Disclaimer

The opinions given herein belong solely to the authors and do not represent the views or policies of IUCN. Acknowledgements

This work and the survey is linked to a UN Environment project entitled “Environmental Treaties Programme – realizing synergies for biodiversity” supported by the European Union and the Government of Switzerland. IUCN acknowledges the financial contribution and advice of UN Environment and the technical support of the United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) and the Secretariat to the Convention on Biological Diversity. The authors recognise the overall guidance received from Andreas Obrecht (UN Environment), the feedback received from Jerry Harrison, Katharina Rogalla von Bieberstein and Noa Steiner (WCMC), the contributions from Emilian Berutti, and the invaluable support received from our colleagues Sarah Over and Delwyn Dupuis May 2019 – International Union for Conservation of Nature

Page | 1

INTRODUCTION

In December 2016, the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) requested the Executive

Secretary to develop a proposal for a comprehensive and participatory preparatory process for a new

framework for biodiversity for after 2020. Parties also requested to initiate a process for preparing a long-term

strategic framework for capacity building beyond 20201 ensuring its alignment with the development of the

post-2020 global biodiversity framework, and called for the promotion of synergies with other conventions and

international organisations2, when facilitating and implementing capacity building activities.

The current Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 has been recognized by UNEA as a comprehensive

framework for the effective implementation of the biodiversity-related conventions (BRCs)3, and as the UN

Decade for Biodiversity comes to an end, the development of a post-2020 global biodiversity framework

presents further opportunities to realize synergies and enhance cooperation, including through capacity

building. Indeed, as capacity needs are identified in the process of developing the new framework, challenges

and lessons learned from the implementation of the current strategic plan could then be considered in the

strategic framework for capacity building beyond 2020.

In September 2018, IUCN conducted a survey among its Members to gather views to inform the development

of both the global biodiversity framework for the post-2020 period and the long-term strategic framework for

capacity building, as part of a UN Environment project entitled “Environmental Treaties Programme – realizing

synergies for biodiversity”. The project was designed to support the implementation of MEAs, and in particular

to contribute to the implementation of decisions of their governing bodies in relation to enhancing cooperation,

coordination and synergies and the work towards the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals

(SDGs) and the post-2020 global biodiversity framework currently being developed under the CBD.

This short paper presents the results of the survey regarding IUCN Members’ views on the post-2020 global

biodiversity framework. The long-term strategic framework for capacity building is the object of the IUCN paper

Capacity building and synergies: contributing to the design of a long-term strategic framework for capacity

building beyond 20204.

THE IUCN SURVEY

Over the course of three weeks, IUCN Members were invited to participate in an online survey to inform the

development of the global biodiversity frameworks. The survey consisted of two parts. In Part I, members were

asked for views on their perceived capacity building needs and on areas where capacity building could lead to

enhanced cooperation among the biodiversity-related conventions (BRCs); this in order to feed into the long-

term strategic framework for capacity building beyond 2020. Part II, gathered views from IUCN Members in

1 Decision XIII/23 2 Decision XIII/24 3 UNEP/EA.2/Res.17 Enhancing the work of the United Nations Environment Programme in facilitating cooperation, collaboration and synergies among biodiversity-related conventions 4 The results of the survey pertaining to capacity building, are presented in a paper that constitutes a contribution to the preparation of a long-term strategic framework for capacity building beyond 2020, as mandated by CBD COP Decision XIII/23: Capacity building and synergies: contributing to the design of a long-term strategic framework for capacity building beyond 2020

Page | 2

relation to the development and structure of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. The Chairs of IUCN’s

six Commissions were also invited to participate on behalf of their constituencies. Consultations were

encouraged but only one response per IUCN Member (and Commission) was allowed. The questions in the

survey combined ranking, multiple choice and open questions.

145 IUCN Members participated in the survey, which corresponds to 10.5% of the entire membership. The

proportion of responses in terms of membership category roughly corresponds to the actual membership

distribution, albeit a slight over representation from Category A (States and government agencies) and

Category B Members (national and international NGOs). In terms of geographic distribution, responses were

received from all statutory regions (34 from West Europe; 27 from North America and the Caribbean and South

and East Asia; 21 from Meso and South America; 15 from Africa; 8 from East Europe, north and Central Asia;

7 from West Asia; and 6 from Oceania). (Graph 1).

Based on 9 questions covering the importance of setting global conservation goals for biodiversity, elements

determining the progress (or lack of) towards achieving the Aichi Targets, and the possible structure, priority

themes and gaps of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework, the next section presents emerging

messages from the IUCN Members that participated in the survey.

EMERGING MESSAGES

International policy frameworks are important but national circumstances matter most

The vast majority of respondents consider that biodiversity-related conventions (BRCs) provide helpful

guidance in setting strategic priorities for their work (Graph 2). These are often seen as blueprints that provide

useful planning information at the national level not only in terms of policies and legal frameworks, but also at

the organisational level in terms of designing and implementing projects that align with sectoral and donors’

Graph 1. Right: survey respondents by Membership category. Left: survey respondents by statutory region

2618%

11277%

32%

43%

A - State members and governmentagenciesB - National and International NGOs

C - Indigenous Peoples Organizations

D - Affiliates

4 3 3 41

47

10

5

17

22

4

22

7

251

1

1

1

1

2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Africa EastEurope,

North andCentral

Asia

Meso andSouth

America

NorthAmericaand the

Caribbean

Oceania South andEast Asia

West Asia WestEurope

Page | 3

priorities. Not surprisingly, State Members/Government Agencies indicated that while they take into account

the decisions taken at the international level, they tailor them to the national and local circumstances. A large

proportion of NGO respondents also reported taking into account international strategies but manifested that

they were first bound by their own institutional capacity/plans and by the national context (laws, political

decisions, the presence/absence of corruption, among others) (Graph 3).

“The BRCs provide a legal framework to support our work encouraging governments to increase ambition on a range of issues. The guidance they provide in support of this work is often useful to support government action”

“Treaties and agreements provide us with an international legal framework for the conservation and preservation of biodiversity. They also help to promote capacity development, technology transfer and international cooperation”

4%7%

48%

41%

34

1

5

28

1

523

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

A B C D

Extremely helpful

Somewhat helpful

Neutral

Slightly helpful

Not helpful at all

Graph 2. From your perspective, are BRCs helpful in providing guidance for your organisation/Government agency in setting strategic priorities for its work? The pie chart (left) indicates the overall responses; columns (right) indicate responses by Member category

2 9

426

114

1

2

13

1

1

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

A B C D

Our priorities and decisionsare completely separatefrom intern'l policyframeworks

We are aware of guidancecoming from intern'l policyframeworks but considerother factors more

We systematically reflect onguidance from intern'lpolicy frameworks, but thisis not a determining factor

We take internationalstrategies into account

To a high extent

15%40%

22%22%

1%

Graph 3. Are the priorities of your organization/Government agency guided by the decisions adopted by the BRCs and/or the strategic guidance provided by international policy frameworks (e.g. the SDGs)? The pie chart indicates the overall responses; the graph to the right presents disaggregated data by Member category.

Page | 4

“[The BRCs] are an essential global framing of national policy frameworks and the work needed on the ground”

“While international strategies have a big influence on our decisions, we also take into account the national and local circumstances”

“We refer more to national policies and to a certain extent to international policies, related to biodiversity”

As for the effectiveness of global goals and targets in terms of their contribution to improving the status of

biodiversity, Members are in agreement that these are essential in driving countries into action despite the fact

that the rate of biodiversity loss is still increasing. It is generally believed that global conservation goals are a

strong communication tool that ensures a common language between different actors thus facilitating

coordinated action. Nevertheless, there is also recognition that setting goals and targets must take into account

national contexts for efforts to be appropriately and effectively channelled. Further, respondents have also

identified the importance of political will and compliance mechanisms to ensure governments will implement

their international obligations.

“Evidence suggests that the status of biodiversity has not improved overall but it would probably be even worse without the global goals”

“Para mejorar el estado de la biodiversidad es necesario establecer los objetivos y metas de conservación en función de la problemática nacional, de lo contrario los esfuerzos no son canalizados de manera efectiva”

Clarity and simplicity are determining factors in the progress towards achieving the Aichi Targets

Clarity in the scope of the target and a simple and straightforward formulation have been identified by Members

as determining factors of progress towards achieving some of the Aichi Targets or elements of the targets.

Indeed, simplicity and clarity are thought to facilitate implementation as targets can be easily communicated

and understood (equally) by all actors/sectors and would therefore easily lead to action. Some respondents

7%7%

46%

40%

1 4

5

3

27

1 1

6

22

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

A B C D

Fully agree

Agree

Don’t know

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Graph 4. To what extent do you agree that setting global conservation goals and targets contributes to improving the status of

biodiversity? The pie chart (left) indicates the overall responses; columns (right) indicate responses by Member category.

Page | 5

also considered that progress towards numerical targets would be easier to measure while others stressed the

development of indicators to be the crucial factor rather than the attributes of the targets themselves (Graph

5). Some expressed that the progress in achieving targets had little to do with the options presented and more

with the willingness of the authorities and whether the target required cooperation with sectors other than the

government.

“The targets should be first and foremost simply stated in order to be understandable and facilitate their integration into national policies/targets. The scope of the target should be easily understood, as to avoid any ambiguity and facilitate the communication between different actors of biodiversity protection. It thus important to refer to a common framework. When possible and relevant the targets should be quantitatively measurable as to ensure that they can easily translated into national objectives. Where quantitative target is not relevant or practically implementable a qualitative target should be fixed”

The structure of the current Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 is comprehensive enough but

some amendments may be necessary

Around 73% of respondents consider that the structure of the current Strategic Plan should be maintained

although most would introduce some changes (Graph 6). The most commonly cited reason for this is the need

for consistency and continuity while reflecting that there are shortcomings that should be strengthened in the

post-2020 global biodiversity framework. Areas that should be reinforced include compliance and

commitments, and review mechanisms. A long-term vision and a short-term strategy are welcome, including

shorter deadlines and frequent periodic evaluations. One respondent asked to make sure the Global Strategy

for Plant Conservation is not dropped or forgotten while another expressed concern that renegotiating the

Strategic Plan could result in lower commitments than those agreed to in 2010.

Graph 5. In your opinion which of the following issues mostly determine the progress of some Targets (or elements therein) over

others?

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

The scope of the target is clear (it directly relates to the objectives ofthe CBD)

Simplicity of the target (formulation is simple and straightforward)

Brevity of the target (it is short and contains few distinctcomponents)

Numerical nature of the target (it can be mostly measured throughnumerical values)

Qualitative nature of the target (it can be measured through aqualitative assessment)

Mostly determines progress Less determines progress

Page | 6

The themes the survey’s respondents would prioritise in the post-2020 biodiversity framework (Graph 7) would

be mainly related to the sustainable use of natural resources (e.g. agriculture, forestry, fisheries, marine and

freshwater resources, wildlife – issues currently addressed by Aichi Targets 5, 6, and 7); mainstreaming

biodiversity into development planning (such as poverty reduction plans, national development planning and

generally issues addressed under Aichi Targets 2 and 20); and mainstreaming biodiversity into key sectors &

addressing consumption and production patterns (related to Aichi Target 4). Interestingly, Members also

identified sustainable use of natural resources and mainstreaming into development planning as priority areas

for capacity building5. Graph 7 also reveals that two of the three objectives of the convention – conservation

and sustainable use of biodiversity – score relatively high in the issues to be prioritised in the next decade, but

the third objective – access and benefit-sharing of genetic resources – was not considered equally important.

Some of the targets that Members consider should be reinforced or slightly changed include targets 5 (include

non-forest ecosystems and semi-natural ecosystems), 11 (should move away from percentages and focus on

effectively conserving sites of importance for biodiversity), 13 (more emphasis in genetic diversity) and target

18.

“To ensure consistency, the structure of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 (vision, mission goals and targets) should remain the same. (…) We also believe schemes for monitoring and evaluations on each actor’s efforts needs to be discussed simultaneously as goals and targets.”

“Most of the targets are good and still relevant, but details can be tweaked and overall strategy streamlined for public consumption”

“The current Strategic plan is comprehensive and contains all the targets that are needed to reach the overall goal of halting biodiversity loss. Although some smaller adaptations may be necessary, we recommend to keep the present structure to ensure continuity and comparability and not lose time in formulating new targets. Analysis shows that it is not the targets that are wrong, it is that there is a lack of political will to implement them. Therefore, in addition to the targets, compliance and commitments

5 See Capacity building and synergies: contributing to the design of a long-term strategic framework for capacity building beyond 2020

28%

45%

20%

7%

Yes, it should be maintained asis

Yes the same broad structureshould be kept with somechanges

Indifferent/don’t know

No, it should be completelychanged

Graph 6. Going forward, do you think a post-2020 global biodiversity framework should maintain the same structure?

Page | 7

must be strengthened. National efforts need to be reviewed and milestones must be set up that deliver a basis for targeted and enhanced action.”

New elements to consider for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework

The survey asked Members what relevant issues should be included in the post-2020 global biodiversity

framework that are not sufficiently covered in the current Strategic Plan and to provide views on the scope and

content of the future plan. These are some of the topics the Members identified:

Cities and urban development: as more and more people live in cities, new approaches are needed in

addressing nature in and around cities; human dependency on nature needs to be clarified, better

understood and communicated and the increasing disconnect between people and nature addressed.

Some Members suggest to include a specific target on cities and urban (re-)development to induce

pro-active mainstreaming biodiversity in spatial developments and extensions of urban zones.

Biocultural diversity, rights of indigenous peoples and local communities and associated traditional

livelihood and knowledge: given the close interrelation between biological and cultural diversity,

customary use of biological resources that is compatible with conservation and sustainable use should

be better protected and conserved. Around a quarter of the world’s tropical forest carbon is managed

by indigenous peoples and local communities and much of the world's biodiversity is on their lands

and territories. Supportive legal frameworks and policies to secure their rights to land and resources

and supporting their collective action would be one of the most effective ways to securing biodiversity

and achieving future targets.

Graph 7. If you could decide on an ideal global plan for biodiversity conservation and sustainable development for the post-2020

period, which of the following themes would you prioritise as the most relevant component parts of such plan? Identify the top three

by ranking from 1 -3, with 1 being the most important.

12

15

7

10

10

7

2

4

1

16

10

15

9

7

3

4

2

1

11

9

8

8

7

6

6

5

3

4

Sustainable use of natural resources (related to Aichi Targets 5, 6, 7)

Integrating/mainstreaming biodiversity into development planning(related to Aichi Targets 2 and 20)

Mainstreaming biodiversity into key sectors & addressingconsumption and production patterns (related to Aichi Target 4)

Protection & effective governance (related to Aichi Targets 11, 12, 13)

Awareness and knowledge (related to Aichi Targets 1, 18, 19)

Addressing degradation and habitat loss including through restoration(related to Aichi Targets14 and 15)

Decreasing pressures on ecosystems mostly affected by climatechange & combating desertification (related to Aichi Targets 10 and…

Addressing perverse incentives harmful to biodiversity (related toAichi Target 3)

Addressing access and benefit-sharing of genetic resources (ABS)(related to Aichi Target 16)

Pollution, biosafety and invasive alien species (related to Aichi Targets8, 9 and 10)

1 2 3

Page | 8

Synergies: emphasise linkages between biodiversity and climate change, between biodiversity and

sustainable development and strengthen connections with other conventions. Members considered

more attention could be paid to ecosystem-based approaches (mitigation, adaptation and disaster risk

reduction) to climate change and the Paris Agreement. Others highlighted the relationship with the

SDGs, and added that if the scope of the new framework does not foresee the integration of

biodiversity into development it will continue to be lost. A new development paradigm is needed, one

that changes consumption patterns.

In relation with synergies with other biodiversity-related conventions, IUCN’s analysis of the survey

regarding the capacity building framework beyond 20206 found that themes/subjects of common

interest for the BRCs were a key element to consider in its development, as activities carried out for

this purpose could prove more efficient and cost-effective. For instance, capacity building activities

focused on enhancing skills for data collection and analysis of threatened species and their habitats

(linked to Target 12) would be of interest to the constituencies in CBD, CITES, CMS, IWC and Ramsar.

Trainings related to protected areas and areas with multiple designations (Target 11) could bring

together, and already do, CBD, WHC and Ramsar7. Designing the post-2020 global biodiversity

framework with those themes of common interest in mind could enhance not only engagement from

all BRCs in the design of the framework but also promote its implementation once adopted by

increasing the sense of ownership.

Population growth and human interactions with the natural world: biodiversity conservation requires

taking into account people, their health, and their interactions with the natural world. Increasing

population growth rates will be mostly in low and middle-income nations where poor rural communities

often depend most directly on natural resources for their livelihoods, food, water, shelter and cultural

practices. When localised human pressures on ecosystems exceed critical tipping points, both

community health and environmental health suffer.

Greater emphasis on financial plans, including investments from the private sector to protect

biodiversity and valuation of ecosystem services, a member proposed to have quantitative targets

around ecosystem services.

Microbial biodiversity: billions of species of bacteria are suspected to exist, however only 1-5% or so

species are characterized. While microbial communities are potentially affected by natural and

anthropogenic activities such as agriculture, use of pesticides, pollution and urban development, it is

not yet known how changes in microbial diversity can influence ecosystems.

Involvement of all actors/sectors: only with the active participation of all sectors and an informed and

empowered civil society will it be possible to build a functional and real framework for biodiversity. For

example, the new framework could offer a mechanism through which other existing

organisations/international bodies could play a role in its implementation and its goals, in particular

with respect to marine biodiversity conservation and areas beyond national jurisdiction.

6 See Capacity building and synergies: contributing to the design of a long-term strategic framework for capacity building beyond 2020 7 See https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/2016-033-Summ.pdf

Page | 9

Other suggestions include:

Targets to address the implementation of the Cartagena and Nagoya Protocols (inclusion of both

Protocols in the post-2020 global biodiversity framework)

A target for ecosystem-level quality and condition to complement the State targets for species and

genetic diversity

A new target on biodiversity and human health

IUCN INPUTS TO THE POST-2020 PROCESS

In its recommendation 2/19, the Subsidiary Body on Implementation of the Convention requested the Executive

Secretary to invite for submission, initial views from Parties, other Governments, indigenous peoples and local

communities, international organizations, civil society organizations and other stakeholders on the aspects of

the scope and content of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. The results of the survey and its

comments were considered in the elaboration of IUCN’s submission8 in response to the notification issued by

the CBD Secretariat in December 2018.

To learn more about IUCN‘s work on the post-2020 global biodiversity framework and consult all the

submissions please visit our dedicated page.

8https://www.iucn.org/sites/dev/files/content/documents/iucn_views_on_post_2020_global_biodiversity_framework_content_and_scope_final_15_dec_2018.pdf

Page | 10

ANNEX 1: SURVEY QUESTIONS

1. From your perspective, are BRCs helpful in providing guidance for your organisation/Government

agency in setting strategic priorities for its work? Choose one.

Not helpful at all

Slightly helpful

Neutral

Somewhat helpful

Extremely helpful

Please explain your answer. (max 500 characters)

2. Are the priorities of your organisation/Government agency guided by the decisions adopted by BRCs

and/or the strategic guidance provided by international policy frameworks (e.g. the Sustainable

Development Goals)?

To a high extent

We take international strategies into account

We systematically reflect on strategic guidance from international policy frameworks, but this guidance is not the

determining factor

We are aware of strategic guidance coming from international policy frameworks but consider other factors more

Our priorities and decisions are completely separate from international policy frameworks

Other (please specify) max 500 characters

3. To what extent do you agree that setting global conservation goals and targets contributes to improving

the status of biodiversity?

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Don’t know

Agree

Fully agree

Survey to inform Global Biodiversity Frameworks

PART II - Towards a New Global Biodiversity Framework Post-2020

Page | 11

Please explain your answer. (max 500 characters)

4. Progress towards achieving the Aichi Biodiversity Targets of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-

2020 at the global level has been limited with some Targets (and elements therein) having advanced more

and others significantly lagging behind.

In your opinion which of the following issues mostly determine the progress of some Targets (or elements

therein) over others?

Rank from 1-5, with 1 being the most important.

5. Please explain your answer. (max 500 characters)

6. The current Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 consists of a long-term Vision for 2050, an

overarching Mission statement for 2020, 5 Strategic Goals and 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets to be

fulfilled by 2015 or 2020.

Going forward, do you think a post-2020 global biodiversity framework should maintain the same

structure?

Yes, it should be maintained as is

Yes, the same broad structure should be kept with some changes

Indifferent/don’t know

No, it should be completely changed

Please explain (max 500 characters) (mandatory field)

7. Through Resolution 96 “Safeguarding space for nature and securing our future: developing a post- 2020

strategy” of 2016, IUCN Members invited “the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and

other stakeholders to initiate a process towards the development of an ambitious post-2020 strategy

Simplicity of the Target

Brevity of the Target

Numerical nature of the Target

Qualitative nature of the Target

Page | 12

including concrete targets to safeguard space for nature” and called on IUCN “to promote and support the

development of this new post-2020 strategy”.

If you could decide on an ideal global plan for biodiversity conservation and sustainable development

for the post-2020 period, which of the following themes would you prioritise as the most relevant

component parts of such plan?

Identify the top three by ranking from 1 -3, with 1 being the most important.

8. In your view, are there any relevant issues which should be included/ considered in the post-2020 global

biodiversity framework which are not covered, or only partially covered, in the current Strategic Plan? If so,

which one(s)? (max 500 characters)

Integrating/mainstreaming biodiversity into development planning

Addressing perverse incentives harmful to biodiversity

Mainstreaming biodiversity into key sectors & addressing consumption and production patterns

Protection & effective governance

Addressing degradation and habitat loss including through restoration

Addressing access and benefit-sharing of genetic resources (ABS)

Page | 13

9. More generally, please mention any additional views on the scope and content of the post-2020

global biodiversity framework. (Limit: 500 characters)