by Prof Nic Bax, Director, CERF Marine Biodiversity Hub

More than 190 countries agreed to achieve a “significant reduction” in the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010. The European Commission announced in April of this year that Europe will fail to meet that target.

The EEU may be rare among world governments in being sure that they will miss the target. Although it seems clear that the world will miss its target, many countries will not have the baselines, indicators, or targets to know by how much they failed, and therefore what they will need to do to meet future targets.

Of the 22 cross-discipline headline indicators adopted by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 2006 to measure progress towards the biodiversity target at a global level, only one-third can be considered well developed with reasonable global coverage, established methodologies, and sufficient time series (at least three data points spanning at least 10 years). And even these well-developed indicators may have no direct relationship to biodiversity loss – protected area coverage being one example that illustrates commitment to, but may not result in reducing biodiversity loss.  And the target itself is problematic because it does not define the baseline biodiversity loss that is to be reduced. New targets are being developed by the CBD, and are likely to be aimed at halting biodiversity loss by 2050 with an interim target for 2020.

The lack of measurable targets and informative indicators is seen as a major impediment to managing biodiversity and other environmental assets. And science is not helping as much as it could. A recurrent theme at the Environmental Monitoring Workshop (see “In Focus” articles following) was that we need to stop monitoring for the sake of it, and get the questions right before we invest in more monitoring. If monitoring is to assist government, then it must be able to help distinguish between policy options, and results need to be available at the appropriate time. Environmental information increases in value when it reduces uncertainty for a decision maker. This requires a continuing dialogue between decision makers and scientists (among others) to both target the science and to frame the policy options in a form that can be distinguished in a rigorous fashion. 

If science is to be of greater value to decision makers, we must achieve better integration and achieve a more holistic picture of biodiversity. This is one of the goals of the MACC Biodiversity Working Group (summarised earlier in this newsletter) that is adopting ecosystem based management as a unifying framework to halt marine biodiversity decline in Australia.

The first stage in that process is identifying the assets (including processes) that we see as important. This corresponds well with the research strategy of the Marine Biodiversity Hub. We have spent the last 3 years synthesising the available data and developing new approaches to represent Australia’s marine biodiversity, much of which is already finding its way into Regional Marine Planning, in particular to assist development of the National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas. After June 2010, emphasis will switch to how to manage the national reserve system and Hub scientists have been discussing the products that will be needed to support that process. 

We are already contributing to the developing system for monitoring ecosystem health (“Finding the ASX200 for marine ecosystems”), and are increasing the management options available for zoning within marine reserves and managing off-reserve activities through incentives and other market based instruments (“In Focus”, September 2009 newsletter).  What we need to do in the future is to assist in developing the integrated system that links defined assets to management objectives, targets, indicators and management response.

Australia already has an international reputation for its integrated management of particular sectors or assets (see “In Focus” articles on SEQ Ecosystem Health Monitoring, the GBR and Australian Fisheries). We need to build on these systems and develop an integrated monitoring and management program for the Australian marine environment if we are to arrest the current decline in marine biodiversity – and know when and why we are meeting, exceeding or failing that goal. We need to provide decision makers the appropriate and timely evidence to choose between alternative policy options, while accurately representing the level of uncertainty in the scientific knowledge and the risk associated with different policy choices and management interventions. We need to provide further options for managers to reduce the risk that current, developing and future threats will irreversibly affect biodiversity and ecosystem services. It’s a tall order. Next year, 2010 the International Year of Biodiversity, is an opportune time to start delivery.

Further information: 

EU to miss 2010 biodiversity target http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2009/2009-04-28-01.asp

Nordling, L. (2009). Hazy goals hold up conservation. Nature 461: 1037

Walpole et al. (2009). Tracking progress toward the 2010 biodiversity target and beyond. Science 325: 1503-1504.

Photo caption: Pristigenys niphonia