2020年全球生物多样性目标解读及其评估指标探讨

2010年以来,全球开展了讨论和咨询,确定世界生物多样性保护的路线图。2010年10月在日本召开的《生物多样性公约》缔约方大会第十次会议通过了《生物多样性战略计划》（2011—2020年）。该战略计划确立了2020年全球生物多样性目标（简称2020年目标）,设计了世界生物多样性保护的路线图和时间表,为制定国家目标提供了灵活的框架。该文剖析了《生物多样性公约》各缔约方对2020年目标的谈判立场,解读了2020年目标的内涵,论述了2020年目标评估指标研究的最新进展,在进一步加强生物多样性评价指标研究、建设生物多样性监测标准和网络、开展生物多样性长期监测方面提出了建议。     

生物多样性保护规划与旅游一体化

在开发与实施国家生物多样性战略和行动计划的工作中 , 联合国环境规划署 /联合国开发计划 署 /全球环保基金会 “ 生物多样性规划扶持计划 “ ( BPSP) 对国家生物多样性保护规划者提供 帮助 . “ 生物多样性规划扶持计划 “ 专门研究旅游中生物多样性方方面面的一体化 , 重心是 要把 “ 全球最佳实践 “ 贯彻到这些战略与行动规划中去 . 本文重点介绍了哥斯达黎加、南非 、伯利兹和其他国家的生态旅游 .     

生物多样性保护规划与旅游一体化

在开发与实施国家生物多样性战略和行动计划的工作中,联合国环境规划署/联合国开发计划署/全球环保基金会“生物多样性规划扶持计划”（BPSP）对国家生物多样性保护规划者提供帮助.“生物多样性规划扶持计划”专门研究旅游中生物多样性方方面面的一体化,重心是要把“全球最佳实践”贯彻到这些战略与行动规划中去.本文重点介绍了哥斯达黎加、南非、伯利兹和其他国家的生态旅游.     

生物多样性保护规划与旅游一体化

在开发与实施国家生物多样性战略和行动计划的工作中 , 联合国环境规划署 /联合国开发计划 署 /全球环保基金会 " 生物多样性规划扶持计划 " ( BPSP) 对国家生物多样性保护规划者提供 帮助 . " 生物多样性规划扶持计划 " 专门研究旅游中生物多样性方方面面的一体化 , 重心是 要把 " 全球最佳实践 " 贯彻到这些战略与行动规划中去 . 本文重点介绍了哥斯达黎加、南非 、伯利兹和其他国家的生态旅游 .     

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。     

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。     

生物多样性保护规划与旅游一体化

在开发与实施国家生物多样性战略和行动计划的工作中，联合国环境规划署／联合国开发计划署／全球环保基金会“生物多样性规划扶持计划”（BPSP）对国家生物多样性保护规划者提供帮助。“生物多样性规划扶持计划”专门研究旅游中生物多样性方方面面的一体化，重心是要把“全球最佳实践”贯彻到这些战略与行动规划中去，本文重点介绍了哥斯达黎加，南非，伯利兹和其他国家的生态旅游。     

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。     

《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。     

运用NbS推进应对气候变化与保护生物多样性协同治理

应对气候变化与保护生物多样性协同治理这一全球关注的热点问题,自然的解决方案(NbS)提供了新思路.NbS在应对气候变化和保护生物多样性方面发挥重要作用,且在应对气候变化与保护生物多样性协同治理方面具有较大潜力.我国在二者协同治理方面取得了一定成效,其中实施生态保护红线制度,构建以国家公园为主体的自然保护地体系,确立生物...     

The 2010 Biodiversity Indicators: Challenges for Science and Policy

Abstract:  The 2010 biodiversity target adopted globally and in Europe is an important political commitment for improved biodiversity conservation and management. Whether or not it is achieved will be judged by a set of biodiversity indicators now under development. We reviewed the development of these indicators in Europe and globally, paying particular attention to the need to make the indicators relevant to the purpose; to distinguish between measures of pressure, state, and response; to design and validate the indicators in context; to ensure effective communication with relevant audiences; to turn lists of measures into simple or composite indicators; and to maximize the cost-effectiveness of the indicator process. We conclude that urgent steps are needed to complete the indicator set, reduce and refine the agreed measures, ensure that work is started soon so that reliable reporting occurs in 2010, and start soon on planning for subsequent assessments.     

Monitoring Change in Vertebrate Abundance: the Living Planet Index

Abstract:  The task of measuring the decline of global biodiversity and instituting changes to halt and reverse this downturn has been taken up in response to the Convention on Biological Diversity's 2010 target. It is an undertaking made more difficult by the complex nature of biodiversity and the consequent difficulty in accurately gauging its depletion. In the Living Planet Index, aggregated population trends among vertebrate species indicate the rate of change in the status of biodiversity, and this index can be used to address the question of whether or not the 2010 target has been achieved. We investigated the use of generalized additive models in aggregating large quantities of population trend data, evaluated potential bias that results from collation of existing trends, and explored the feasibility of disaggregating the data (e.g., geographically, taxonomically, regionally, and by thematic area). Our results show strengths in length and completeness of data, little evidence of bias toward threatened species, and the possibility of disaggregation into meaningful subsets. Limitations of the data set are still apparent, in particular the dominance of bird data and gaps in tropical-species population coverage. Population-trend data complement the longer-term, but more coarse-grained, perspectives gained by evaluating species-level extinction rates. To measure progress toward the 2010 target, indicators must be adapted and strategically supplemented with existing data to generate meaningful indicators in time. Beyond 2010, it is critical a strategy be set out for the future development of indicators that will deal with existing data gaps and that is intricately tied to the goals of future biodiversity targets.     

A Global Indicator for Biological Invasion

Abstract:  "Trends in invasive alien species" is one of only two indicators of threat to biodiversity that form part of the Convention on Biological Diversity's (CBD) framework for monitoring progress toward its "2010 target" (i.e., the commitment to achieve by 2010 a significant reduction in the current rate of biodiversity loss). To date, however, there is no fully developed indicator for invasive alien species (IAS) that combines trends, derived from a standard set of methods, across species groups, ecosystems, and regions. Here we provide a rationale for the form and characteristics of an indicator of trends in IAS that will meet the 2010 framework goal and targets for this indicator. We suggest single and composite indicators that include problem-status and management-status measures that are designed to be flexible, readily disaggregated, and as far as possible draw on existing data. The single indicators at national and global scales are number of IAS and numbers of operational management plans for IAS. Global trends in IAS are measured as the progress of nations toward the targets of stabilizing IAS numbers and the implementation of IAS management plans. The proposed global indicator thus represents a minimum information set that most directly addresses the indicator objective and simultaneously aims to maximize national participation. This global indicator now requires testing to assess its accuracy, sensitivity, and tractability. Although it may not be possible to achieve the desired objective for a global indicator of biological invasion by 2010 as comprehensively as desired, it seems possible to obtain trend estimates for a component of the taxa, ecosystems, and regions involved. Importantly, current indicator development initiatives will also contribute to developing the mechanisms necessary for monitoring global trends in IAS beyond 2010.     

National Red Listing Beyond the 2010 Target

Abstract: Following creation of the 2010 Biodiversity Target under the Convention on Biological Diversity and adoption of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals, information on status and trends of biodiversity at the national level has become increasingly important to both science and policy. National red lists (NRLs) of threatened species may provide suitable data for reporting on progress toward these goals and for informing national conservation priority setting. This information will also become increasingly important for developing species‐ and ecosystem‐based strategies for climate change adaptation. We conducted a thorough global review of NRLs in 109 countries and analyzed gaps in NRL coverage in terms of geography and taxonomy to determine priority regions and taxonomic groups for further investment. We then examined correlations between the NRL data set and gross domestic product (GDP) and vertebrate species richness. The largest geographic gap was in Oceania, followed by middle Africa, the Caribbean, and western Africa, whereas the largest taxonomic gaps were for invertebrates, fungi, and lichens. The comprehensiveness of NRL coverage within a given country was positively correlated with GDP and negatively correlated with total vertebrate richness and threatened vertebrate richness. This supports the assertion that regions with the greatest and most vulnerable biodiversity receive the least conservation attention and indicates that financial resources may be an integral limitation. To improve coverage of NRLs, we propose a combination of projects that target underrepresented taxa or regions and projects that provide the means for countries to create or update NRLs on their own. We recommend improvements in knowledge transfer within and across regions as a priority for future investment.     

Monitoring of Biological Diversity: a Common-Ground Approach

Abstract:  Practical approaches to monitoring biological diversity vary widely among countries, and the accumulating data are frequently not generalizable at the international scale. Although many present monitoring schemes, especially in developed countries, produce highly complex data, there is often a lack of basic data about the level and spatial distribution of biodiversity. We augmented the general framework for improving biomonitoring, proposed by Green et al. (2005) , and identified its core tasks and attributes. The first priority for a more unified biodiversity monitoring is to agree on a minimum set of core tasks and attributes, which will make it possible to build a standardized biomonitoring system even in countries with few resources. Our scheme has two main organizational levels—taxa and ecosystems. The basic elements of the biomonitoring system proposed are recording of presence and absence of taxa and ecosystems in a target area, mapping of their distribution in space, and assessment of their status. All the elements have to be repeated over time. Although these tasks are fundamental, they are frequently not considered in currently functioning biomonitoring programs. The whole system has to be hierarchical and additive: if more resources are available, new activities may be added to the basic routine. Agreeing on a common standard will facilitate aggregating measures of biodiversity status and trends into regional and global indices. This information will relate directly to several Convention on Biological Diversity indicators for assessing progress toward the 2010 Biodiversity Target.     

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.     

How percentage-protected targets can support positive biodiversity outcomes

Global targets for the percentage area of land protected, such as 30% by 2030, have gained increasing prominence, but both their scientific basis and likely effectiveness have been questioned. As with emissions-reduction targets based on desired climate outcomes, percentage-protected targets combine values and science by estimating the area over which conservation actions are required to help achieve desired biodiversity outcomes. Protected areas are essential for achieving many biodiversity targets, in part because many species are highly sensitive to human-associated disturbance. However, because the contribution of protected areas to biodiversity outcomes is contingent on their location, management, governance, threats, and what occurs across the broader landscape matrix, global percentage-protected targets are unavoidably empirical generalizations of ecological patterns and processes across diverse geographies. Percentage-protected targets are insufficient in isolation but can complement other actions and contribute to biodiversity outcomes within a framework that balances accuracy and pragmatism in a global context characterized by imperfect biodiversity data. Ideally, percentage-protected targets serve as anchors that strengthen comprehensive national biodiversity strategies by communicating the level of ambition necessary to reverse current trends of biodiversity loss. If such targets are to fulfill this role within the complex societal process by which both values and science impel conservation actions, conservation scientists must clearly communicate the nature of the evidence base supporting percentage-protected targets and how protected areas can function within a broader landscape managed for sustainable coexistence between people and nature. A new paradigm for protected and conserved areas recognizes that national coordination, incentives, and monitoring should support rather than undermine diverse locally led conservation initiatives. However, the definition of a conserved area must retain a strong focus on biodiversity to remain consistent with the evidence base from which percentage-protected targets were originally derived.     

关于制定我国区域生物多样性中心评价标准的思考

本文针对目前环境保护的热点之一——全球和地区性生物多样性保护,对其中的一个基础理论问题,即区域生物多样性评价标准进行了探索;从理论上对制定这一标准的必要性、可行性、生物多样性的基本内涵、区域生物多样性中心标准的意义及标准制定的原则和依据进行了阐述,并在此基础上提出了我国区域生物多样性中心标准的基本框架。     

Synergies and trade‐offs in achieving global biodiversity targets

After their failure to achieve a significant reduction in the global rate of biodiversity loss by 2010, world governments adopted 20 new ambitious Aichi biodiversity targets to be met by 2020. Efforts to achieve one particular target can contribute to achieving others, but different targets may sometimes require conflicting solutions. Consequently, lack of strategic thinking might result, once again, in a failure to achieve global commitments to biodiversity conservation. We illustrate this dilemma by focusing on Aichi Target 11. This target requires an expansion of terrestrial protected area coverage, which could also contribute to reducing the loss of natural habitats (Target 5), reducing human‐induced species decline and extinction (Target 12), and maintaining global carbon stocks (Target 15). We considered the potential impact of expanding protected areas to mitigate global deforestation and the consequences for the distribution of suitable habitat for >10,000 species of forest vertebrates (amphibians, birds, and mammals). We first identified places where deforestation might have the highest impact on remaining forests and then identified places where deforestation might have the highest impact on forest vertebrates (considering aggregate suitable habitat for species). Expanding protected areas toward locations with the highest deforestation rates (Target 5) or the highest potential loss of aggregate species’ suitable habitat (Target 12) resulted in partially different protected area network configurations (overlapping with each other by about 73%). Moreover, the latter approach contributed to safeguarding about 30% more global carbon stocks than the former. Further investigation of synergies and trade‐offs between targets would shed light on these and other complex interactions, such as the interaction between reducing overexploitation of natural resources (Targets 6, 7), controlling invasive alien species (Target 9), and preventing extinctions of native species (Target 12). Synergies between targets must be identified and secured soon and trade‐offs must be minimized before the options for co‐benefits are reduced by human pressures.