GBO-4: A mid-term
assessment of
progress towards the
implementation of
the Strategic Plan for
Biodiversity 20112020
Paul Leadley
Professor,
Univ. Paris-Sud,
Coordinator of Technical Report
on behalf of the contributors to
GBO-4
Scope of the Global Biodiversity Outlook 4
GBO-4 addresses four questions:
1. Are we on track to reach the Aichi Targets by 2020?
2. What actions need to be taken to achieve the Aichi Targets?
3. How do the Aichi Targets and progress towards them position
us to attain the 2050 Vision of the Strategic Plan?
4. How does implementation of the Strategic Plan and progress
towards the Aichi Targets contribute to broader development
goals?
Organisation of the report
• Scientific literature and other
reports
• National Biodiversity
Strategies and Action Plans
(NBSAPS)
• National reports
• Indicator-based
extrapolations of trends to
2020
• Model-based scenarios to
2050…
Sources of
information used
for the assessment
CBD Technical
Reports 78 (+79 & 81)
detailed analysis
Main report
summaries
Consortium Leading the Preparation of the Technical Report
DIVERSITAS, UNEP-WCMC, PBL-Netherlands, the University of British Colombia Fisheries, Centre Faculty of Science,
Lisbon and the German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDIV)
Lead Authors of the Technical Report
Paul Leadley coordinator; Lead Authors: Rob Alkemade, Patricia Balvanera, Céline Bellard, Ben ten Brink, Neil Burgess,
Silvia Ceausu, William Cheung, Villy Christensen, Franck Courchamp, Barbara Gonçalves, Stephanie JanuchowskiHartley, Marcel Kok, Jennifer van Kolck, Cornelia Krug, Paul Lucas, Alexandra Marques, Peter Mumby, Laetitia Navarro,
Tim Newbold, Henrique Pereira, Eugenie Regan, Carlo Rondinini, Louise Teh, Derek Tittensor, U. Rashid Sumaila, Peter
Verburg, Piero Visconti, Matt Walpole.
Contributing Authors of the Technical Report
Michel Bakkenes, Jan Janse and Hans van Grinsven, Olaf Banki, Donald Hobern and Tim Robertson Katherine
Blackwood, Alex Borisenko, Robert Hanner, Sujeevan Ratnasingham, Stuart H.M. Butchart, Marta Coll, Robert J. Diaz,
Moreno Di Marco, Luca Santini, Britaldo Silveira Soares Filho, Fawziah Gadallah, Piero Genovesi, Ben Halpern, Serena
Heckler, Mark Huijbregts, Lisa Ingwall-King, Miranda Jones, Daniel Karp, Christopher J. Kettle, Rainer Krug, Cui Lijuan,
Georgina M. Mace, Peter B. McIntyre, Marc Metian, Scott E. Miller, Mans Nilsson, Thierry Oliveira, Shyama N. Pagad,
James C. Russell, John Paolillo, Maria do Rosário Partidário, Alan Paton, Ben Phalan, Leo Posthuma, Kees Versluijs,
Anne-Hélène Prieur-Richard, Andrew Purvis, Sandra Quijas, Alex Rogers, Belinda Reyers, Michiel Rutgers v.d. Loeff,
René Sachse, Carlos Alberto de Mattos Scaramuzza, Santiago Saura, Kirsten Thonicke, Megan Tierney, Britta Tietjen,
Ariane Walz.
Contributions from the Secretariat of the CBD
David Ainsworth, H. David Cooper, Olivier de Munck, DavidDuthie, Kathryn Garforth, Sarat Babu Gidda, Beatriz
Gómez-Castro, Robert Höft, Markus Lehman, Kieran Noonan-Mooney, Nadine Saad, Junko Shimura, John Scott,
Gisela Talamas, Tristan Tyrrell, Yibin Xiang and Atsuhiro Yoshinaka
Preparation of the Main Report
Tim Hirsch, Kieran Mooney, Robert Höft, David Cooper and David Ainsworth. Braulio F. de Souza Dias provided
guidance.
Biodiversity Indicators Partnership
The Partnership is coordinated by UNEP-WCMC. Indicator partners include Biodiversity International, BirdLife
International, Cardiff University, CITES, FAO of the United Nations, Forest Peoples Programme, Forest
Stewardship Council, Global Biodiversity Information Facility, Global Footprint Network, International
Nitrogen Initiative, IUCN, IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group, University of Auckland, Marine
Stewardship Council, McGill University, National Centre for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, Organisation
for Economic Co-operation, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), TEAM Network, Terralingua,
TRAFFIC International, UBC Fisheries Centre (University of British Columbia), UNEP GEMS Water Programme,
Union for Ethical BioTrade, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, University of
Queensland, Australia, and WWF.
GBO-4 Advisory Group
Adjima Thombiano, Risa Smith, Haigen Xu, Teresita Borges Hernández, Jan Plesnik, Moustafa Mokhtar Ali
Fouda, Anne Teller, Asghar Mohammadi Fazel, Tohru Nakashizuka, Roxana Solis Ortiz, Yvonne Vizina, Joji Carino,
David Morgan, Linda Collette, Tim Hirsch, Thomas Lovejoy, Stuart Butchart, and Matt Walpole.
Contributors to underlying technical studies
Joseph Appiott, Didier Babin, Jennifer Bansard, Katherine Blackwood, Mateusz Banski, Charles Besancon,
Catherine Bloom, Lijie Cai, Adam Charette Castonguay, Monique Chiasson, Annie Cung, David Coates, Edwin
Correa, Gilles Couturier, Olivier de Munck, Matthew Dias, David Duthie, Joshua Dutton, Amy Fraenkel, Kathryn
Garforth, Sarat Babu Gidda, Beatriz Gómez -Castro, Julie Freeman, Jennifer Gobby, Jacquie Grekin, Oliver Hillel,
Lisa Janishevski, Elena Kennedy, Sakhile Koketso Kerri Landry, Jihyun Lee, Markus Lehmann, Andre Mader,
Manoela Pessoa de Miranda, Ian Martin, Johany Martinez, Praem Mehta, Leah Mohammed, Brianne Miller,
Jessica Pawly, Aliya Rashid, Chantal Robichaud, Cristina Romanelli, Nadine Saad, Atena Sadegh, Djeneba Sako,
Catalina Santamaria, Simone Schiele, John Scott, Mitchell Seider, Junko Shimura , David Steuerman, Andrew
Stevenson, Gisela Talamas, Tristan Tyrrell, Ardeshir Vafadari, Paige Yang, Atsuhiro Yoshinaka, Yibin Xiang and
Tatiana Zavarzina.
Assessment of progress towards the Aichi Targets in the
“dashboard” of the GBO-4 Executive Summary
Moving
away from
Target
On track to
achieve
Target
No progress
towards
target
On track to
exceed
Target
Progress
towards target,
but not
sufficient to
achieve it
Insufficient
information
to evaluate
progress
No clear
evaluation
Dashboard for Target 9:
Invasive Alien Species
Assessment has been done by key
elements of Targets
Stars indicate level of confidence
Giant Hogweed
(Heracleum mantegazzianum)
Overview of the “Dashboard” for the Aichi Targets
Target elements
Enhance benefits Status of biodiversity
1
A
2
3
4
Direct pressures
5
6
B 7
8
No clear
evaluation
9
10
No clear
evaluation
Enhance Implementation
Underlying Causes
Target elements
11
C 12
13
14
D 15
16
17
18
E
19
20
No clear
evaluation
Trends and projections of country’s
responses to Invasive Alien Species
100
Percentage of countries adopting
invasive alien species legislation
National Reports
Based on an analysis of the 81
submitted reports and 30 advance
drafts:
• 12% - provide no information
• 2% - moving away
• 22% - no progress
• 62% - progress, but insufficient
• 2% - will meet
Percent
Butchart et al.
(2010) + update
NBSAPS
0
1970
Year
2010
2020
Example: EU Biodiversity Targets Comprehensive European IAS
legislation due to take effect in
2015.
Eradications of Invasive Alien
Species
brown rat (Rattus norvegicus)
Database of
Island
Invasive
Species
Eradications
(2014)
Trends and projections of species
introductions
Introduction events in Europe
21 country studies of invasives
EU
Biodiversity
Targets
2011
Cumulative Introductions
Worsening
EU IAS
legislation
adopted
Oct 2014
Improving
40
1960
Year
Pagad et al. (2014)
Cumulative Introductions
100
2020
1800
Year
2000
Strong, comprehensive responses can work to control
Invasive Alien Species and reduce impacts
Example of New Zealand’s IAS program
Stoat (Mustela erminea)
Data compiled by M. Clout, P. Genovesi from
Simberloff et al. (2012), updated by J. Russel
Researchers, managers and policy makers
have identified evidence-based actions for
dealing with Invasive Alien Species
Simberloff et al. (2012)
Climate change and increasing global trade will
pose long-term difficulties for managing
invasive alien species
Number of the “100 Worst” Invasive Alien Species that are
projected to find suitable climate conditions in by 2050
latitude
longitude
Bellard et al.
(2013)
GBO-4 provides a rich set of case studies illustrating
successful approaches
Box 5.1. Pathways for reductions in habitat loss: Brazil case study.
Deforestation
rates
Lower is better
Box 6.1. Sustainability in UK Fisheries
UK fish
stocks
harvested
sustainabl
y
Higher is
better
Box 15.1. Ecosystem restoration in China
Overview of trends and extrapolation of indices
across the 20 Aichi Targets
Tittensor et al. (2014) Science
Target
Synthesis of National Reports
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
0%
Based on 65 national reports
100%
Achieving the 2050 Vision and ties with
Sustainable Development Goals
Biodiversity (Mean Species Abundance)
• Stop biodiversity loss by 2050
• Meet Millennium Development Goals,
with a focus on eliminating hunger
• Keep global warming below 2°C
Contribution of measures to stopping biodiversity loss
Reduce consumption and
waste
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Three scenarios for achieving the 2050 vision
PBL (2012)
Leadley et al. (2014)
Achieving the 2050 Vision and ties with
Sustainable Development Goals
Fisheries
Terrestrial species status
Fraction overexploited
Species status (100% = current)
GHG emissions
Food production
PBL (2012)
Leadley et al. (2014)
Conclusions
• Progress is being made towards reaching the majority of the Aichi Targets.
• However, this progress is insufficient to attain most of the Aichi Targets by 2020,
meaning that a redoubling of efforts is needed.
• Despite considerable progress in a wide range of actions to improve the status of
biodiversity and ecosystems, most indicators of the status of biodiversity continue to
decline, in part due to persistent increases in pressures.
• Examples of coordinated national actions show that treating multiple drivers and
multiple targets can lead to improvements of biodiversity status.
• Scenarios show that it is possible with strong, concerted action to couple
improvements in the status of biodiversity, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and
improve the well-being of all people.