Aichi Targets

Aichi Targets
Name	Aichi Targets
Year adopted	2010
Adopted by	Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity
Location	Nagoya, Aichi Prefecture, Japan
Related	Convention on Biological Diversity, Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, Nagoya Protocol

Aichi Targets

The Aichi Targets were a set of twenty global biodiversity objectives adopted at the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity in Nagoya, Aichi Prefecture, Japan in 2010. They were negotiated under the Convention on Biological Diversity and positioned alongside instruments such as the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and the Nagoya Protocol to guide international, regional and national action on biodiversity through 2020. The Targets influenced planning by organizations including the United Nations Environment Programme, the World Wide Fund for Nature, and the International Union for Conservation of Nature.

Background and development

The Targets emerged from multilateral processes led by the Convention on Biological Diversity Secretariat, negotiated by Parties including delegations from Brazil, China, India, United States, European Union, and South Africa. Their formulation drew on assessments by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, reports from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, and recommendations from the Global Biodiversity Outlook. Negotiations involved stakeholders such as Ramsar Convention, CITES, UNESCO World Heritage Centre, and civil society groups including Conservation International and BirdLife International.

The 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets

The twenty Targets were grouped under five strategic goals and addressed issues ranging from awareness to ecosystem protection. They reflected inputs from scientific bodies like the IPBES and policy actors such as the G20. Prominent Targets included those on protected areas closely aligned with initiatives from the IUCN and Protected Areas policies in nations like Australia and Canada, as well as Targets on sustainable fisheries related to Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations work. Targets also engaged instruments such as the Nagoya Protocol on access and benefit-sharing for genetic resources, and intersected with conservation campaigns led by WWF, The Nature Conservancy, and regional entities like the European Environment Agency.

Implementation and national strategies

Parties translated the Targets into National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans developed under the Convention on Biological Diversity. Implementation involved national agencies such as ministries in Brazil, China, Japan, United Kingdom, and Kenya working with multilateral lenders like the World Bank and philanthropic funders such as the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation. Implementation tools included protected area expansion informed by IUCN categories, invasive species control guided by the International Maritime Organization and ICAO-related biosecurity policies, and agricultural measures aligned with guidance from FAO and national research councils like the Indian Council of Agricultural Research.

Progress, assessments, and outcomes

Progress was tracked via reporting to the Convention on Biological Diversity, periodic synthesis in the Global Biodiversity Outlook, and independent assessments by the IPBES and organizations such as BirdLife International and WWF. While some Parties achieved gains in protected area coverage drawing on models from Costa Rica and Bhutan, aggregated assessments indicated shortfalls in targets related to species decline measured in studies published by researchers affiliated with institutions such as Smithsonian Institution, Natural History Museum, London, and Monash University. Outcomes also reflected linkages to international agendas like the Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement on climate change mediated by the UNFCCC.

Criticisms and challenges

Critics from academia and NGOs including scholars at Oxford University, Stanford University, and University of Cambridge highlighted insufficient mainstreaming of biodiversity into sectoral policies of transport ministries and energy ministries (national examples: Brazilian Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Ecology and Environment of the People's Republic of China). Other challenges cited by Greenpeace and policy analysts at the International Institute for Environment and Development included funding gaps noted by the Global Environment Facility, inadequate data from biodiversity monitoring networks such as the Global Biodiversity Information Facility, and weak compliance mechanisms compared with treaties like the Montreal Protocol. Evaluations by the High-Level Panel on Global Sustainability and think tanks such as the World Resources Institute underscored governance and capacity constraints in low- and middle-income countries including Papua New Guinea and Mozambique.

Legacy and influence on post-2020 framework

The Aichi Targets shaped the negotiation of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework adopted under the Convention on Biological Diversity and influenced actors including the United Nations General Assembly, UNEP, IPBES, and the CBD COP15 process held with participation from countries like China and Canada. Lessons from the Targets—such as the need for clearer indicators used by entities like the Group on Earth Observations and more robust financing via the Global Environment Facility and multilateral development banks—were carried into the post-2020 agenda and national policies modeled by governments in Germany and France. The Targets' legacy persists in contemporary conservation planning by organizations including IUCN, BirdLife International, Conservation International, and academic centers such as Yale School of the Environment.

Category:Convention on Biological Diversity