生物多样性 ›› 2017, Vol. 25 ›› Issue (11): 1161-1168.DOI: 10.17520/biods.2017249

• 《生物多样性公约》履约专题 • 上一篇    下一篇

“爱知生物多样性目标”国家评估指标的对比研究及对策建议

戴蓉*(), 吴翼   

  1. 环境保护部南京环境科学研究所, 南京 210042
  • 收稿日期:2017-09-13 接受日期:2017-11-16 出版日期:2017-11-20 发布日期:2017-11-20
  • 通讯作者: 戴蓉
  • 基金资助:
    中央级公益性科研院所基本科研业务专项(20160402)、江苏省自然科学基金-青年基金项目(BK20160103)、中国-韩国环境合作联委会项目(20-K1)和环境保护部“生物多样性保护专项”

A comparative study on national assessment indicators for Aichi Biodiversity Targets and relevant countermeasures

Rong Dai*(), Yi Wu   

  1. Nanjing Institute of Environmental Sciences, Ministry of Environmental Protection of the People’s Republic of China, Nanjing 210042
  • Received:2017-09-13 Accepted:2017-11-16 Online:2017-11-20 Published:2017-11-20
  • Contact: Dai Rong

摘要:

“爱知生物多样性目标”(简称“爱知目标”)的实现有助于大幅减缓全球、区域和国家水平上的生物多样性丧失速度和应对可持续发展面临的挑战。将“爱知目标”框架下制定的国家评估指标纳入“国家生物多样性战略与行动计划”和“国家报告”是国家层面上履约的重要行动之一。本文以“爱知目标”为框架, 对其关注点进行梳理, 并分析其间的联系。以每个关注点为对比基础, 以欧盟、澳大利亚、德国、印度、巴西、南非、日本和中国为研究对象, 对各国“爱知目标”关注点采取的相关指标及行动进行对比分析, 识别我国现存相关指标的薄弱环节。结果表明: 公众参与(1-2), 生物多样性价值评估(2-1), 生物多样性主流化(2-2), 消除、淘汰或改革有害生物多样性奖励措施(3-1), 补贴政策(3-2), 污染对生物多样性的影响(8-2), 连通性(11-4), 《名古屋议定书》的执行(16-1), 传统知识的保护(18-1)和传统知识拥有者的权利和参与及保障(18-2)和国外官方发展援助的财政资源(20-2)等关注点目前缺乏相关的评估指标。可持续消费(4-2), 生境丧失、退化和破碎化(5-1), 可持续渔业(6-2), 农林渔业对生物多样性的影响(7-2), 气候变化对珊瑚礁的影响(10-1)和管理成效评估(11-3)等关注点暂未有足够的数据进行评估。通过分析以上国家相关指标设定和相关行动的经验以及我国存在的问题, 我们提出以下建议: (1)进一步完善我国评估指标体系; (2)加快调整不利于生物多样性保护的政策; (3)开展传统知识及惠益分享议题的定量化研究; (4)开展公众科学活动, 提高公众参与能力。

关键词: 爱知生物多样性目标, 关注点, 指标与行动, 对比研究, 对策建议

Abstract:

The implementation of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets (hereinafter referred to as the “Aichi Targets”) is conducive to a significant decrease in the rate of biodiversity loss at global, regional and national levels and addresses sustainable development challenges. Incorporating national indicators set under the framework of the Aichi Targets into a national biodiversity strategy, action plan, and national report are important actions for implementing the Convention on Biological Diversity at the national level. Using the Aichi Targets as the framework, this paper teases out the challenges of its targets and analyzes relationships among these concerns. By comparing each concern and using European Union, Australia, Germany, India, Brazil, South Africa, Japan, and China as study areas, this paper compares and analyzes the indicators and actions relating to concerns of the Aichi Targets, thus identifying and analyzing weak links in China’s existing relevant indicators. The results showed that the concerns without relevant assessment indicators are as follows: public participation (1-2), biodiversity valuation (2-1), mainstreaming biodiversity (2-2), subsidies, harmful to biodiversity are eliminated or reformed (3-1), subsidy policy (3-2), impacts of pollution on biodiversity (8-2), connectivity (11-4), implementation of the Nagoya Protocol (16-1), protection of traditional knowledge (18-1), traditional knowledge owners’ rights and participation (18-2) and foreign official financial resources for development (20-2). The concerns that there are no enough data to be used to assess the indicators are as follows: sustainable consumption (4-2), habitat loss, degradation and fragmentation (5-1), sustainable fisheries (6-2), impacts of agriculture, forestry and fishery on biodiversity (7-2), climate change impacts on coral reefs (10-1) and management effectiveness of protected areas (11-3). By analyzing individual country experiences of relevant indicators and actions as well as issues in China, we provide the following recommendations: (1) To perfect the assessment indicator system in China; (2) To accelerate policy adjustments for those that are not favorable to biodiversity conservation; (3) To carry out quantitative studies on traditional knowledge and benefit-sharing issues; and (4) To carry out scientific activities for citizens that enhance public participation.

Key words: Aichi Biodiversity Targets, concerns, indicators and actions, comparative study, countermeasures