STATUS AND PROSPECTS FOR ACHIEVING AICHI BIODIVERSITY TARGET 11: Implications of National Commitments and Priority Actions

Abstract

This paper reviews the current status of Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 at the global level. Although there remain gaps in the coverage of ecological regions and areas important for biodiversity and ecosystem services, 10 per cent coverage of coastal and marine areas under national jurisdiction has already been surpassed. The full implementation of agreed national priority actions and other commitments, including those in National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans, will expand coverage of the global ocean beyond 10 per cent, and result in more than 17 per cent coverage of terrestrial and inland waters. These commitments will also lead to substantial progress in other elements of the Target. Appropriate recognition of other effective area-based conservation measures and governance types, inter alia, privately protected areas and territories and areas conserved by indigenous peoples and local communities, currently underreported in global assessments, would further improve the prospects for the achievement of Target 11. This will generate not only multiple benefits for the well-being of society by contributing solutions to the most important global challenges, but will also contribute to other Aichi Targets and globally agreed goals. Hence, concerted efforts by all stakeholders to facilitate the implementation of commitments towards achieving Target 11 will be a wise investment.

The prevalence, characteristics and effectiveness of Aichi Target 11′s “other effective area‐based conservation measures” (OECMs) in Key Biodiversity Areas

“…However, no definition was offered for “other effective area‐based conservation measures,” now more commonly referred to as OECMs (Jonas, Barbuto, Jonas, Kothari, & Nelson, ) but for which the more intuitive term “conserved areas” has been proposed (Jonas et al., ). This lack of definition hinders Parties to the CBD from reaching or exceeding their goals (Gannon et al., ; Jonas & Lucas, ; Jonas et al., ; MacKinnon et al., ; Woodley et al., ). The IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) established a Task Force to develop a draft definition of OECMs and to provide advice on their identification so that sites benefitting from OECMs can be identified consistently and brought into required reporting processes (IUCN‐WCPA, ), thus giving them formal recognition and support.…”

Do static and dynamic marine protected areas that restrict pelagic fishing achieve ecological objectives?

“…, Gannon et al. ). These pelagic MPAs support progress toward achieving the area‐based goal of Aichi Biodiversity Target 11—also adopted as Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) target 14.5—which calls for 10% of coastal and marine areas by 2020 to be conserved through ecologically representative and well‐connected systems of MPAs and other effective area‐based conservation approaches (CBD , UNGA , Rice et al.…”

“…, Gannon et al. ). These examples, which fit IUCN's definition of Other Effective Area‐based Conservation Measures, could contribute to the attainment of area‐based goals for global MPAs in relation to SDG target 14 (Diz et al.…”

“…While coastal, benthic MPAs have been shown to generate positive outcomes on average, there remains substantial uncertainty over the feasibility of pelagic MPAs to achieve these and other ecological objectives (Botsford et al 2003, Hilborn et al 2004a, b, Kaiser 2005, Le Quesne and Codling 2009, Davies et al 2012, Graham et al 2012, Hazen et al 2013. Despite these uncertainties, over the past decade there has been a proliferation of large-scale MPAs that either include or are exclusively pelagic habitat in which pelagic fishing is restricted (Fernandes et al 2005, Sheppard et al 2012, Gannon et al 2017. These pelagic MPAs support progress toward achieving the area-based goal of Aichi Biodiversity Target 11-also adopted as Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) target 14.5 -which calls for 10% of coastal and marine areas by 2020 to be conserved through ecologically representative and well-connected systems of MPAs and other effective area-based conservation approaches (CBD 2011, UNGA 2015a, Rice et al 2018.…”

“…Other marine areas may achieve protection of pelagic habitat as a consequence of restrictions implemented for reasons other than nature/ biodiversity conservation that may also achieve ecological benefits by constraining fishing mortality of pelagic species. Examples include: areas zoned for defense, prohibitions on fishing to prevent damage of data buoys, areas subject to piracy, privately protected areas, and areas protected by indigenous peoples and local communities (e.g., WCPFC 2009, Gannon et al 2017. These examples, which fit IUCN's definition of Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures, could contribute to the attainment of area-based goals for global MPAs in relation to SDG target 14 (Diz et al 2018).…”