Assessing progress towards meeting major international objectives related to nature and nature's contributions to people

In recognition of the importance of nature, its contributions to people and role in underpinning sustainable development, governments adopted a Strategic Plan on Biodiversity 2011-2020 through the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) containing 20 "Aichi Biodiversity Targets" and integrated many of these into the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) adopted through the United Nations in 2015. Additional multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) target particular aspects of nature (e.g., Ramsar Convention on Wetlands; Convention on Migratory Species), drivers of biodiversity loss (e.g., Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora), or responses (e.g., World Heritage Convention). These various MEAs provide complementary fora in which governments strive to coordinate efforts to reduce the loss and degradation of nature, and to promote sustainable development. In this chapter, we assess, through a systematic review process and quantitative analysis of indicators, progress towards the 20 Aichi Targets under the Strategic Plan (and each of the 54 elements or components of these targets), targets under the SDGs that are relevant to nature and nature's contributions to people (NCP), and the goals and targets of six other MEAs. We consider the relationships between the SDGs, nature and the contributions of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs) to achieving the various targets and goals, the impact of progress or lack of it on IPLCs, the reasons for variation in progress, implications for a new Strategic Plan for Biodiversity beyond 2020, and key knowledge gaps.For the 44 SDG targets assessed, including targets for poverty, hunger, health, water, cities, climate, oceans and land (Goals 1, 2, 3, 6, 11, 13, 14, 15), findings suggest that current negative trends in nature will substantially undermine progress to 22 SDG targets and result in insufficient progress to meet 13 additional targets (i.e. 80 per cent (35 out of 44) of the assessed targets) {3.3.2.1; 3.3.2.2}(established but incomplete). Across terrestrial, aquatic and marine ecosystems, current negative trends in nature and its contributions will hamper SDG progress, with especially poor progress expected towards targets on water security, water quality, ocean pollution and acidification. Trends in nature's contributions relevant to extreme event vulnerability, resource access, small-scale food production, and urban and agricultural sustainability are negative and insufficient for achieving relevant targets under SDGs 1, 2, 3, and 11. This has negative consequences for both the rural and urban poor who are also directly reliant on declining resources for consumption and income generation {3.3.2.2}. For a further 9 targets evaluated in SDGs 1, 3 and 11 a lack of knowledge on how nature contributes to targets (4 targets) or gaps in data with which to assess trends in nature (5 targets) prevented their assessment.Fil: Butchart, Stuart. London Metropolitan University; Reino UnidoFil: Miloslavich, Patricia. University of Western Australia; AustraliaFil: Reyers, Belinda. No especifíca;Fil: Galetto, Leonardo. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal; ArgentinaFil: Subramanian, Suneetha M.. No especifíca;Fil: Adams, Cristina. No especifíca;Fil: Palomo, Maria Gabriela. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales "Bernardino Rivadavia"; ArgentinaFil: McElwee, Pamela. No especifíca;Fil: Meretsky, Vicky J.. No especifíca;Fil: Morsello, Carla. No especifíca;Fil: Nel, Jeanne. No especifíca;Fil: Lynn Newberry, Teresa. No especifíca;Fil: Pacheco, Diego. No especifíca;Fil: Pyhala, Aili. No especifíca;Fil: Rossi Heras, Sergio. No especifíca;Fil: Roy, Joyashree. No especifíca;Fil: Ruiz-Mallén, Isabel. No especifíca;Fil: Salpeteur, Matthieu. No especifíca;Fil: Santos-Martin, Fernando. No especifíca;Fil: Saylor. Kirk. No especifíca;Fil: Schaffartzik, Anke. No especifíca;Fil: Sitas, Nadia. No especifíca;Fil: Speranza, Ifejika. No especifíca;Fil: Suich, Helen. No especifíca;Fil: Tittensor, Derek. No especifíca;Fil: Carignano, Patricia. No especifíca;Fil: Tsioumani, Elsa. No especifíca;Fil: Whitmee, Sarah. No especifíca;Fil: Wilson, Sarah. No especifíca;Fil: Wyndham, Felice. No especifíca;Fil: Zorondo-Rodriguez, Francisco. No especifíca

A new environmental governance

At present, there is no unified theoretical framework to deal with environmental governance issues. Consequently, there is a diversity of interpretations of the concept at the public-political arena both nationally and internationally. Recent Latin American efforts have given a step forward conceptualizing environmental governance from the South and systematizing experiences to illustrate a diverse contemporaneous reality. At a regional scale, within the last decades, discursive turns in national policies such as the introduction of the sustainable development concept have triggered an increase in studies and applications of environmental governance (e.g., forest’s governance, climate change, marine coastal zones) including the use of the ecosystem services concept. The instrumentation of public actions in relation to environmental governance derives from the states. However, if analyzed with a beyond-the-States view, governance can be understood as a process involving the participation of governmental and non-governmental actors reaching decisions, for mutual benefits, through negotiation processes. However, there is not, still, within the countries of the region, inclusive and participative governance oriented toward the sustainable use of natural resources. Although there are many challenges, in this chapter we discuss two of them: (1) to build an analytical framework to understand the environmental governance modes currently available in Latin America and (2) to generate a new sociopolitical interdisciplinary framework involving both natural and sociopolitical systems as a contribution to a new analytical framework for environmental governance. In other words, new environmental governance for Latin America.Fil: Delgado, Luisa E.. Universidad de Chile; ChileFil: Zorondo Rodriguez, Francisco. Universidad de Santiago de Chile; ChileFil: Bachmann Vargas, Pamela. University of Agriculture Wageningen; Países BajosFil: Soto, Carmiña. Universidad Nacional de Asunción; ParaguayFil: Avila Foucat, Veronique S.. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México; MéxicoFil: Gutierrez, Ricardo Alberto. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de San Martín. Escuela de Política y Gobierno; ArgentinaFil: Muñoz Barriga, Andrea. Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador; EcuadorFil: Ferreiro, Oscar E.. Universidad Nacional de Asunción; Paragua

Recognizing Indigenous peoples’ and local communities’ rights and agency in the post-2020 Biodiversity Agenda

International audienceThe Convention on Biological Diversity is defining the goals that will frame future global biodiversity policy in a context of rapid biodiversity decline and under pressure to make transformative change. Drawing on the work of Indigenous and non-Indigenous scholars, we argue that transformative change requires the foregrounding of Indigenous peoples' and local communities' rights and agency in biodiversity policy. We support this argument with four key points. First, Indigenous peoples and local communities hold knowledge essential for setting realistic and effective biodiversity targets that simultaneously improve local livelihoods. Second, Indigenous peoples' conceptualizations of nature sustain and manifest CBD's 2050 vision of ''Living in harmony with nature.'' Third, Indigenous peoples' and local communities' participation in biodiversity policy contributes to the recognition of human and Indigenous peoples' rights. And fourth, engagement in biodiversity policy is essential for Indigenous peoples and local communities to be able to exercise their recognized rights to territories and resources