Conclusion

There is broad scientific consensus on the importance of biodiversity as the very foundation of life on earth. In 2002, governments adopted the '2010 Biodiversity Target' to ‘significantly reduce the rate of biodiversity loss as a contribution to poverty alleviation and to the benefit of all life on earth’ at the 6th Conference of the Parties (COP 6) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Although progress has been made at international, national and regional level the global 2010 Target will not be achieved according to; recent assessments which show that global biodiversity is still in decline. This continued loss is leading to a rapid decline of the Earth’s natural wealth and a dramatic reduction of future ecosystem services.

Apart from the ethical imperative to protect biodiversity, there are convincing economic reasons. Recent studies, in particular “The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity” (TEEB), convincingly show that there is a sound economic basis for investing in the protection and sustainable use of biodiversity and the services it provides. Although the global 2010 target will most likely not be met at all levels, it has triggered some successes. The post-2010 biodiversity framework should build on these achievements. For instance, the target has been broadly accepted, not only in national policies, but also as an important element of many governmental and non-governmental global processes. For example, the target has been included in the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in 2006 and in 2008 the UN declared 2010 the International Year of Biodiversity.

The difficulty of achieving the 2010 target should not be underestimated. A key challenge for demonstrating progress in implementing the target is the lack of reliable data and visible outcomes on the ground. This may however be due to a natural temporal lag between policy formulation and implementation: 2002-2010 is after all a short period. Another challenge for achieving the target is to successfully address the main drivers of biodiversity loss.

Finding the leverage to influence these drivers is the real challenge for any post 2010 framework. These drivers are related to different economic sectors and in turn these sectors represent major economic interests. This logically points to two main directions in which the solution could be found: mainstreaming biodiversity into the different sectors and valuing it in economic terms.

Defining the post 2010 framework needs to take into account recent developments and the major challenges the world is facing today. The world has been changing rapidly since the adoption of the 2010 target. The three F’s (Finance, Fuels and Food) are the current main concerns; whatever the precise effects of these three F’s are, it should be attempted to see them not only as threats, but rather as opportunities. Any new target must be crisis resistant and time proofed.

Communicating biodiversity will also be a key ingredient for the success of the post 2010 framework. The targets for the post-2010 period should be attractive, not only in the narrow circle of the CBD, but for a much wider audience. Biodiversity, its decline and its importance to humanity’s future, has to be understood by society at large.

Biodiversity loss: why action is required

Biodiversity is the foundation for life on Earth. Yet, figures detailing the increasing loss of species worldwide are alarming. For example, according to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005), in the last 50 years, 15 of the 22 examined ecosystem services essential to human well-being have been degraded by anthropogenic activities.

Although there are some positive trends for certain species and habitats (e.g. 5% of currently threatened mammals show signs of recovery in the wild thanks to conservation efforts), recent assessments show that overall biodiversity is still in decline. This continued loss will result in a rapid decline of the Earth’s natural wealth and a dramatic reduction of future ecosystem services.

Summary of the main findings on biodiversity of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

1. Biodiversity is being lost at rates unprecedented in human history;

2. Losses of biodiversity and decline of ecosystem services constitute a concern for human well-being, especially for the wellbeing of the poorest;

3. The costs of biodiversity loss borne by society are rarely assessed, but evidence suggests that they are often greater than the benefits gained through ecosystem changes;

4. Drivers of loss of biodiversity and the drivers of change in ecosystem services are either steady, show no evidence of declining over time, or are increasing in intensity;

5. Many successful response options have been used, but further progress in addressing biodiversity loss will require additional actions to address the main drivers of biodiversity loss; and

6. Unprecedented additional efforts will be required to achieve, by 2010, a significant reduction in the rate of biodiversity loss at all levels.

The effect of biodiversity decline is much higher for developing countries, in particular the least developed countries, as they lack the right tools and resources to prevent or limit the impact. To strengthen the ties between biodiversity and poverty reduction, in 2006, the 2010 target was included in the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). As such, 2010 will be the last opportunity to measure the progress made towards the MDGs before their expiry in 2015.

Steps towards biodiversity salvation:

Facilitating the integration of biodiversity into sectoral policy agendas (eg Millennium Developments Goals, national sustainable development agendas, national sectoral policy agendas)

Developing broader stakeholder involvement, by mobilizing new audiences in support of biodiversity conservation, especially local governments (i.e. Global Partnership on Cities and Biodiversity) and business (i.e. Leadership Declaration on Business and Biodiversity)

Facilitating monitoring by addressing agreed sets of indicators related to the targets and promoting outcome-oriented logical frameworks through the development of “proxies” or sub targets (i.e. CBD Strategic Plan, 2010 BIP (Biodiversity Indicator Partnership)

Improving the science – policy interface (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment; ongoing discussions on the establishment of an Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services - IPBES,

Launching an international study on The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity - TEEB).

Do we have the right information...?

The science of biodiversity remains complex. Attempts at rationalisation sometimes confuse or leave decision-makers at a loss. Since the adoption of the 2010 target several global assessments relevant to the target were carried out:

· Global Biodiversity Outlook 2 (www.cbd.int/gbo2)

· Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (www.millenniumassessment.org)

· Global Environment Outlook 4 (www.unep.org/GEO/GEO4)

· International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for

Development (www.agassessment.org)

· 4th Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (www.ipcc.ch )

· Countdown 2010 Readiness Assessment (www.countdown2010.net)

· The 2010 Biodiversity Indicators Partnership (www.twentyten.net)

· The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (www.iucnredlist.org).

In addition to these efforts, the TEEB report preliminary findings were launched in 2007. The final outcomes will be published in two phases towards the end of 2009 and at the beginning of 2010. The 3rd edition of the Global Biodiversity Outlook is also in the making and it will report on the progress made towards the 2010 target. In terms of understanding which actions over the last 9 years have helped the most to come closer to the 2010 target, we have few indicators to provide information. The 2010 target is accompanied by a “Framework for Evaluation of Progress” comprised of 7 ‘Focal Areas’, a set of Goals and Sub-targets and a set of 20 or so indicators including the Red List Index, the Living Planet Index and the Ecological Footprint. This framework was adopted by COP 8 decision VIII/15 in 2006 when the Goals and Sub-targets were also integrated into the programmes of work of the Convention. However, many of the indicators are not ready for immediate use and are still being developed by the ‘2010 Biodiversity Indicators Partnership’ funded by Global Environment Facility and coordinated by UNEP-WCMC. At regional level the European Environment Agency has made progress with its SEBI 2010 initiative (Streamlining European Biodiversity Indicators).

Nevertheless, the development of indicators has been difficult because: there are few consistent and robust datasets which can be used to develop them, because the goals set for indicators were unrealistic and in some cases political rather than scientific and the 2010 target did not include a baseline. Increased investment in reliable indicators could prove beneficial and contribute to evaluating the impact of conservation action. Some targeted case studies provide clues as how conservation results could be

measured. For instance:

· WWF 200 Ecoregions and Ecological Footprint;

· Conservation International hotspots and Alliance for Zero Extinction;

· UNESCO Man & Biospheres;

· Important Plant Areas (see CBD GSPC target 5);

· Important Bird Areas (BirdLife International);

· Other Key Biodiversity Areas;

· IUCN Red List.

These assessments have led to some initial success, however for all of the above it is critical to bring about: (a) increased scientific knowledge on biodiversity, i.e. a more coordinated and integrated approach for biodiversity data collection with a quantifiable post 2010 target that includes a baseline by which we can measure progress and indicate gaps and needs, and; (b) strengthen the interface between policy and science as foreseen in the discussions surrounding the establishment of an International Platform on Biodiversity Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Furthermore, a target without explicit timeframes and milestones is uninteresting to politicians. Hence, a high conceptual vision for the post 2010 target must be set, but it must also be brutally pragmatic and ideally linked to an improved national reporting process.

The crises of the last few months relating to the price of natural resources on world markets gave an idea of what could happen in the future: high prices for food and increased pressure on converting the remaining biodiversity islands into agricultural land. A new rapid response assessment report released by UNEP warns that up to 25% of the world’s food production may become lost due to environmental breakdown by 2050 unless action is taken. The report provides the first summary by the UN of how climate change, water stress, invasive pests and land degradation may impact world food security, food prices and life on the planet and how we may be able to feed the world in a more sustainable manner.

The importance of biodiversity conservation and a healthy environment to the life and livelihoods of the poor is widely recognized. Indeed, the 2010 target indicates that reducing the rate of biodiversity loss should contribute ‘to poverty alleviation and to the benefit of all life on Earth.’

ANNEXES