Over the past few decades, a new form of governance has emerged to replace adversarial and managerial modes of policy making and implementation. Collaborative governance, as it has come to be known, brings public and private stakeholders together in collective forums with public agencies to engage in consensus-oriented decision making. In this article, we conduct a meta-analytical study of the existing literature on collaborative governance with the goal of elaborating a contingency model of collaborative governance. After reviewing 137 cases of collaborative governance across a range of policy sectors, we identify critical variables that will influence whether or not this mode of governance will produce successful collaboration. These variables include the prior history of conflict or cooperation, the incentives for stakeholders to participate, power and resources imbalances, leadership, and institutional design. We also identify a series of factors that are crucial within the collaborative process itself. These factors include face-to-face dialogue, trust building, and the development of commitment and shared understanding. We found that a virtuous cycle of collaboration tends to develop when collaborative forums focus on “small wins” that deepen trust, commitment, and shared understanding. The article concludes with a discussion of the implications of our contingency model for practitioners and for future research on collaborative governance.

<p id="p00010"><strong>Background &amp; Aim:</strong> Matters relating to finance are critical to the implementation both for the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the newly adopted “Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework” (GBF). Within the package of decisions adopted at the 15th Conference of the Parties (COP15) of the CBD, the Kunming-Montreal GBF and the decision on Resource Mobilization are those related to finance. The Kunming-Montreal GBF sets up clear quantitative financial goals “closing the biodiversity finance gap of \$700 billion per year” and “mobilizing at least \$200 billion per year by 2030 from all sources”. The decision on Resource Mobilization contains important institutional arrangements, namely the historic establishment of the Kunming-Montreal GBF Fund, the adoption of the new strategy for resource mobilization and the establishment of an advisory committee on resource mobilization, etc.</p> <p id="p00015"><strong>Review Results:</strong> How quickly these goal-related commitments and institutional arrangements can be achieved is of paramount importance. This article, based on a systematic review of the finance-related decisions at COP15 and a comprehensive analysis of the key reports on biodiversity finance, provides an overview of the current status of biodiversity finance and an analysis of the new financial needs for the implementation of the CBD and the Kunming-Montreal GBF, with a view towards future arrangements.</p> <p id="p00020"><strong>Recommendations:</strong> This article suggests that China should continue to strive for bilateral/multilateral grants, provide continuous and stable financial support for biodiversity, broaden the mechanism for realizing the value of ecological products, establish the mechanisms for access to and benefit sharing for genetic resources and DSI (Digital Sequence Information), and improve the system of compensation and damage compensation for biodiversity, so as to facilitate the implementation of the Kunming-Montreal GBF.</p>

资金问题对于《生物多样性公约》履约和新达成的《昆明-蒙特利尔全球生物多样性框架》(简称《昆蒙框架》)的实施都至关重要, 在《生物多样性公约》第十五次缔约方大会(COP15)通过的一揽子成果文件中, 与资金问题有关的主要是《昆蒙框架》及关于《资源调动》的决定。《昆蒙框架》提出了逐步缩小每年7,000亿美元的生物多样性资金缺口、到2030年每年至少筹集2,000亿美元的资源量等明确的数量目标。关于《资源调动》的决定包含了历史性地设立全球生物多样性框架基金、通过新的资源调动战略、成立资源调动咨询委员会等重要制度安排。这些目标相关承诺和制度安排如何尽快落地是重中之重。本文系统梳理了COP15资金问题相关决定, 综合分析了当前关于生物多样性资金问题的系列重要报告, 概述了全球履约资金的现状和问题, 分析了国际履约的最新资金要求, 展望了未来履约的资金安排, 并对中国如何加强履约资金的调动提出了应继续争取用好多双边国际赠款、提供持续稳定的财政资金支持、拓宽生态产品价值实现机制、建立遗传资源获取与惠益分享制度以及建立和完善生物多样性补偿和损害赔偿制度等建议。

Indigenous and local knowledge systems as well as practitioners' knowledge can provide valid and useful knowledge to enhance our understanding of governance of biodiversity and ecosystems for human well-being. There is, therefore, a great need within emerging global assessment programs, such as the IPBES and other international efforts, to develop functioning mechanisms for legitimate, transparent, and constructive ways of creating synergies across knowledge systems. We present the multiple evidence base (MEB) as an approach that proposes parallels whereby indigenous, local and scientific knowledge systems are viewed to generate different manifestations of knowledge, which can generate new insights and innovations through complementarities. MEB emphasizes that evaluation of knowledge occurs primarily within rather than across knowledge systems. MEB on a particular issue creates an enriched picture of understanding, for triangulation and joint assessment of knowledge, and a starting point for further knowledge generation.

Current policies and practices in biodiversity conservation have been increasingly influenced by neoliberal approaches since the 1990s. The authors focus on the principle of transparency as a self-proclaimed basis of neoliberal environmental governance, and on the role of standardized science-based measurements which it purportedly affords. The authors introduce the term ‘measurementality’ to signify the governance logic that emerges when transparency comes to stand next to effectiveness and efficiency as neoliberal principles and to highlight the connections that are forged between economic, managerial, and technocratic discourses. The example of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) is used to discuss the role of measurementality in global biodiversity governance. The analysis suggests that IPBES aims to coordinate the science–policy interface in order to optimize the generation of user-friendly knowledge of those elements of biodiversity that are considered politically and economically relevant: At the current economic juncture, these being in essence ecosystem services. Based on these findings, the authors proceed by critically reflecting on the ways in which the measurementality logic of IPBES may not only result in an impoverishment of the biodiversity research agenda, but also in an impoverished understanding of biodiversity itself. To conclude, the authors argue that measurementality is part and parcel of the neoliberal paradigm in which science produces the raw materials for subsequent control and exchange and that, as a result, the intersection of science, discourse, policy, and economics within these governance systems requires sustained critical scrutiny.

Biodiversity is suffering dramatic declines across the globe, threatening the ability of ecosystems to provide the services on which humanity depends. Mainstreaming biodiversity into the plans, strategies and policies of different economic sectors is key to reversing these declines. The importance of this mainstreaming is recognized by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and its Aichi targets. Individual countries can implement the goals of the CBD through their National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs), which aim to, inter alia, support the mainstreaming of biodiversity into the policies of key economic sectors, such as agriculture, forestry and fisheries. This paper investigates the performance of countries at incorporating biodiversity mainstreaming into their post-2010 NBSAPs. We conduct a large-scale review of 144 NBSAPs against five criteria and calculate a national-level indicator for comparing levels of mainstreaming among countries. Our results show that developing countries, particularly those in Africa, have higher scores, indicating that they have a higher awareness of the importance of biodiversity mainstreaming. Developing nations were also more likely to involve a greater range of stakeholders in the NBSAP development process, whilst developed nations were less likely to give specific details about the monetary contributions of biodiversity to their economies. Overall, our findings suggest that biodiversity mainstreaming remains a challenge across much of the world, but that progress in some areas can provide direction and momentum in the future.

<p id="p00010"><strong>Background &amp; Aim:</strong> The Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity adopted a new global biodiversity strategy—the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (the Kunming-Montreal GBF). The following five package outcomes were also adopted: Monitoring Framework; Mechanisms for Planning, Monitoring, Reporting and Review; Resource Mobilization; Capacity-Building and Development, Scientific and Technological Cooperation; and Genetic Resources Digital Sequence Information. Parties to the Convention need to implement the Kunming-Montreal GBF and its package of outcomes domestically. In order to facilitate China’s implementation of the Kunming-Montreal GBF, the paper briefly reviews the development process and the main contents of the Kunming-Montreal GBF and its package of outcomes.</p> <p id="p00015"><strong>Review Results:</strong> Comments on the global and national impact of the Kunming-Montreal GBF are given. In order to implement the Kunming-Montreal GBF, developed countries should enhance biodiversity financing and ensure the level of international funds related to biodiversity flowing to developing countries. Developing countries should revise or update national biodiversity strategies and action plans, monitor and report national implementation progress by using indicators, and accept review. China should host the inter-sessional process of the CBD and facilitate the implementation of the package deals of the Kunming-Montreal GBF.</p> <p id="p00020"><strong>Recommendations:</strong>Recommendations on how to implement the Kunming-Montreal GBF in China are provided: updating and revising the national biodiversity strategic action plan, formulating laws and policies to promote biodiversity mainstreaming, strengthening monitoring and evaluation of national implementation progress, promoting the development of biodiversity financing tools, and establishing partnerships with broad participation by the entire society.</p>

《生物多样性公约》第十五次缔约方大会通过了新的全球生物多样性战略, 即《昆明-蒙特利尔全球生物多样性框架》(简称《昆蒙框架》)。随之通过的还包括《&lt;昆蒙框架&gt;的监测框架》《规划、监测、报告和审查机制》《资源调动》《能力建设与发展和科技合作》《遗传资源数字序列信息》等一揽子成果文件。《公约》缔约方需要在国内执行《昆蒙框架》及其一揽子成果。为支持我国执行《昆蒙框架》, 本文简要回顾了《昆蒙框架》及其一揽子成果的制定进程, 解读了《昆蒙框架》及相关一揽子成果的主要内容, 评论了《昆蒙框架》对全球和国家的影响, 并就我国如何执行《昆蒙框架》提出了建议, 包括更新修订国家生物多样性战略行动计划, 制定法律和政策以促进生物多样性的主流化, 强化国家执行进展监测和评估, 促进生物多样性融资工具的开发, 建立全社会广泛参与的伙伴关系。

<p id="p00010"><strong>Background &amp; Aim:</strong> Capacity-building and development (CDD) is an integral part to implementing the protocols of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), and an effective means to put the new Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) into action. CDD is crucial, in developing countries, for promoting the implementation of the CBD and achieve positive results. This paper aims to provide guidance for effective implementation of the Kunming-Montreal GBF and completion of its goals, and further explore policy priorities that could potentially address the issue. </p> <p id="p1"><strong>Review Results:</strong> It is known that none of the “Aichi Targets” have been fully achieved at the global level. Furthermore, the international community realizes the need to alter past approaches that were largely focused towards setting targets than taking actions. Here, we systematically review the policy decisions adopted by the Conferences of the Parties (COPs) to the CBD and its protocols in regard to CDD. The findings show that due to the increasing concerns for the CDD under CBD, the COPs recommend a reorienting of priorities from the long-term focus on information exchange and technology transfer to the establishment and performance of a complete institution for the CDD. The latest negotiation results and debates on the CDD contained in the Kunming-Montreal GBF are also presented. </p> <p id="p2"><strong>Challenges:</strong> The efforts to promote CDD under the CBD and its Protocols still face ongoing challenges, including insufficient co-finance, shortage of systematic needs assessment and inventory, limited knowledge and information sharing, lack of long-term and sustainable interventions, and inadequate synergy among biodiversity-related international conventions. </p> <p id="p3"><strong>Recommendations:</strong> Strategic recommendations to enhance the CDD are provided, namely, at the international level, (1) strengthening financial support; (2) national biodiversity strategies and action plans (NBSAP) to fully guarantee the implementation of capacity-building and development activities; (3) ensuring the projects and programs for the CDD are systematic, institution-oriented, sustainable; (4) improvement of the information clearing house; and (5) enhancing the synergy of biodiversity-related international conventions; and at the domestic level, (1) strengthening top-level design and employing the China National Commission for Biodiversity Conservation to coordinate the efforts related to biodiversity; (2) updating the NBSAP; (3) identifying capacity-building needs in the areas of biosecurity and genetic resources; (4) improving the publicity campaigns and the participation of various stakeholders; and (5) helping other developing countries to improve the CDD by means of the “Kunming Biodiversity Fund” and the “Belt and Road” to promote a responsible China.</p>