资源描述
CONVENTION ON biological diversityProgress Report towards The Aichi Biodiversity TargetsNational commitments fall short of action needed to safeguard natureIn 2010, the world agreed to a bold and ambitious agenda to address the decline in global biodiversity. The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 20112020 and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets (The Aichi Targets) set out challenges for the global community to meet by 2020. With four years left, five of the worlds largest conservation NGOs (Birdlife International, Conservation International, The RSPB, The Nature Conservancy and WWF) came together to produce an assessment to highlight national and regional progress and ambition to date. While there is evidence of positive progress on a number of the targets, the overall picture is poor, with inadequate progress to date in most countries, and weak levels of future ambition. Based on the current trajectory, the world will not meet the Aichi Targets. Concerned by these findings, we call on CBD Parties to:1. Be bold and raise the ambition of their national targets,2. Intensify progress on implementation,3. Increase support and resources to low-income countries to translate ambition into implementation,4. Take responsibility for global ambition,5. Ensure accurate and regular reporting.The data was then grouped by target, and by political and economic groupings. This assessment counts the number of countries within each of the categories above, based on target, economic group and political group, using plotted bars to complement those done by the SCBD4.Although a similar analysis was presented in the Global Biodiversity Outlook 4 and in COP documentation prepared by the SCBD, this new assessment adds analysis on alignment and examines differences in progress and alignment in political and economic groups. LIMITATIONS Only 52% of the Parties NBSAPs have been submitted for SCBD review and therefore fed into this study, while others have yet to be developed or updated, meaning that we lack a truly “global” picture of national ambition. Based on the current trajectory, it is likely that other NBSAPs when received, will mirror the results in this analysis. Therefore, the overall picture is unlikely to change up to 20205. For the “alignment” data, some national targets may be ambitious in light of national circumstances. A countrys starting point should be considered when comparing data6. However, the lack and availability of information prevented this evaluation. Not all targets are relevant to all countries e.g. a coral reef target for land-locked Mongolia. Targets are based on the assumption that all countries make the same contribution to the total effort, despite varying land area.METHODOLOGY101 parties submitted their National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans (NBSAPs) and 5th National Reports between 2011 and 2016. As of July 2016, 5th National Reports have been submitted by 90% of the Parties, and NBSAPs by 52%1. These were collated, analysed and scored by the CBD Secretariat2, 3 (SCBD). This NGO assessment uses this scored data set to examine two things:1. Alignment This measure aims to provide an indication of how a countrys national target compares to the scope and level of ambition of each Aichi Target as stated in countries NBSAPs, and as scored by the SCBD. 2. Progress This measure provides an indication of national progress towards the Aichi Targets based on the information contained in the 5th National Reports, and as scored by the SCBD.Each country where scored data was available was ranked into three broad categories (reduced down from eight categories that the SCBD used for ease of analysis):ALIGNMENT OF NATIONAL TARGET Red: Significantly below the Aichi Target, or is not clearly related to it Orange: Less ambitious and/or does not address all elements of the Aichi TargetGreen: Commensurate with, or exceeds the Aichi Target PROGRESS Red: No progress, or a decline against the Aichi Target Orange: Progress to achieve the Aichi Target but at insufficient rate Green: On track to meet or exceed the Aichi Target1cbd.int/doc/meetings/cop/cop-13/official/cop-13-08-add2-en.pdf, para 7 2cbd.int/doc/meetings/cop/cop-13/official/cop-13-08-add2-en.pdf 3cbd.int/impact/assessment-table-2016-04-22-en.pdf 4cbd.int/reports/.5cbd.int/doc/meetings/cop/cop-13/official/cop-13-08-add2-en.pdf, para 96cbd.int/impact/assessment-table-2016-04-22-en.pdf , para 51. Alignment of national targets to Aichi Targets Analysis: This chart displays countries alignment at the national level, towards all 20 of the Aichi Targets. Overall, only about 10% of countries reported national targets that exceed or are commensurate with the global level of ambition, whilst about 40% of countries were less ambitious and 50% indicate targets with significantly lower ambition. In particular Target 2 (Development and Poverty Reduction) and Targets 5 to 7 in Strategic Goal B, reducing direct pressures on biodiversity and promoting sustainable use, seem to be areas where countries have the lowest ambition. Conclusion: Given we are already past the half-way point of the CBD Strategic Plan, the translation of the global targets into NBSAPs is very disappointing. If 90% of countries that have currently submitted their NBSAP have set national targets that are lower than the global ambition, then national level ambition is not sufficient to achieve the global commitment. Unless countries significantly increase their ambition, the Aichi Targets will not be delivered. OverallT1: awareness raisingT2: biodiversity values T3: incentives/harmful subsidiesT4: sustainable production/consumptionT5: habitat lossT6: sustainable fisheriesT7: sustainable agriculture/forestryT8: pollutionT9: invasive alien speciesT10: coral reefsT11: protected areasT12: threatened speciesT13: genetic diversityT14: ecosystem servicesT15: ecosystem resilienceT16: Nagoya Protocol implementationT17: NBSAP updateT18: traditional knowledgeT19: knowledge, science, technologyT20: financial resources mobilization0 25 50% of reporting countries75 100Alignment of national targets to Aichi TargetsSignificantly below the Aichi Target, or is not clearly related to itLess ambitious and/or does not address all elements of the Aichi TargetCommensurate with, or exceeds the Aichi Target2. Progress of national targets towards the Aichi Targets Analysis: This chart displays countries progress against all 20 Aichi Targets. It is striking that overall, only about 5% of countries national reports indicate that they are on track to meet the global targets. Meanwhile, around 75% of countries have made progress but at an insufficient rate to meet the global ambition by 2020, and 20% of national reports indicate that countries have made no progress or have even moved away from the global targets. Target 20 on resource mobilization has one of the lowest scores; 35% of countries indicate no progress and 65% of countries are on track or making insufficient progress. Conclusion: Countries appear to be progressing better on targets which are more procedural in nature, such as Target 16 on Ratification of the Nagoya Protocol, and Target 17 on updating the NBSAPs. Target 11, and work on protected areas, has a long history of integration into national strategies, so this may explain why progress is higher for this target. Unfortunately, progress on Target 20 on resource mobilization is less positive, with over 85% of countries not meeting their commitments so far. The low level of progress for many countries is likely to be explained in part due to competing national resource allocation. Based on current progress, and with 95% of countries behind schedule, the Aichi Targets are not on track unless countries significantly increase their efforts. OverallT1: awareness raisingT2: biodiversity values T3: incentives/harmful subsidiesT4: sustainable production/consumptionT5: habitat lossT6: sustainable fisheriesT7: sustainable agriculture/forestryT8: pollutionT9: invasive alien speciesT10: coral reefsT11: protected areasT12: threatened speciesT13: genetic diversityT14: ecosystem servicesT15: ecosystem resilienceT16: Nagoya Protocol implementationT17: NBSAP updateT18: traditional knowledgeT19: knowledge, science, technologyT20: financial resources mobilization0 25 50 75 100% of reporting countriesProgress of national targets towards the Aichi TargetsNo progress, or a decline against the Aichi TargetProgress to achieve the Aichi Target but at insufficient rateOn track to meet or exceed the Aichi Target 3. Alignment and progress of national targets by economic groupsAnalysis: The charts display national target alignment by economic groups, based on World Bank categories7. The analysis shows that, compared to the overall picture, high-income countries seem to be less aligned in their national target setting than lower-income countries. However, when examining progress, high-income countries reported more progress than low and middle-income countries.Conclusion: Only 5% of high-income countries reported targets that are commensurate with the Aichi Targets. It is encouraging to see that low-income countries have set more ambitious targets than higher-income countries, despite making less progress. To make significant progress to 2020, high-income countries need to ramp up their ambition, whilst further action is needed to support lower-income countries to translate their ambition into action. Significantly below the Aichi Target, or is not clearly related to itLess ambitious and/or does not address all elements of the Aichi TargetCommensurate with, or exceeds the Aichi TargetNo progress, or a decline against the Aichi TargetProgress to achieve the Aichi Target but at insufficient rateOn track to meet or exceed the Aichi Target OverallHigh incomeUpper middle incomeLower middle incomeLow income0 25 50% of reporting countries75 100Alignment of national targets by World Bank economic groupingWorld Bank economiccountry groupingWorld Bank economiccountry groupingOverallHigh incomeUpper middle incomeLower middle incomeLow incomeProgress of national targets by World Bank economic grouping0 25 50% of reporting countries75 1007data.worldbank/income-level/high-income4. Alignment of national targets by key political groupingsAnalysis: The Least Developed Countries have the highest alignment with the scope and ambition of the Aichi Targets, followed by the African Group, G77 and Group of Latin American Countries, whereas JUSCANZ8, the Small Island Developing States and the EU demonstrate the least target alignment.Conclusion: Political groupings with a higher proportion of developed countries, in particular the EU, show less alignment with the scope and ambition of the Aichi Targets than other groupings with a higher proportion of developing countries. With the current level of alignment, it is unlikely that the 2020 timeline of the Aichi Targets will be met across any political group. Overall The African GroupSIDSLeast Developed CountriesJUSSCANNZGRULACG77EU0 25 50% of reporting countries75 100Alignment of national targets by key political groupingsUN political country groupingSignificantly below the Aichi Target, or is not clearly related to itLess ambitious and/or does not address all elements of the Aichi TargetCommensurate with, or exceeds the Aichi Target8The group of countries composed of Australia, Canada, Iceland, Israel, Japan, Liechtenstein, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, and the United States (not party to the convention).5. Call to Action for CBD Parties1. Be bold and raise the ambition of national targets: With 90% of assessed countries NBSAPs not showing the same level of ambition as the Aichi Targets, and without a significant increase in ambition across countries, the targets will not be met. All countries therefore, need to significantly raise their level of ambition.2. Intensify progress on implementation: Across all regions and economic groups many countries are making progress, but still at an insufficient rate. Understanding where and why progress is being made against certain targets will be key to driving further implementation. COP 13 and COP 14 should primarily focus on monitoring implementation of the Aichi Targets, recognising where progress has been made and facilitating sharing of “lessons learnt.3. Increase support to low-income countries to translate ambition into action:Many lower-income countries and groups have demonstrated their willingness to set ambitious national targets, but lack sufficient progress at the national level. Therefore, a range of actions are needed to support low-income countries, such as capacity building, financial resources and technical assistance. Since the adoption of the SDGs in 2015, better integration of biodiversity action into development plans and programmes should be prioritised by low-income countries. This should also be a priority for funding by bilateral and multilateral financing mechanisms, including the Global Environment Facility.4. Take responsibility for achieving the global ambition: We recall that the Aichi Targets are a global agreement to achieve a common level of ambition, for which all countries must take responsibility. Many countries have still to submit their updated National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan. There are also regional imbalances both in alignment and progress towards the Aichi Targets. Improved regional coordination and addressing countries strengths and weaknesses should play an increasingly important role going forwards.5. Ensure accurate, reliable and regular reporting:Currently it is hard to see where effective progress is being achieved, and which countries face challenges. COP 13 should give clear guidance on how to harmonise and improve reporting that is transparent, true and accurate, using indicators to allow for consistent measures of progress. Without this, we will face a situation where it will be impossible to know if targets have been met. This might lead to overall scepticism when setting future global goals and targets for the next decade.Cancun, Mexico December 2016
展开阅读全文