with interest in biodiversity and conservation, whereas purchasing power was indirectly positively correlated with higher levels of education and research. Our results suggest partial success toward achieving Aichi target 1 in that interest in biodiversity increased widely, but not for conservation. We suggest that increased outreach and education efforts aimed at neglected aspects of biodiversity and conservation are still needed. Popular topics in biodiversity and conservation could be leveraged to increase awareness of other topics with attention to local socioeconomic contexts.     

Enhancing synergies between action on ocean acidification and the post-2020 global biodiversity framework

Ocean acidification is a substantial emergent threat to marine biodiversity and the goods and services it provides. Although efforts to address ocean acidification have been taken under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), a far greater potential to do so exists by finding synergies between biodiversity conservation efforts and ocean acidification action. The ongoing process to develop a post-2020 global biodiversity framework offers an opportunity to ensure that opportunities for addressing ocean acidification are capitalized on and not overlooked. I argue that to achieve this, the following are needed: a technical integration of ocean acidification across the targets to be included in the post-2020 framework and a reframing of the issue as a biodiversity problem so as to highlight the synergies between existing biodiversity work and action needed to address ocean acidification. Given that the post-2020 framework is intended to establish the global biodiversity agenda for the coming decades, integration of ocean acidification will set a precedent for the other biodiversity-related conventions and encourage greater uptake of the issue across the wider international community. My approach is of direct relevance to those participating in the negotiations, both from a CBD Party perspective and the perspective of those advocating for a strong outcome to protect marine biodiversity and marine socioecological systems. My discussion of framing is relevant to those working beyond the CBD within other biodiversity-related conventions in which goals to address ocean acidification are sorely lacking.     

Relating characteristics of global biodiversity targets to reported progress

To inform governmental discussions on the nature of a revised Strategic Plan for Biodiversity of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), we reviewed the relevant literature and assessed the framing of the 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets in the current strategic plan. We asked international experts from nongovernmental organizations, academia, government agencies, international organizations, research institutes, and the CBD to score the Aichi Targets and their constituent elements against a set of specific, measurable, ambitious, realistic, unambiguous, scalable, and comprehensive criteria (SMART based, excluding time bound because all targets are bound to 2015 or 2020). We then investigated the relationship between these expert scores and reported progress toward the target elements by using the findings from 2 global progress assessments (Global Biodiversity Outlook and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services). We analyzed the data with ordinal logistic regressions. We found significant positive relationships (p < 0.05) between progress and the extent to which the target elements were perceived to be measurable, realistic, unambiguous, and scalable. There was some evidence of a relationship between progress and specificity of the target elements, but no relationship between progress and ambition. We are the first to show associations between progress and the extent to which the Aichi Targets meet certain SMART criteria. As negotiations around the post-2020 biodiversity framework proceed, decision makers should strive to ensure that new or revised targets are effectively structured and clearly worded to allow the translation of targets into actionable policies that can be successfully implemented nationally, regionally, and globally.     

Evaluating and expanding the European Union's protected-area network toward potential post-2020 coverage targets

The Convention on Biological Diversity's (CBD) strategic plan will expire in 2020, but biodiversity loss is ongoing. Scientists call for more ambitious targets in the next agreement. The nature-needs-half movement, for example, has advocated conserving half of Earth to solve the biodiversity crisis, which has been translated to protecting 50% of each ecoregion. We evaluated current protection levels of ecoregions in the territory of one of the CBD's signatories, the European Union (EU). We also explored the possible enlargement of the Natura 2000 network to implement 30% or 50% ecoregion coverage in the EU member states’ protected area (PA) network. Based on the most recent land-use data, we examined whether ecoregions have enough natural area left to reach such high coverage targets. We used a spatially explicit mixed integer programing model to estimate the least-cost expansion of the PA network based on 3 scenarios that put different emphasis on total conservation cost, ecological representation of ecosystems, or emphasize an equal share of the burden among member states. To realize 30% and 50% ecoregion coverage, the EU would need to add 6.6% and 24.2%, respectively, of its terrestrial area to its PA network. For all 3 scenarios, the EU would need to designate most recommended new PAs in seminatural forests and other semi- or natural ecosystems. Because 15 ecoregions did not have enough natural area left to implement the ecoregion-coverage targets, some member states would also need to establish new PAs on productive land, allocating the largest share to arable land. Thirty percent ecoregion coverage was met by protecting remaining natural areas in all ecoregions except 3, where productive land would also need to be included. Our results support discussions of higher ecoregions protection targets for post-2020 biodiversity frameworks.     

Evaluating approaches for scaling-up community-based marine-protected areas into socially equitable and ecologically representative networks

Marine-protected areas (MPAs) are vital to marine conservation, but their coverage and distribution is insufficient to address declines in global biodiversity and fisheries. In response, many countries have committed through the Aichi Target 11 of the Convention on Biological Diversity to conserve 10% of the marine environment through ecologically representative and equitably managed MPAs by 2020. The rush to fulfill this commitment has raised concerns on how increasing MPA coverage will affect other elements of Target 11, including representation and equity. We examined a Philippines case study to assess and compare 3 MPA planning approaches for biodiversity representation and equitable distribution of costs to small-scale fishers. In the opportunistic approach, MPAs were identified and supported by coastal communities. The donor-assisted approach used local knowledge to select MPAs through a national-scale and donor-assisted conservation project. The systematic conservation planning approach identified MPA locations with the spatial prioritization software Marxan with Zones to achieve biodiversity objectives with minimal costs to fishers. We collected spatial data on biodiversity and fisheries features and performed a gap analysis to evaluate MPAs derived from different approaches. We assessed representation based on the proportion of biodiversity features conserved in MPAs and distribution equity by the distribution of opportunity costs (fishing areas lost in MPAs) among fisher stakeholder groups. The opportunistic approach did not ineffectively represent biodiversity and resulted in inequitable costs to fishers. The donor-assisted approach affected fishers disproportionately but provided near-optimal regional representation. Only the systematic approach achieved all representation targets with minimal and equitable costs to fishers. Our results demonstrate the utility of systematic conservation planning to address key elements of Target 11 and highlight opportunities (e.g., integration of local and scientific knowledge can address representation and equity concerns) and pitfalls (e.g., insufficient stakeholder considerations can exacerbate social inequalities) for planning MPAs in similar contexts.