1. GBO-4: A mid-term assessment of progress towards the implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011- 2020 Paul Leadley Professor, Univ. Paris-Sud, Coordinator of Technical Report on behalf of the contributors to GBO-4

2. GBO-4 addresses four questions: 1.Are we on track to reach the Aichi Targets by 2020? 2.What actions need to be taken to achieve the Aichi Targets? 3.How do the Aichi Targets and progress towards them position us to attain the 2050 Vision of the Strategic Plan? 4.How does implementation of the Strategic Plan and progress towards the Aichi Targets contribute to broader development goals? Scope of the Global Biodiversity Outlook 4

3. Organisation of the report Main report summaries CBD Technical Reports 78 (+79 & 81) detailed analysis Scientific literature and other reports National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPS) National reports Indicator-based extrapolations of trends to 2020 Model-based scenarios to 2050… Sources of information used for the assessment

4. Lead Authors of the Technical Report Paul Leadley coordinator; Lead Authors: Rob Alkemade, Patricia Balvanera, Céline Bellard, Ben ten Brink, Neil Burgess, Silvia Ceausu, William Cheung, Villy Christensen, Franck Courchamp, Barbara Gonçalves, Stephanie Januchowski- Hartley, Marcel Kok, Jennifer van Kolck, Cornelia Krug, Paul Lucas, Alexandra Marques, Peter Mumby, Laetitia Navarro, Tim Newbold, Henrique Pereira, Eugenie Regan, Carlo Rondinini, Louise Teh, Derek Tittensor, U. Rashid Sumaila, Peter Verburg, Piero Visconti, Matt Walpole. Consortium Leading the Preparation of the Technical Report DIVERSITAS, UNEP-WCMC, PBL-Netherlands, the University of British Colombia Fisheries, Centre Faculty of Science, Lisbon and the German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDIV) Contributing Authors of the Technical Report Michel Bakkenes, Jan Janse and Hans van Grinsven, Olaf Banki, Donald Hobern and Tim Robertson Katherine Blackwood, Alex Borisenko, Robert Hanner, Sujeevan Ratnasingham, Stuart H.M. Butchart, Marta Coll, Robert J. Diaz, Moreno Di Marco, Luca Santini, Britaldo Silveira Soares Filho, Fawziah Gadallah, Piero Genovesi, Ben Halpern, Serena Heckler, Mark Huijbregts, Lisa Ingwall-King, Miranda Jones, Daniel Karp, Christopher J. Kettle, Rainer Krug, Cui Lijuan, Georgina M. Mace, Peter B. McIntyre, Marc Metian, Scott E. Miller, Mans Nilsson, Thierry Oliveira, Shyama N. Pagad, James C. Russell, John Paolillo, Maria do Rosário Partidário, Alan Paton, Ben Phalan, Leo Posthuma, Kees Versluijs, Anne-Hélène Prieur-Richard, Andrew Purvis, Sandra Quijas, Alex Rogers, Belinda Reyers, Michiel Rutgers v.d. Loeff, René Sachse, Carlos Alberto de Mattos Scaramuzza, Santiago Saura, Kirsten Thonicke, Megan Tierney, Britta Tietjen, Ariane Walz. Preparation of the Main Report Tim Hirsch, Kieran Mooney, Robert Höft, David Cooper and David Ainsworth. Braulio F. de Souza Dias provided guidance. Contributions from the Secretariat of the CBD David Ainsworth, H. David Cooper, Olivier de Munck, DavidDuthie, Kathryn Garforth, Sarat Babu Gidda, Beatriz Gómez-Castro, Robert Höft, Markus Lehman, Kieran Noonan-Mooney, Nadine Saad, Junko Shimura, John Scott, Gisela Talamas, Tristan Tyrrell, Yibin Xiang and Atsuhiro Yoshinaka

5. Contributors to underlying technical studies Joseph Appiott, Didier Babin, Jennifer Bansard, Katherine Blackwood, Mateusz Banski, Charles Besancon, Catherine Bloom, Lijie Cai, Adam Charette Castonguay, Monique Chiasson, Annie Cung, David Coates, Edwin Correa, Gilles Couturier, Olivier de Munck, Matthew Dias, David Duthie, Joshua Dutton, Amy Fraenkel, Kathryn Garforth, Sarat Babu Gidda, Beatriz Gómez -Castro, Julie Freeman, Jennifer Gobby, Jacquie Grekin, Oliver Hillel, Lisa Janishevski, Elena Kennedy, Sakhile Koketso Kerri Landry, Jihyun Lee, Markus Lehmann, Andre Mader, Manoela Pessoa de Miranda, Ian Martin, Johany Martinez, Praem Mehta, Leah Mohammed, Brianne Miller, Jessica Pawly, Aliya Rashid, Chantal Robichaud, Cristina Romanelli, Nadine Saad, Atena Sadegh, Djeneba Sako, Catalina Santamaria, Simone Schiele, John Scott, Mitchell Seider, Junko Shimura, David Steuerman, Andrew Stevenson, Gisela Talamas, Tristan Tyrrell, Ardeshir Vafadari, Paige Yang, Atsuhiro Yoshinaka, Yibin Xiang and Tatiana Zavarzina. GBO-4 Advisory Group Adjima Thombiano, Risa Smith, Haigen Xu, Teresita Borges Hernández, Jan Plesnik, Moustafa Mokhtar Ali Fouda, Anne Teller, Asghar Mohammadi Fazel, Tohru Nakashizuka, Roxana Solis Ortiz, Yvonne Vizina, Joji Carino, David Morgan, Linda Collette, Tim Hirsch, Thomas Lovejoy, Stuart Butchart, and Matt Walpole. The Partnership is coordinated by UNEP-WCMC. Indicator partners include Biodiversity International, BirdLife International, Cardiff University, CITES, FAO of the United Nations, Forest Peoples Programme, Forest Stewardship Council, Global Biodiversity Information Facility, Global Footprint Network, International Nitrogen Initiative, IUCN, IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group, University of Auckland, Marine Stewardship Council, McGill University, National Centre for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, Organisation for Economic Co-operation, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), TEAM Network, Terralingua, TRAFFIC International, UBC Fisheries Centre (University of British Columbia), UNEP GEMS Water Programme, Union for Ethical BioTrade, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, University of Queensland, Australia, and WWF. Biodiversity Indicators Partnership

7. Assessment of progress towards the Aichi Targets in the “dashboard” of the GBO-4 Executive Summary Moving away from Target No progress towards target Progress towards target, but not sufficient to achieve it On track to achieve Target On track to exceed Target Insufficient information to evaluate progress No clear evaluation

8. Giant Hogweed (Heracleum mantegazzianum) Dashboard for Target 9: Invasive Alien Species Assessment has been done by key elements of Targets Stars indicate level of confidence

9. No clear evaluation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 No clear evaluation 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 No clear evaluation Overview of the “Dashboard” for the Aichi Targets A B C D E Underlying Causes Target elements Direct pressures Status of biodiversity Enhance benefits Enhance Implementation

11. National Reports Based on an analysis of the 81 submitted reports and 30 advance drafts: 12% - provide no information 2% - moving away 22% - no progress 62% - progress, but insufficient 2% - will meet NBSAPS Example: EU Biodiversity Targets - Comprehensive European IAS legislation due to take effect in 2015. Percentage of countries adopting invasive alien species legislation Percent Year 2020 2010 1970 0 100 Trends and projections of country’s responses to Invasive Alien Species Butchart et al. (2010) + update

12. Database of Island Invasive Species Eradications (2014) Eradications of Invasive Alien Species brown rat (Rattus norvegicus)

13. Introduction events in Europe Cumulative Introductions Year 2020 1960 40 100 EU Biodiversity Targets 2011 EU IAS legislation adopted Oct 2014 Trends and projections of species introductions 21 country studies of invasives Year Cumulative Introductions 1800 2000 Pagad et al. (2014) Worsening Improving

14. Data compiled by M. Clout, P. Genovesi from Simberloff et al. (2012), updated by J. Russel Strong, comprehensive responses can work to control Invasive Alien Species and reduce impacts Example of New Zealand’s IAS program Stoat (Mustela erminea)

15. Researchers, managers and policy makers have identified evidence-based actions for dealing with Invasive Alien Species Simberloff et al. (2012)

16. Climate change and increasing global trade will pose long-term difficulties for managing invasive alien species Bellard et al. (2013) Number of the “100 Worst” Invasive Alien Species that are projected to find suitable climate conditions in by 2050 latitude longitude

17. Box 6.1. Sustainability in UK Fisheries Box 5.1. Pathways for reductions in habitat loss: Brazil case study. GBO-4 provides a rich set of case studies illustrating successful approaches Box 15.1. Ecosystem restoration in China Deforestation rates Lower is better UK fish stocks harvested sustainabl y Higher is better

19. Overview of trends and extrapolation of indices across the 20 Aichi Targets Tittensor et al. (2014) Science

20. Based on 65 national reports 0% 100% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Target Synthesis of National Reports

21. Achieving the 2050 Vision and ties with Sustainable Development Goals Stop biodiversity loss by 2050 Meet Millennium Development Goals, with a focus on eliminating hunger Keep global warming below 2°C Biodiversity (Mean Species Abundance) Contribution of measures to stopping biodiversity loss Three scenarios for achieving the 2050 vision Reduce consumption and waste 2010 2020 2030 20402050 PBL (2012) Leadley et al. (2014)

22. Achieving the 2050 Vision and ties with Sustainable Development Goals Fisheries GHG emissions Food production Terrestrial species status Fraction overexploited Species status (100% = current) PBL (2012) Leadley et al. (2014)

23. Conclusions Progress is being made towards reaching the majority of the Aichi Targets. However, this progress is insufficient to attain most of the Aichi Targets by 2020, meaning that a redoubling of efforts is needed. Despite considerable progress in a wide range of actions to improve the status of biodiversity and ecosystems, most indicators of the status of biodiversity continue to decline, in part due to persistent increases in pressures. Examples of coordinated national actions show that treating multiple drivers and multiple targets can lead to improvements of biodiversity status. Scenarios show that it is possible with strong, concerted action to couple improvements in the status of biodiversity, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve the well-being of all people.