Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020, including Aichi Biodiversity Targets

It could be assessed by implementing reports on this, included in our annual reports.
submitted by Marie-Jeanne PERROT-MINNOT

have a 5 year and 10 review. Use both bodies to the Convention and some outside evaluation
submitted by Richard Laing

BUILD ON THE EXISTING FRAMEWORK:
Given the amount of work dedicated to developing the 2010 Framework for Evaluation of Progress (CBD Decision VIII/15) of focal areas, sub-targets and indicators as well as incorporating the sub-targets into the Convention’s seven programmes of work, efforts should be made to ensure that the new strategic plan builds on this framework, adding specificity and accountability. Where supplementary guidance is necessary for implementation for programmes of work this could be developed through technical expert mechanisms, for example via the CBD Technical Series, rather than negotiated at significant expense through SBSTTAs or COPs.

SUB TARGETS:
A set of specific sub-targets should be established for each target focal area and specific to given issues or biomes e.g. to halt deforestation should be identified under the 2020 biodiversity target. These could be linked to the focal areas and indicators of the 2010 Framework for Evaluation of Progress (CBD Decision VIII/15) but would replace the existing set of Goals and sub-targets. The new sub-targets should be measurable i.e. a specific baseline should be defined as well as an indicator to measure progress.

TIME BOUND MEASURES OF PROGRESS:
The 2020 biodiversity target and sub-targets should have a set of measures of progress or ‘milestones’ on an annual or biannual basis against which progress could measured at each meeting of the Conference of the Parties between 2010 and 2020. These measures should be a strategic set of annual or biannual targets that provide a roadmap for delivery on a specific sub-target. They should be a combination of process-orientated and outcome-orientated measures. The measures should be integrated into an effective and user-friendly reporting system for Parties (see paragraph ix below). The CBD Programme of Work on Protected Areas offers an illustration of the value of annual measures as it has strong timelines which have provided governments with a structured workplan to reach the ultimate goal of well managed, financed and representative protected area systems by 2010 (on land)/2012 (in marine areas). It is clear that further analysis is required in the coming months to ensure strategic design of this framework.

PRESSSURE STATE RESPONSE:
The 2020 biodiversity target framework for evaluation of progress should be based on the Pressure-State-Response (PSR) framework. PSR frameworks have proven their effectiveness and are widely implemented by the conservation community. Such as framework would measure:
• the pressure, root causes or drivers of biodiversity loss e.g. agricultural expansion, over consumption etc.
• the state of biodiversity including the rate of loss or increase using indicators such as the Living Planet Index, Red List Index and the Critical Habitat Protection indicator of the 2008 Environmental Performance Index , and
• the response of CBD Parties through the implementation of CBD decisions and other management responses.

A PSR framework would allow the Parties and the public to understand biodiversity loss, how it is being caused and how implementation of the CBD can solve the problem. A global PSR framework under the CBD needs to be mirrored in national reporting under the Convention.

REPORTING:
The future strategic plan should aim to lighten the reporting burden and at the same time provide more verifiable/quantifiable information. National reporting could be based on the application of the 2020 biodiversity framework for evaluation of progress at the national level. This would involve Parties applying indicators to measure the pressure state and response to biodiversity loss at the national level. This information could then roll-up to the evaluation of progress at the global level under the PSR framework. Some of the existing globally agreed indicators have already been applied at the national and regional level.

This submission reflects the shared views of BirdLife International, Conservation International, IUCN – World Commission on Protected Areas, IUCN Countdown 2010, The Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund for Nature, and the Wildlife Conservation Society.
submitted by Anonymous

Progress should be assessed at different scales. Indicators at the global level that link directly with the strategic goals and objectives of the Plan should measure progress at the global level. National and sub-national reporting should be linked to national and sub-national plans. The basic goals and objectives might be similar but measuring progress must be flexible and relevant to national and sub-national circumstances.

Regular reporting by the Executive Secretary to COP on progress towards implementation should be mandated. Parties should agree on the reporting interval (e.g. every 5 years). Strategic Plans need to be living documents and should be reviewed and revised at regular intervals as well (e.g. every 10 years).
submitted by Jennifer Norris

Progress in identifying and protecting target sites; loss of target species prevented.
submitted by Mike Parr

I agree that we should build on the existing framework (Decision VIII/15), devise time-bound measures of progress, and assess progress at different scales. Asssessment should involve all relevant stakeholders. The Working Group on the Review of Implementation should be mandated to play a role in the assessment.
submitted by Maurizio Ferrari

There obviously needs to be periodic reviews of progress: every 5 and every 10 years, for example. Much progress has been made in developing indices to measure biodiversity loss and change which are more robust, defensible and wide-reaching than any currently in use but, again, there is a big disconnection between the call for data, input and actions and the people who are in a position to supply the data or implement on-the-ground activities.
submitted by Theresa Natri

Le suivi des progrès ne doit pas se limiter à un simple suivi mais doit également comporter l’évaluation des effets.
Les mesures de suivi devraient combiner une évaluation mondiale (qui pourrait être conduite par l’IPBES ou un comité spécifique) et une synthèse des évaluations faites par les Etats eux-même.
On pourrait envisager un processus similaire au niveau régional
Des indicateurs doivent être déterminés pour évaluer les progrès mais aussi l’efficacité
Ces indicateurs doivent concerner non seulement l’état de la conservation de la diversité biologique mais aussi les facteurs humains (pauvreté notamment). Ce serait judicieux d’inclure des indicateurs sur le niveau des activités ayant des effets néfastes sur la conservation ou l’utilisation durable de la diversité biologique ( quantité de pesticides utilisés, surfaces mis en culture, linéaire de routes construites, surfaces urbanisées).

submitted by Jean-Patrick LE DUC

See previous question
submitted by Anonymous