Global Biodiversity Strategy

Global Biodiversity Strategy
Name	Global Biodiversity Strategy
Type	International environmental policy document
Date	1992
Publisher	World Conservation Monitoring Centre; Convention on Biological Diversity
Context	Response to biodiversity loss highlighted at the Earth Summit and in reports by World Wide Fund for Nature and International Union for Conservation of Nature

Global Biodiversity Strategy

The Global Biodiversity Strategy was an influential international policy framework developed in the early 1990s to address rapid species loss and ecosystem degradation, linking conservation with sustainable use and development planning. Framed amid diplomatic negotiations at the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit and technical assessments by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and World Conservation Monitoring Centre, it informed deliberations leading to the Convention on Biological Diversity and subsequent multilateral agreements. The Strategy synthesized scientific assessments from institutions such as the United Nations Environment Programme, Food and Agriculture Organization, and United Nations Development Programme to guide national and regional action.

Background and Rationale

The Strategy emerged from mounting evidence compiled by United Nations Environment Programme, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and conservation NGOs including World Wide Fund for Nature and Conservation International that biodiversity loss—exemplified by events like the decline of Great Barrier Reef coral communities and deforestation in the Amazon Rainforest—posed systemic risks to human welfare and economic sectors such as fisheries addressed by Food and Agriculture Organization. Influential scientific works and assessments by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and the Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment highlighted extinction rates and habitat fragmentation, prompting policy responses from multilateral fora including the Rio Declaration and preparatory meetings involving the Commission on Sustainable Development and national delegations from United States, United Kingdom, Brazil, India, and China. The rationale linked conservation to policy instruments used by institutions like the World Bank, Global Environment Facility, and regional bodies such as the European Union and the African Union.

Global Goals and Targets

The Strategy established cross-cutting objectives oriented toward species protection exemplified by initiatives in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, habitat safeguard priorities seen in the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, and sustainable use principles reflected in community programs supported by United Nations Development Programme. Targets emphasized conservation of key biomes such as Tropical Rainforest, Coral Reef systems, and Mangrove habitats, aligning with later measurable goals echoed in the Aichi Biodiversity Targets and discussions at subsequent Conference of the Parties sessions under the Convention on Biological Diversity. The Strategy promoted integration of biodiversity into sectoral policies influenced by frameworks used by the World Health Organization, International Monetary Fund, and development strategies implemented by the United Nations Development Programme.

Key Components and Strategic Approaches

Core components included in situ conservation exemplified by protected areas like Serengeti National Park and ex situ measures modeled on collections at institutions such as the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew and the Smithsonian Institution. The Strategy advocated ecosystem-based management approaches reflected in frameworks used by National Aeronautics and Space Administration remote sensing studies and conservation planning techniques developed at universities including Harvard University and University of Oxford. It promoted species recovery programs akin to those under Endangered Species Act-style legislation and community-based resource management practiced in regions supported by World Wide Fund for Nature and Conservation International. Technology transfer and capacity building were linked to partnerships with organizations like the Global Environment Facility and science networks such as the International Union for the Scientific Study of Population.

Implementation Mechanisms and Governance

Implementation relied on multilateral governance structures informed by processes at the Convention on Biological Diversity and funding mechanisms such as the Global Environment Facility. National implementation invoked ministries modeled on institutions like the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Ministry of Environment (Brazil), and agencies within the European Commission. The Strategy emphasized legal instruments compatible with treaties such as the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and trade-related rules enforced by the World Trade Organization. Stakeholder engagement frameworks drew on precedent from partnerships involving Indigenous and Tribal Peoples of the Amazon, International Union for Conservation of Nature, World Wide Fund for Nature, and local authorities like municipal governments participating in pilot projects.

Funding, Economics, and Incentives

Economic rationales in the Strategy referenced valuation studies by the World Bank and environmental accounting approaches discussed at Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development meetings. Financing proposals included contributions through the Global Environment Facility, bilateral assistance from donors such as United States Agency for International Development and Department for International Development (UK), and mechanisms akin to payments for ecosystem services piloted in regions supported by Inter-American Development Bank. Incentives for sustainable use called on instruments used in Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora enforcement, market-based tools negotiated at the World Trade Organization, and conservation finance models employed by private foundations such as the Rockefeller Foundation and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.

Monitoring, Reporting, and Assessment

The Strategy advocated national biodiversity inventories coordinated with global datasets curated by the Global Biodiversity Information Facility and analytic syntheses produced by the United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre. Monitoring frameworks drew on indicators similar to those later used by the Aichi Biodiversity Targets and reporting modalities established at Conference of the Parties meetings under the Convention on Biological Diversity. Scientific assessments relied on contributions from research centers such as Smithsonian Institution, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, and universities including University of Cambridge and University of California, Berkeley, and on remote sensing collaborations with National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the European Space Agency.

Challenges, Criticisms, and Future Directions

Critics from civil society groups like Friends of the Earth and scholars at institutions such as London School of Economics and Yale University noted shortcomings in measurement, equity, and implementation capacity, pointing to gaps identified in regions including the Congo Basin, Sundaland, and small island states exemplified by Maldives. Debates involved trade-offs highlighted in forums like World Conservation Congress and policy reviews by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Future directions suggested stronger integration with climate policy negotiated under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, improved finance mechanisms influenced by the Green Climate Fund, and enhanced rights-based approaches advocated by indigenous organizations such as International Indian Treaty Council and regional groups in the Pacific Islands Forum.

Category:Environmental policy