Erie Tamale 1
5 Strategic policy responses and synergistic approaches
The current trends and projected scenarios of global biodiversity change call for concerted synergistic actions by various stakeholders at different levels. A number of reports and documents, including Global Biodiversity Outlook 3,72 the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment,73 the World Conservation Strategy74 and a few others, have proposed some concrete actions that could be taken at both the policy and field levels.
The GBO 3 noted that global biodiversity loss could be prevented, significantly re-duced or even reversed if strong and adaptive action, focused on addressing both the direct and indirect factors driving biodiversity loss, were applied urgently, compre-hensively and appropriately, at international, national and local levels. It called for well-targeted policies focusing on critical areas, species and ecosystem services that are essential to preventing further human-induced biodiversity loss and to avoiding pushing ecosystems beyond the ‘tipping points’.75
Addressing biodiversity loss will also require major shifts in perceptions and priorities on the part of decision-makers, and the engagement of all sections of society, includ-ing the private sector.76 The GBO 3 advocates for a future strategy that, among other things, urges relevant stakeholders to:
• address both the direct and indirect drivers of biodiversity loss, for example through mainstreaming biodiversity across various sectors;
• use pricing, fiscal policies and other mechanisms to reflect the real value of eco-systems in order to create incentives to reverse the current patterns of destruction;
• foster more efficient use of biological resources to meet existing and future de-mand and with a view to preventing underlying pressures such as population
72 CBD Secretariat, Global Biodiversity Outlook 3, supra note 3.
73 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Policy Responses, Volume 3 (World Resources Institute, 2005), available at <http://www.maweb.org/en/Responses.aspx> (visited 16 March 2012).
74 IUCN, UNEP and WWF. Caring for the Earth: A Strategy for Sustainable Living (1991).
75 CBD Secretariat, Global Biodiversity Outlook 3, supra note 3.
76 Ibid.
84
Global Biodiversity Trends and Synergistic Strategic Policy Responses
increase and increased consumption from inevitably leading to pressures such as loss of habitat, pollution or over-exploitation;
• find an appropriate level of intensity in the use of resources, for example increas-ing productivity of agricultural land while maintainincreas-ing a diverse landscape, and reducing fishing intensity below the maximum sustainable yield;
• avoid unnecessary tradeoffs resulting from maximizing one ecosystem service at the expense of another;
• continue direct action to conserve biodiversity, targeting vulnerable and cultur-ally-valued species and habitats, and critical sites for biodiversity;
• increase restoration of terrestrial, inland water and marine ecosystems to re-es-tablish their ecological functioning and their ability to provide ecosystem serv-ices;
• create a favourable environment to support effective ‘bottom-up’ initiatives led by communities, local authorities, or businesses; and
• strengthen efforts to communicate better the links between biodiversity, ecosys-tem services, poverty alleviation and climate change adaptation and mitigation through education and more effective dissemination of scientific knowledge.
The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment report identified and evaluated the potential use and effectiveness of various response options and strategic interventions to ad-dressing the current and projected global biodiversity loss. It noted that response options and strategic interventions can be implemented through a number of mech-anisms, including international conventions, multilateral and bilateral treaties, na-tional laws and regulations, instituna-tional change and changes in governance struc-tures; governmental and industrial policies and contractual agreements, partnerships and collaboration; and joint private and public action. It further noted that a major challenge now is for decision-making to make effective use of the available informa-tion and tools in order to improve the decisions intended to provide for a sustainable flow of ecosystem services and enhance human well-being.77
The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment also identified a number of elements that could improve decision-making processes related to ecosystems and their services.
These include using the best available information; ensuring transparency through greater participation of relevant stakeholders; ensuring accountability; striving for both efficiency and effectiveness in the decision-making process; considering stake-holder equity and vulnerabilities; providing for monitoring and evaluation; and considering cross-scale effects. It also outlines a range of analytical tools that may be useful in choosing responses and the contexts that could help determine the appro-priate tools to use. It also urged government decision-makers to consider:
• developing institutions that would enable effective coordination of decision-making at multiple scales and across multiple sectors, and strengthening
institu-77 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Policy Responses, supra note 73.
85 Erie Tamale tions at lower levels of governance. It noted that problems of ecosystem manage-ment are often exacerbated both by overly centralized and overly decentralized decision-making;
• increasing transparency and accountability of government decision-making, en-couraging and supporting independent monitoring and assessment of govern-ment performance, and securing access to information and justice for all stake-holders;
• promoting ‘win-win’ solutions by creating an economic framework that supports proper management of ecosystem services. This would include eliminating sub-sidies (for instance, subsub-sidies in agriculture, forestry and fisheries) that lead to overproduction and promote overuse of specific ecosystem services that may harm other services, correcting market failures exacerbated by harmful subsidies, and internalizing negative environmental externalities;
• putting emphasis on actions designed to reduce demand for harmful trade-offs rather than actions aimed at further increases in production – for instance, in agriculture a focus on reducing post-harvest losses, water pollution associated with fertilizer use or increase water use efficiency rather than clearing more land for agriculture;
• building human and institutional capacity properly to manage ecosystems and to assess the consequences of ecosystem change for human well-being;
• requiring companies publicly to report on their environmental performance; and
• putting more emphasis on adaptive management interventions, which would allow greater learning about the consequences of the interventions and improved management with time.
In response to the findings and recommendations of the GBO 3, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and other assessment reports, parties to various biodiversity-related multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs), including the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the Convention on International Trade in Endan-gered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES),78 the Convention on the Conserva-tion of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS),79 the Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar Convention),80 the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA)81 and the World Heritage Convention (WHC)82 have taken a number of strategic and synergetic policy measures in the last few years.
78 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, Washington DC, 3 March 1973, in force 1 July 1975, 993 United Nations Treaty Series 243, <http://www.cites.org>.
79 Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, Bonn, 23 June 1979, in force 1 November 1983, 19 International Legal Materials (1980) 15, <http://www.cms.int>.
80 Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, Ramsar, 2 February 1971, in force 21 December 1975, 11 International Legal Materials (1972), 963, <http://www.ramsar.org>.
81 International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, Rome, 3 November 2001, into force 29 June 2004, <http://www.planttreaty.org/>.
82 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, Paris, 16 November 1972, in force 17 December 1975, 11 International Legal Materials (1972) 1358, <http://whc.unesco.
org>.
86
Global Biodiversity Trends and Synergistic Strategic Policy Responses
For example, taking into account the findings of the Millennium Ecosystem Assess-ment, the Parties to the CBD agreed in 2002 on the target ‘to achieve by 2010 a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss at global, regional and national level as a contribution to poverty alleviation and to the benefit of all life on Earth’.83 The 2010 biodiversity target was subsequently endorsed by the World Sum-mit on Sustainable Development (WSSD)84 and in 2006 the target was incorpo-rated in the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs),85 under Goal 7 on environ-mental sustainability.86
In 2006, Parties to the CBD initiated a process to assess the progress made towards achieving the 2010 Biodiversity Target and develop a post-2010 strategic plan, taking into account the findings of the assessment.87 A 2010 Biodiversity Indicators Partner-ship88 was established, with major support from the Global Environment Facility (GEF),89 to develop and promote indicators to assess the progress made towards achieving the 2010 Biodiversity Target and, in the long run, to ensure consistent monitoring and assessment of biodiversity. This process dovetailed with the develop-ment of the GBO 3 and helped to inform the developdevelop-ment of the post-2010 strate-gic plan.
Subsequently, in October 2010, the Parties to the CBD, at their tenth meeting held in Nagoya, Japan, adopted an ambitious Strategic Plan for Biodiversity (2011–
2020)90 to inspire broad-based action by all countries and stakeholders in support of biodiversity, with a view to promoting coherent and effective implementation of the objectives of the Convention. It provides an overarching framework not only for the biodiversity-related conventions, but for the entire United Nations system.
The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity comprises a Vision for 2050, a Mission for 2020, five Strategic Goals and 20 specific targets, referred to as ‘the Aichi Biodiversity Tar-gets’ (see Annex 1 of this paper).91 Its vision is a world ‘[l]iving in harmony with nature’ where ‘[b]y 2050, biodiversity is valued, conserved, restored and wisely used,
83 ‘Strategic Plan for the Convention on Biological Diversity’, Decision IV/26 (2002).
84 Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg, South Africa, 26 August – 4 Sep-tember 2002, available at <http://www.johannesburgsummit.org/html/documents/summit_docs/131302_
wssd_report_reissued.pdf> (visited 12 June 2012), 33.
85 See <http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/>.
86 The 2010 biodiversity target was incorporated in the Millennium Development Goal 7 following the request contained in the 2006 Report of the Secretary General on the Work of the Organization, UN Doc. A/61/1 (2006), available at <http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/61/1(SUPP)>
(visited 12 June 2012), 6.
87 The processes that contributed to the review and updating the CBD Strategic Plan 2002–2010 are out-lined at <http://www.cbd.int/sp/inputs/> (visited 12 June 2012).
88 See <http://www.bipindicators.net/>.
89 See <http://www.thegef.org/gef/>.
90 ‘The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets’, Decision X/2, in Report of the Tenth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Nagoya, Japan, 18–29 October 2010, UN Doc. UNEP/CBD/COP/10/27* (2011).
91 Ibid.
87 Erie Tamale maintaining ecosystem services, sustaining a healthy planet and delivering benefits essential for all people’.92
The mission of the Strategic Plan is to ‘take effective and urgent action to halt the loss of biodiversity in order to ensure that by 2020 ecosystems are resilient and con-tinue to provide essential services, thereby securing the planet’s variety of life, and contributing to human well-being, and poverty eradication’.93
In the decision that adopted the Strategic Plan, the Parties agreed to translate the Strategic Plan into national biodiversity strategy and action plans (NBSAPs),94 and develop national targets within two years, taking into account the Aichi targets and the status and trends of biodiversity in their respective countries.95 In the same deci-sion, other biodiversity-related conventions and relevant agreements were invited to consider and take appropriate steps to facilitate coherent and synergistic implemen-tation of the Strategic Plan and its Aichi Targets at all level, including through col-laboration in the update and implementation of the NBSAPs.96
In response, two MEAs – the CMS and CITES – have already developed guidelines on integration of relevant issues, policy measures and practical actions from their respective processes into NBSAPs.97 In addition, the six main biodiversity-related conventions, i.e. the CBD, CITES, CMS, ITPGRFA, Ramsar and the WHC, are collaborating through the Biodiversity Liaison Group (BCL) comprising the respec-tive execurespec-tive heads. Through the BLC, the six MEAs aim to enhance synergies and national implementation towards achieving the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, harmo-nize national reporting processes, develop common approaches to addressing the major threats to biodiversity, coordinate requests for scientific assessments, share scientific data and expertise, and exchange relevant implementation tools and guide-lines.98
92 Ibid. para. 11.
93 Ibid. para. 12.
94 NBSAPs are instruments or frameworks developed by countries to guide the implementation of the Convention at the national and sub-national levels. An NBSAP can take the form of a single biodiversity-planning document or a pool of instruments and processes (including laws, policies, projects and pro-grammes) established to facilitate national implementation of the Convention. See CBD, NBSAP Train-ing Module 1: An Introduction to National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans, available at <http://www.
cbd.int/doc/training/nbsap/b1-train-intro-nbsap-revised-en.pdf> (visited 26 July 2012), 5.
95 Ibid. para. 13, Target 17.
96 ‘Implementation of the Convention and the Strategic Plan’, Decision X/5, in Report of the Tenth Meet-ing of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Nagoya, Japan, 18–29 October 2010, UN Doc. UNEP/CBD/COP/10/27* (2011).
97 The CMS Guidelines on the Integration of Migratory Species into National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) are available at <http://www.cms.int/bodies/COP/cop10/resolutions_adopt-ed/10_18_nsbaps_e.pdf>. The Draft NBSAP Guide for CITES Parties (April 2011) is available at <http://
www.cites.org/eng/notif/2011/E026A.pdf> (both visited 26 July 2012).
98 See <http://www.cbd.int/blg/>.
88
Global Biodiversity Trends and Synergistic Strategic Policy Responses
6 Conclusion
Many recent assessments have revealed that biodiversity is declining at a rate faster than any previous time in human history and the decline is expected to continue at the same pace, or even accelerate, as the drivers of biodiversity loss increase in inten-sity. However, the responses to date have not been adequate to stem the scale of bio-diversity loss or to reduce the pressures driving that loss. As stated in the GBO 3, the actions taken over the next decade will determine whether the relatively stable envi-ronmental conditions on which humankind has depended in past years will con-tinue beyond the present century.
The synergistic policy responses made by the major biodiversity-related MEAs in the last few years, including the recent adoption of the Aichi biodiversity targets and the joint efforts underway to achieve those targets, are important steps in the right direc-tion. All stakeholders need to work together in a concerted, strategic and synergetic manner in order to prevent, significantly reduce or reverse the current trend of bio-diversity loss and to maintain the capacity of ecosystems to provide goods and serv-ices to meet the needs of present and future generations.