Biodiv Sci ›› 2017, Vol. 25 ›› Issue (11): 1161-1168.DOI: 10.17520/biods.2017249

• Special Feature: On Implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity • Previous Articles     Next Articles

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

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