Nearly half of countries’ policy pledges for nature made in the National Biodiversity Strategies and Actions Plans (NBSAPs) before 2020 were not supported by evidence of actions taken by governments, a paper has revealed, sounding the alarm over the reporting gaps ahead of this year’s COP16 UN biodiversity summit.
The study, led by the UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) and published in the Npj Biodiversity journal, examined 7,931 commitments included in 58 NBSAPs, the national documents outlining how countries intend to meet the biodiversity conservation targets.
Results showed that governments reported on the implementation of such commitments in only 56% of cases.
“Our analysis of NBSAPs shows inconsistent levels of reporting by countries,” said Calum Maney, lead author and modelling scientist at UNEP-WCMC.
“Some slippage is to be expected – not everything goes according to plan – but there has to be some kind of record of this if we want to know where plans may be going wrong, if adjustments due to re-prioritisation are needed, and how parties implementing these commitments can be supported.”
Researchers cross-referenced the NBSAPs against the national reports submitted to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 2020, which included details on measures taken by governments to meet the 2011-2020 Aichi targets.
According to the analysis, some commitments weren’t successfully implemented, or were cancelled. Yet, the bulk of lost pledges were not reported on.
“This may be due to unwillingness to report on failed objectives, or simply the fact that the evidence for those commitments was not available,” the paper said.
THE AICHI TARGETS
Prior to the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), also referred to as the biodiversity plan, the world’s nature targets were known as the Aichi targets, after the CBD conference held in Japan in 2010.
Poor progress in achieving those targets has led the plan to be considered a failure, though it laid the foundation for post-2020 talks, with some of the same targets leaking into the GBF.
“Now that parties have begun implementing the biodiversity plan, it’s crucial to make sure that each of the groups engaged has the capacity, support, and impetus needed to report back against all their commitments, to track progress, and to adapt accordingly,” said Maney.
Researchers pointed out that national reports do not always follow the same format as NBSAPs, making it challenging to measure progress towards conservation targets.
“Shortfall in reporting has clear implications for new plans for monitoring commitments,” the study said.
“Compiling national reports with this current coverage of commitments into a global progress report, as planned for the GBF’s monitoring framework, would provide an inadequate and flawed perception of the implementation and success of commitments.”
Countries are required to submit revised NBSAPs before the next UN biodiversity summit kicks off in Cali, Colombia on Oct. 21.
Only a handful of regions and countries – including the EU, China, France, Luxembourg, Hungary, Japan, Spain, and Ireland – have submitted updated NBSAPs to date, with more releases expected over the next months.
By Sergio Colombo – sergio@carbon-pulse.com
** Click here to sign up to our twice-weekly biodiversity newsletter **
