Institution: | 1. Centre for Conservation Science, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, The Lodge, Potton Road, Sandy, SG19 2DL U.K.;2. BirdLife International, David Attenborough Building, Pembroke Street, Cambridge, CB2 3QZ U.K.;3. UN Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC), 219 Huntingdon Road, Cambridge, CB3 0DL U.K.
Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge, CB2 3EJ U.K.
Centre for Macroecology, Evolution and Climate, Natural History Museum, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, DK-2100 Denmark;4. UN Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC), 219 Huntingdon Road, Cambridge, CB3 0DL U.K.
Department of Life Sciences, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD U.K. |
Abstract: | 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. |