Showing papers on "Convention on Biological Diversity published in 2012"

Biodiversity and ecosystem services: a multilayered relationship

Abstract: The relationship between biodiversity and the rapidly expanding research and policy field of ecosystem services is confused and is damaging efforts to create coherent policy. Using the widely accepted Convention on Biological Diversity definition of biodiversity and work for the UK National Ecosystem Assessment we show that biodiversity has key roles at all levels of the ecosystem service hierarchy: as a regulator of underpinning ecosystem processes, as a final ecosystem service and as a good that is subject to valuation, whether economic or otherwise. Ecosystem science and practice has not yet absorbed the lessons of this complex relationship, which suggests an urgent need to develop the interdisciplinary science of ecosystem management bringing together ecologists, conservation biologists, resource economists and others.

New Brazilian Floristic List Highlights Conservation Challenges

Abstract: A comprehensive new inventory of Brazilian plants and fungi was published just in time to meet a 2010 Convention on Biological Diversity target and offers important insights into this biodiversity's global significance. Brazil is the home to the world's richest flora (40,989 species; 18,932 endemic) and includes two of the hottest hotspots: Mata Atlântica (19,355 species) and Cerrado (12,669 species). Although the total number of known species is one-third lower than previous estimates, the absolute number of endemic vascular plant species is higher than was previously estimated, and the proportion of endemism (56%) is the highest in the Neotropics. This compilation serves not merely to quantify the scale of the challenge faced in conserving Brazil's unique flora but also serves as a key resource to direct action and monitor progress. Similar efforts by other megadiverse countries are urgently required if the 2020 targets of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Global Strategy for Plant Conserva...

Enclosing the global commons: the convention on biological diversity and green grabbing

Abstract: ‘Green grabs,’ or the expropriation of land or resources for environmental purposes, constitute an important component of the current global land grab explosion. We argue that international environmental institutions are increasingly cultivating the terrain for green grabbing. As sites that circulate and sanction forms of knowledge, establish regulatory devices and programmatic targets, and align and articulate actors with these mechanisms, they structure emergent green market opportunities and practices. Drawing on the idea of primitive accumulation as a continual process, we examine the 10th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity as one such institution.

Meeting aichi target 11: what does success look like for protected area systems?

Abstract: The Convention on Biological Diversity Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 was adopted at the 10th Conference of the Parties in Nagoya, Japan. The plan outlines 20 Aichi Targets to achieve global biodiversity conservation. A fundamental global approach to biodiversity conservation is the use of protected areas. Arguably all 20 Aichi Targets have implications for the establishment and management of protected areas, but only Target 11 addresses them directly. This paper carries out a clause by clause analysis of Target 11 and makes recommendations to countries on interpreting each clause in order to best achieve biodiversity conservation using protected areas. Despite containing only 61 words, Target 11 is surprisingly dense. It applies to both marine and terrestrial ecosystems, and sets goals for spatial planning (representiveness, ecological connectivity and areas of importance for biodiversity); protected areas management (including management effectiveness and social equity); and criteria about what counts toward being a protected area under Target 11. We argue for a holistic interpretation of Target 11 as a way for the global community to use protected areas to change the current unacceptable trends in global biodiversity loss. Arguably all 20 Aichi Targets have implications for the establishment and management of protected areas, but only Target 11 addresses them directly. Protected areas are a tried and tested approach to nature conservation. For centuries they have been created and managed by local communities, indigenous peoples, governments and private organizations. They remain one of the most diverse and adaptable management and institutional tools for achieving conservation. Their effectiveness can be measured, evaluated and enhanced. In addition to conserving nature, protected areas are critical for a range

Notes on Early Land Plants Today

Abstract: The adoption of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (GSPC) as part of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) has reinforced the urgent need for a global plant checklist to support, facilitate and monitor the conservation and sustainable use of plant diversity worldwide (Lughadha 2004). Without this list many of the other objectives in the GSPC cannot be met, and more broadly, in botanical science as a whole, our ability to communicate about plants on a global basis will be compromised (Crane 2004). The Early Land Plants Today project (see http://www.elpt.org) is a multi-institutional and multi-national endeavour preparing a working checklist for liverworts and hornworts worldwide (von Konrat et al . 2010).

Making robust policy decisions using global biodiversity indicators.

Abstract: In order to influence global policy effectively, conservation scientists need to be able to provide robust predictions of the impact of alternative policies on biodiversity and measure progress towards goals using reliable indicators. We present a framework for using biodiversity indicators predictively to inform policy choices at a global level. The approach is illustrated with two case studies in which we project forwards the impacts of feasible policies on trends in biodiversity and in relevant indicators. The policies are based on targets agreed at the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) meeting in Nagoya in October 2010. The first case study compares protected area policies for African mammals, assessed using the Red List Index; the second example uses the Living Planet Index to assess the impact of a complete halt, versus a reduction, in bottom trawling. In the protected areas example, we find that the indicator can aid in decision-making because it is able to differentiate between the impacts of the different policies. In the bottom trawling example, the indicator exhibits some counter-intuitive behaviour, due to over-representation of some taxonomic and functional groups in the indicator, and contrasting impacts of the policies on different groups caused by trophic interactions. Our results support the need for further research on how to use predictive models and indicators to credibly track trends and inform policy. To be useful and relevant, scientists must make testable predictions about the impact of global policy on biodiversity to ensure that targets such as those set at Nagoya catalyse effective and measurable change.

"TEEB begins now": a virtual moment in the production of natural capital.

Abstract: This article uses theories of virtualism to analyse the role of The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) project in the production of natural capital. Presented at the 10th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, the project seeks to redress the ‘economic invisibility of nature’ by quantifying the value of ecosystems and biodiversity. This endeavour to put an economic value on ecosystems makes nature legible by abstracting it from social and ecological contexts and making it subject to, and productive of, new market devices. In reducing the complexity of ecological dynamics to idealized categories TEEB is driven by economic ideas and idealism, and, in claiming to be a quantitative force for morality, is engaged in the production of practices designed to conform the ‘real’ to the virtual. By rendering a ‘valued’ nature legible for key audiences, TEEB has mobilized a critical mass of support including modellers, policy makers and bankers. We argue that TEEB's rhetoric of crisis and value aligns capitalism with a new kind of ecological modernization in which ‘the market’ and market devices serve as key mechanisms to conform the real and the virtual. Using the case of TEEB, and drawing on data collected at COP10, we illustrate the importance of international meetings as key points where idealized models of biodiversity protection emerge, circulate and are negotiated, and as sites where actors are aligned and articulated with these idealized models in ways that begin further processes of conforming the real with the virtual and the realization of ‘natural capital’.

Synthetic Biology: Mapping the Scientific Landscape

Abstract: This article uses data from Thomson Reuters Web of Science to map and analyse the scientific landscape for synthetic biology. The article draws on recent advances in data visualisation and analytics with the aim of informing upcoming international policy debates on the governance of synthetic biology by the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA) of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. We use mapping techniques to identify how synthetic biology can best be understood and the range of institutions, researchers and funding agencies involved. Debates under the Convention are likely to focus on a possible moratorium on the field release of synthetic organisms, cells or genomes. Based on the empirical evidence we propose that guidance could be provided to funding agencies to respect the letter and spirit of the Convention on Biological Diversity in making research investments. Building on the recommendations of the United States Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues we demonstrate that it is possible to promote independent and transparent monitoring of developments in synthetic biology using modern information tools. In particular, public and policy understanding and engagement with synthetic biology can be enhanced through the use of online interactive tools. As a step forward in this process we make existing data on the scientific literature on synthetic biology available in an online interactive workbook so that researchers, policy makers and civil society can explore the data and draw conclusions for themselves.

Biocultural Design: A New Conceptual Framework for Sustainable Development in Rural Indigenous and Local Communities

Abstract: New approaches for sustainable development in rural indigenous and local communities have emerged that are rooted in their distinct cultural identities and claims for greater control over land, development and identity. One such approach is that of biocultural heritage, which emerged out of work to document biocultural diversity undertaken in part by members of the Commission on Environmental, Economic and Social Policy (CEESP) of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). CEESP members have developed this work over the past twenty-five years, both through work with the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and other policy forums, but also through the operationalization of rural development policies and programs. One area that has not been fully examined, however, is the contribution of biocultural heritage to local processes of innovation that can explicitly meet communities’ contemporary needs and objectives. This paper presents a new approach called ‘biocultural design’ and seeks to open a conversation about how endogenous innovation could support sustainable development in rural indigenous and local communities. By introducing design thinking to the field of biocultural heritage conservation, biocultural design offers a process for indigenous and local communities to pursue aspirations of self-determination and endogenous development through product/service innovation. It is an approach that may enhance communities’ adaptive capacity in responding to dynamic and changing environments and IUCN’s goal to deploy nature-based solutions to global challenges in the next quadrennial period.

Global in scope and regionally rich: an IndiSeas workshop helps shape the future of marine ecosystem indicators

Abstract: This report summarizes the outcomes of an IndiSeas workshop aimed at using ecosystem indicators to evaluate the status of the world’s exploited marine ecosystems in support of an ecosystem approach to fisheries, and global policy drivers such as the 2020 targets of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Key issues covered relate to the selection and integration of multi-disciplinary indicators, including climate, biodiversity and human dimension indicators, and to the development of data- and model-based methods to test the performance of ecosystem indicators in providing support for fisheries management. To enhance the robustness of our cross-system comparison, unprecedented effort was put in gathering regional experts from developed and developing countries, working together on multi-institutional survey datasets, and using the most up-to-date ecosystem models.

Harmonizing national forest inventories

Abstract: International agreements increasingly require that countries report estimates of national forest resources The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change requires that countries submit annual reports of greenhouse gas emissions and removals by sources and sinks The Convention on Biological Diversity requires that countries identify and monitor components of biological diversity for purposes of conservation and sustainable use

Challenges of Biodiversity Education: A Review of Education Strategies for Biodiversity Education.

Abstract: 72 1024x768 Normal 0 21 false false false TR X-NONE X-NONE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Normal Tablo"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} Biodiversity conservation has increasingly gained recognition in national and international agendas. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) has positioned biodiversity as a key asset to be protected to ensure our well-being and that of future generations. Nearly 20 years after its inception, results are not as expected, as shown in the latest revision of the 2010 CBD target. Various factors may affect the implementation of the CBD, including lack of public education and awareness on biodiversity-related issues. This paper explores how biodiversity education has been carried out and documents successes and failures in the field. Based on a comprehensive literature review, we identified four main challenges: the need to define an approach for biodiversity education, biodiversity as an ill-defined concept, appropriate communication, and the disconnection between people and nature. These represent obstacles to the achievement of educational targets, and therefore, to accomplishing conservation goals as set forth by the CBD. Keywords: Biodiversity education, environmental education, education for sustainable development, biodiversity awareness, biodiversity communication.

On the coattails of climate? Opportunities and threats of a warming Earth for biodiversity conservation

Abstract: The relationship between climate change and biodiversity was a central issue at the 10th Conference of the Parties (COP 10) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). In this paper we draw from participant observation data collected at COP 10, and related policy documentation, to examine how concerns about climate change are shaping the conservation policy landscape – in terms of the knowledge and rationales used as inputs, networks of actors involved, objectives sought, and actions proposed. We find that debates at the intersection of climate and biodiversity were overwhelmingly framed in relation to, or through the lens of carbon. Through a discussion of four core Climate-Motivated Responses, we illustrate how “carbon-logic”, and the initiatives that it generates, simultaneously creates threats to the objectives sought by some actors, and opportunities for the objectives sought by others. We situate our observations in the context of some of the historical dilemmas that have faced conservation, and discuss this current moment in the dynamic trajectory of conservation governance: a moment when decisions about conserving biodiversity are becoming entangled with carbon-logic and the market. In this case, while some actors seek opportunities for biodiversity ends by riding the coattails of the climate agenda, the threats of doing so may undermine the biological and social objectives of the CBD convention itself.

Our planet, our health, our future. Human health and the Rio conventions: biological diversity, climate change and desertification

Abstract: Health is our most basic human right and one of the most important indicators of sustainable development. We rely on healthy ecosystems to support healthy communities and societies. Wellfunctioning ecosystems provide goods and services essential for human health. These include nutrition and food security, clean air and fresh water, medicines, cultural and spiritual values, and contributions to local livelihoods and economic development. They can also help to limit disease and stabilize the climate. Health policies need to recognize these essential contributions. The three so-called Rio Conventions arising from the 1992 Earth Summit – the Convention on Biological Diversity, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification – together aim to maintain well-functioning ecosystems for the benefit of humanity. There is growing evidence of the impacts of global environmental changes on ecosystems and people, and a renewed consciousness among peoples and nations of the need to act quickly to protect the planet’s ecological and climatic systems. In the last two decades, the Rio Conventions have brought global attention to the impacts of anthropogenic change on the ecosystems of the planet. Increasingly unsustainable practices are placing pressure on natural resources to meet the demands of our economies and the needs of a rapidly growing global population, resulting in soil, water and air pollution, increased emissions of greenhouse gases, deforestation and land use change, expanded urban areas, introduction of non-native species, and inadequately planned development of water and land resources to meet food and energy needs. These changes are having both direct and indirect impacts on our climate, ecosystems and biological diversity. More than ever, the pursuit of public health, at all levels from local to global, now depends on careful attention to the processes of global environmental change. Traditional knowledge and scientific evidence both point to the inexorable role of global environmental changes in terms of their impact on human health and well-being. In many countries, anthropogenic changes to agriculture-related ecosystems have resulted in great benefits for human health and well-being, in particular through increased global food production and improved food security. These positive impacts, however, have not benefited everyone, and unsustainable levels of use of ecosystems have resulted in irreparable loss and degradation, with negative consequences for health and well-being. These range from emerging infectious diseases to malnutrition, and contribute to the rapid rise in noncommunicable diseases. Large-scale human transformation of the environment has contributed to increased disease burdens associated with the expansion of ecological and climatic conditions favourable for disease vectors. For all humans, the provision of adequate nutrition, clean water, and long-term food security depend directly on functioning agro-ecosystems and indirectly on the regulating ecosystem services of the biosphere; these ecosystem services can be eroded if overexploited and poorly managed.

Biodiversity and the Law: Intellectual Property, Biotechnology and Traditional Knowledge

Abstract: Biodiversity, Biotechnology and Traditional Knowledge Protection: Law, Science and Practice * Part I: Biodiversity: What are We Losing and Why - And What is to be Done? * The Epic of Evolution and the Problem of Biodiversity Loss * Naturalizing Morality * Across the Apocalypse on Horseback: Biodiversity Loss and the Law * Impact of the Convention on Biological Diversity: The Lessons of Ten Years of Experience with Models for Equitable Sharing of Benefits * Biodiversity, Botanical Institutions and Benefit Sharing: Comments on the Impact of the Convention on Biological Diversity * The Link Between Biodiversity and Sustainable Development: Lessons from INBio s Bioprospecting Programme in Costa Rica * On Biocultural Diversity from a Venezuelan Perspective: Tracing the Interrelationships Among Biodiversity, Culture Change and Legal Reforms * From the Tragedy of the Commons to the Tragedy of the Commonplace : Analysis and Synthesis through the Lens of Economic Theory * Part II: Biotechnology: Part of the Solution or Part of the Problem - Or Both? * Biodiversity, Biotechnology and the Environment * Principles Governing the Long-run Risks, Benefits and Costs of Agricultural Biotechnology * Costa Rica: Biodiversity and Biotechnology at the Crossroads * Biotechnology for Sustainable Agricultural Development in Africa: Opportunities and Challenges * Biotechnology: Public-Private Partnerships and Intellectual Property Rights in the Context of Developing Countries * Agricultural Biotechnology and Developing Countries: The Public Intellectual Property Resource for Agriculture (PIPRA) * Commentary on Agricultural Biotechnology * The Birth and Death of Traditional Knowledge: Paradoxical Effects of Biotechnology in India * Part III: Traditional Knowledge: What Is It and How, If At All, Should It Be Protected? * From the Shaman s Hut to the Patent Office: A Road Under Construction * Traditional Knowledge: Lessons from the Past, Lessons for the Future * The Demise of Common Heritage and Protection for Traditional Agricultural Knowledge * Traditional Knowledge Protection in the African Region * The Conundrum of Creativity, Compensation and Conservation in India: How Can Intellectual Property Rights Help Grass-roots Innovators and Traditional Knowledge Holders? * Holder and User Perspectives in the Traditional Knowledge Debate: A European View * Part IV: Ethnobotany and Bioprospecting: Thinking Globally, Acting Locally * Politics, Culture and Governance in the Development of Prior Informed Consent and Negotiated Agreements with Indigenous Communities * Ethics and Practice in Ethnobiology: Analysis of the International Cooperative Biodiversity Group Project in Peru * Ethics and Practice in Ethnobiology: The Experience of the San Peoples of Southern Africa * Commentary on Biodiversity, Biotechnology and Traditional Knowledge Protection: A Private-sector Perspective * Answering the Call: Public Interest Intellectual Property Advisers (PIIPA) * Answering the Call: The Intellectual Property and Business Formation Legal Clinic at Washington University * Index

Environmental impact assessment, from Rio-92 to Rio+20 and beyond

Abstract: The 1992 Rio Earth Summit was of paramount importance in the consolidation and international dissemination of environmental impact assessment, officially recognized as a tool for informed decision-making towards sustainable development (Principle 17, Rio Declaration) and for protection of biodiversity (Article 14, Convention on Biological Diversity). A significant development afterwards was the strengthening of strategic environmental assessment in the design of policies, plans and programs. Both forms of impact assessment can establish the necessary connections between one goal of the Rio+20 Conference - reaching an agreement on the transition to a green economy - and the underpinning decision making processes. Although the Rio+20 Summit has faced challenges to acknowledge its potential, impact assessment should be strengthened in support of both government and business decisions.

An explanatory guide to the Nagoya Protocol on access and benefit-sharing

Abstract: The main goal of this Explanatory Guide is to facilitate the understanding of the legal obligations of the Parties under the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization (ABS) to the Convention on Biological Diversity. This guide is the product of a fruitful, constructive, and harmonious collaboration with ABS experts from different regions and international institutions who engaged with IUCN in the writing and reviewing of this Guide. This publication serves as an adaptable tool for future ABS capacity-building and awareness raising initiatives, as well as an important reference for countries in their efforts to implement the Nagoya Protocol and operationalize ABS in practice.

Realising the potential of environmental data: a call for systematic review and evidence synthesis in environmental management

Abstract: Environmental scientists are prolific data generators. Rates of data capture and reporting are increasing almost exponentially. The publication of primary research papers in environmental journals rises every year at a rate that challenges even the most avid reader. And yes, of course, the number of journals is increasing. The accumulation of environmental data represents the output of considerable investment by many scientists, funders and stakeholders, including taxpayers. Much of this investment seeks to address the rising tide of environmental problems the human race itself has caused. Increasing political concern over the state of the environment is evident from a number of national and global initiatives to assess, predict and mitigate the effects of environmental change. Globally, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Convention on Biological Diversity are likely to be followed by the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. All have a remit to assess environmental change and predict future trends. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment has already catalysed a cycle of follow-up national and regional assessments. These bodies are (or will be in the future) urging action to reduce the impact of human activities on our environment and maintain the ability of ecosystems to provide the goods and services on which we depend. To achieve effective action requires the use of the data we have generated in a framework that informs decision making in policy and practice. The close linkages between human wellbeing and environmental quality are increasingly evident in the literature and are now clearly embedded in the policies of institutions concerned with international development and poverty alleviation. If our planet is to remain suitable for civilised human habitation, even when there are 10 billion of us, then we need to manage its health. At a range of scales, environmental management interventions are required to maintain ecosystem function whilst providing sufficient food, water, fuel, raw material and meeting our needs for clean air, green space and wild nature. Both the necessity and the challenge of achieving effective environmental management are very clear. But how well organised are we to succeed in this task? We certainly need more data to address a multitude of questions concerning the nature of environmental problems and the effectiveness of potential solutions. But we need to do more than just accumulate data, fragment it among a multitude of publications with varied levels of access, and frankly, let much of it disappear into obscurity. It is the purpose of science to push the boundaries of knowledge and challenge accepted wisdom but if science is also to inform decisions that wider society takes then we need synthesis; a kind of stocktaking of data that establishes the current evidence base with a view to predicting outcomes of alternative actions.

International Environmental Agreements : An Introduction

Abstract: Part I Introduction 1. An international environmental policy takes shape Part II Air Pollution 2. Long-range transport of air pollutants in Europe 3. International ozone politics 4. International climate cooperation Part III Ocean Management 5. Law of the sea 6. North Sea pollution control 7. International fisheries politics Part IV Nature Protection and Biodiversity 8. Convention on Biological Diversity 9. The plant treaty 10. International forest politics Part V Conclusions 11. Ideals and practice in international environmental politics

Giving Priority to the Commons: The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA)

Abstract: The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (the Treaty) represents a spirited reaction to the rising tide of measures that extend private or sovereign control over genetic resources, which is inappropriate for food and agriculture. It recognizes that ABS for agricultural biodiver-sity must be treated differently from the way it is generally treated under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). The Treaty creates an international genetic resources commons – the ‘multilateral system of access and benefit sharing’ – within which members, in exercise of their sovereignty, provide free (or almost free)access to each other’s plant genetic resources for research, breeding, conservation and training. It does not matter how many accessions of different species members bring with them into the club; as long as they agree to share what they have, they can get access to all the other members’ materials for their own use. Access to materials within the commons comes largely without strings attached, and the strings that do exist are there to maintain the spirit of the commons. For example, recipients cannot take out intellectual property rights (IPRs) that prohibit others receiving them in the same form from the multilateral system. And if recipients choose to prohibit others from using, for their own research and breeding, any product they develop using materials they got from the commons, they must share a percentage of their sales of that product with the international community through a conservation fund.

Who Cares about Biodiversity? Optimal Conservation and Transboundary Biodiversity Externalities

Abstract: The Convention on Biological Diversity’s (2010) target to reduce the rate of biodiversity loss was achieved by very few countries. Why? We use the theory of conservation implicit in the Hotelling model of non-renewable resource pricing to analyze the problem, distinguishing between the benefits to countries where conservation takes place, and to other countries. We estimate models for three taxonomic groups, and find that while individual countries value conservation within their borders, in poor countries this effect is dominated by the negative impact of income growth. International concessional financial contributions to conservation in poor countries are found to be statistically insignificant. We conclude that countries care about the biodiversity within their national borders, but only when development priorities permit, and only when it becomes scarce enough that its value grows more rapidly than the return on alternative assets. There is little evidence that high income countries yet care sufficiently about biodiversity in the places where it is most threatened to affect conservation outcomes there.

Biodiversity: Think big for marine conservation

Abstract: Marine protected areas are key tools for conservation, but they have some serious shortcomings. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) has called for these areas to cover 10% of each of the world's marine and coastal eco-regions by the end of 2020. Even this modest target is proving elusive. So far, less than 2% of the ocean has been designated as protected, and nearly all of these areas are in coastal and continental-shelf regions. This is partly the result of a lack of data from the open ocean, and partly because of pressures from various interest groups, which may resist the management of ocean areas with valuable resources.

Failure to achieve 2010 biodiversity’s target in developing countries: How can conservation help?

Abstract: Conservation and wise management of biodiversity is critical for better livelihoods, especially in developing countries. Given the failure to achieve the global target set under convention on biological diversity (CBD) and Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) to reduce the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010, developing countries more than ever need better technologies to conserve and manage biodiversity. Despite billions of poor people depending on biodiversity as their main source of health care needs and food the lack of effective strategy or coherent policy instrument for biodiversity conservation remains a key issue. The importance of biodiversity conservation for the benefit of developing countries is inextricably linked to developments in biotechnology, particularly genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The Rio+20 meeting in June 2012 and CBD conference of the parties 11 in October 2012 are the next real opportunities to strengthen existing frameworks and prioritize types of technological innovation to enhance biodiversity conservation and development.

The identification of sites of biodiversity conservation significance: progress with the application of a global standard

Abstract: As a global community, we have a responsibility to ensure the long-term future of our natural heritage. As part of this, it is incumbent upon us to do all that we can to reverse the current trend of biodiversity loss, using all available tools at our disposal. One effective mean is safeguarding of those sites that are highest global priority for the conservation of biodiversity, whether through formal protected areas, community managed reserves, multiple-use areas, or other means. This special issue of the Journal of Threatened Taxa examines the application of the Key Biodiversity Area (KBA) approach to identifying such sites. Given the global mandate expressed through policy instruments such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the KBA approach can help countries meet obligations in an efficient and transparent manner. KBA methodology follows the well-established general principles of vulnerability and irreplaceability, and while it aims to be a globally standardized approach, it recognizes the fundamental need for the process to be led at local and national levels. In this series of papers the application of the KBA approach is explored in seven countries or regions: the Caribbean, Indo-Burma, Japan, Macedonia, Mediterranean Algeria, the Philippines and the Upper Guinea region of West Africa. This introductory article synthesizes some of the common main findings and provides a comparison of key summary statistics.

How should regional biodiversity be monitored

Abstract: We consider quantification of biodiversity in the context of targets set by the Convention on Biological Diversity. Implicit in such targets is a requirement to monitor biodiversity at a regional level. Few monitoring schemes are designed with these targets in mind. Monitored sites are typically not selected to be representative of a wider region, and measures of biodiversity are often biased by a failure to account for varying detectability among species and across time. Precision is often not adequately quantified. We review methods for quantifying the biodiversity of regions, consider issues that should be addressed in designing and evaluating a regional monitoring scheme, and offer a practical guide to what types of survey are appropriate for addressing different objectives for biodiversity monitoring.

Conservation Costs of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture: Seed Genebanks

Abstract: Recognizing the importance of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture and the sovereign rights conferred on the countries by the Convention on Biological Diversity, concerted efforts are under way worldwide toward the conservation of these priceless genetic resources. The information available on this topic largely dwells on the value and opportunity offered by such conservation, rather than focus on the costs of establishing the required facilities and or on the performance of the various activities necessary to meet the planned objectives. This study is based on the practical experience gained in the preparation of large collections and in the restoration of the collections of Indian origin from the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, to the Indian National Program. In this study, the costs were calculated for the establishment of the facilities, acquisition of the germplasm, processing of the seed material, storage of the seed material as per the objectives in medium- or long-term stores, monitoring of germplasm to keep it dynamic, and regeneration/rejuvenation of accessions falling below genebank standards in crops with different breeding systems, different seed sizes and compositions. The article draws inferences about the financial commitment needed and future conservation strategies for formulating cost-effective conservation approaches.

Financialisation, biodiversity conservation and equity: some currents and concerns

Abstract: Executive Summary: When nature is viewed in monetary terms, is it the nature that is valued, or the money? And what implications does this have for ecosystems and equity, given a financialised economy that rewards money products and their brokers, and that tends towards speculative and volatile dynamics? The current biodiversity crisis is giving rise to calls for a massive mobilisation of financial resources to conserve biodiversity, and to reduce the drivers of biodiversity loss. The possibility for ‘innovative mechanisms’ to assist with resource mobilisation needs is included in the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity (2011-2020) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). This has generated a fizz of interest around what might constitute ‘innovative financing mechanisms’ for biodiversity. At the same time, much attention is directed to questions of how much nature is worth, and of how this worth might be signalled through prices that move decision-making in directions that are more ecologically sustainable. The recent UN programme on The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) gives added impetus to the incorporation of monetised ecological values into national and corporate decision-making and accounting practices, and is welcomed as such in the CBD’s current Strategic Plan. Financial support for TEEB comes from the European Commission, Germany, the United Kingdom, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Japan. Accounting for nature in terms of ‘natural capital’ and ‘ecosystem services’ also creates wealth-generating opportunities through the possibility that proxies for conserved or restored nonhuman nature can be mobilised as capital-bearing assets. This reflects a ‘Green Economy’ ideology proposing that social equity and environmental sustainability are compatible with further economic growth and entrepreneurial activity. A pillar of this ideology is the conversion of nature health and harm into capital assets that can be traded and financialised, and requires the following: Numerical representation. First, nature needs to be conceptually ‘cut up’ into units that can be represented as numbers. These numbers, often referred to as ‘metrics’, act as surrogate or proxy measures for valued aspects of ecosystems. Numerical representation reduces ecosystem complexity to create apparent equivalence and commensurability between different locations and times. Through this, trade-offs between sites of development and sites of conservation become possible. Monetisation. This is the process whereby something is conceived of in monetary terms, and thus behaves as a commodity that can be exchanged for a monetary payment. The use of metrics for turning aspects of nonhuman nature into numerical scores helps generate monetary figures for use in cost-benefit analyses and cognate economic models. As noted by economists, these can produce monetised values that, whilst useful, may be ad hoc, unreliable, and even deceptive. The state as market facilitator. Legal markets require state participation in numerous ways. In environmental markets for conservation, the state provides regulatory frameworks to generate demand, creates terms attractive to investors and entrepreneurs through tax breaks and subsidies, and can underwrite loans bound with nature assets to make these investable by the private sector. These processes enable measures of nature health and harm to become marketised, capitalised and financialised in various ways: Trading nature. Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) are considered to compensate for economic opportunity costs in contexts where environmental uses are altered so as to conserve the integrity of particular ecosystem functions. PES might take the form of relatively simple direct payments for transformed behaviour so that ecosystem service managers maintain a defined environmental good. Examples include water users paying upstream farmers not to engage in practices that might damage water quality downstream, or payments to tropical forest dwellers for the maintenance of carbon stored in trees constructed as an ‘offset’ for industrial CO2 emissions. Many existing national ecosystem services markets are maintained through substantial government subsidies. New legislative structures also make it possible for developers to offset new environmental harms, through purchasing conservation activity on formally owned land areas elsewhere, and thereby trading environmental harm for environmental health. Examples include species and wetland mitigation banking in the USA, habitat banking in the UK, and various biodiversity offset schemes globally, all of which trade fungible units of species, habitats and biodiversity. Nature markets. The conversion of nature aspects into numerical scores associated with monetary payments enables markets in conservation indicators. To create and service these markets, as well as to facilitate ‘price discovery’ through linking buyers and sellers, voluntary market exchanges for conservation measures currently are being established by nature brokers and environmental-financial entrepreneurs. Examples include the US ‘Earth Exchange’ of Mission MarketsTM, and the UK’s Environment Bank Ltd, through which conservation credits can be traded as commodities. The prospect of financial gain from these markets is attracting large entrepreneurial investors. Bonding nature. Once elements of nature have been conceived as monetised units, they can also be leveraged as a new class of capital asset. As such, they may become the collateral for capital-releasing loans bonded with the designated monetary value of the underlying nature aspect. New environmental bond structures are suggested for the ‘frontloading’ of predicted future incomes from conserved ecosystems, which would act as collateral for loans by private investors and multilateral donors. This would connect investor finance now with infrastructural developments considered in time to enhance environmental sustainability and to generate financial returns. ‘REDD+ bonds’, for example, would permit the mobilisation of predicted future payments for expected emissions reductions provided by standing forests under the United Nation’s REDD+ mechanism (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries) to act as collateral for loans to finance upfront investments in REDD+ and other environmental infrastructure. The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), the Global Canopy Programme, the Climate Bonds Initiative, Goldman Sachs and the private bankers Lombard Odier, similarly propose that through ‘forest bonds’ guaranteed by the national governments of forest-rich countries, the ‘natural capital’ of tropical forests could be ‘materialised’ to leverage finance for development from global capital markets. It is unclear who would own collateralised (i.e. pledged) ‘natural capital’ in the case of possible payment defaults. Nature derivatives. As observed for the recently created market in tradable carbon units, the big money tends not to be in the credits themselves, but in poorly regulated voluntary and bespoke over-the-counter (OTC) trades in financialised products derived from these credits. As units of conserved or restored nature are leveraged as ‘natural capital’ in environmental markets, bonds and mortgages, these might be similarly ‘securitised’ into derived money-bearing products. This could transform the risk of species extinction and biodiversity decline, for example, into speculative opportunities. It is unclear what implications this would have for the ‘underlying’, which in this case could be credits for species populations, biodiversity and habitats. These are significant in-roads into the financialisation of biodiversity conservation, that may contribute to a scaling-up of financial resourcing for the sustenance of biodiversity. But these innovations also generate concern: Conservation markets such as habitat banking require development-related ecological harm for their existence, so as to maintain the sorts of prices that might fund the conservation considered to offset development-related environmental harm. This generates a perverse situation in which ecological harm ensures market values for conservation, such that degradation is needed in order to sustain market demand for this conservation mechanism. The raising of economic rents for land areas through the enhanced monetary values commanded by credit-bearing indicators of nature health may act to displace people from land areas as governments and investors seek to ‘grab’ these new values. Such enhancement of inequity is both unethical and may amplify the drivers of biodiversity degradation by diluting the possibility of collective action in support of conservation policies. The legal and customary rights of indigenous peoples and local communities will also be impacted. Finally, conversion of complex landscapes into numerical and monetised metrics instrumentalises peoples and nonhuman natures so that these conform to a homogenising system in which money is the mediator of all value. This can displace local eco-cultural knowledge, practices and values which may be more benign for biodiversity, thereby reducing options for transferring maximum socio-ecological diversity to our descendants.