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.     

Matching biodiversity indicators to policy needs

At the global scale, biodiversity indicators are typically used to monitor general trends, but are rarely implemented with specific purpose or linked directly to decision making. Some indicators are better suited to predicting future change, others are more appropriate for evaluating past actions, but this is seldom made explicit. We developed a conceptual model for assigning biodiversity indicators to appropriate functions based on a common approach used in economics. Using the model, indicators can be classified as leading (indicators that change before the subject of interest, informing preventative actions), coincident (indicators that measure the subject of interest), or lagging (indicators that change after the subject of interest has changed and thus can be used to evaluate past actions). We classified indicators based on ecological theory on biodiversity response times and management objectives in 2 case studies: global species extinction and marine ecosystem collapse. For global species extinctions, indicators of abundance (e.g., the Living Planet Index or biodiversity intactness index) were most likely to respond first, as leading indicators that inform preventative action, while extinction indicators were expected to respond slowly, acting as lagging indicators flagging the need for evaluation. For marine ecosystem collapse, indicators of direct responses to fishing were expected to be leading, while those measuring ecosystem collapse could be lagging. Classification defines an active role for indicators within the policy cycle, creates an explicit link to preventative decision-making, and supports preventative action.