IPSI Case Study Summary Sheet
Basic Information
Title of case study
Contributions of Socio-Ecological Production Landscapes and Seascapes to the achievement of Aichi Biodiversity
Target 11 in the Group of Like-Minded Megadiverse Countries
Submitting IPSI member organization(s)Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (SCBD)Other contributing organization(s) (IPSI members and/or non-members)
Author(s) and affiliation(s)Bruno Leles, SCBD, Sao Paulo State University; Sarah Stephen, SCBD, Georg-August Universität Göttingen,;
Megan Schmidt, SCBD, Concordia University; Patrick Gannon, SCBD, Concordia University; Edjigayehu SeyoumEdjigu, SCBD; Braulio Ferreira de Souza Dias,University of Brasilia; Jamison Ervin, United Nations Development
Programme, David Cooper, SCBD; Sarat Babu Gidda, SCBD
Format of case study (manuscript or audiovisual)
Manuscript
Language
EnglishKeywords
protected areas, Satoyama Initiative, biodiversity conservation, CBD, sustainable development, SEPLS
Date of submission(or update, if this is an update of an existing case study)
30 October 2018
Web link (of the case study or lead organization ifavailable for more information)

Geographical Information
Country(where site(s) or activities described in the case study are located – can be multiple, or even “global”)
GlobalLocation(s)(within the country or countries – leave blank if specific location(s) cannot be identified)Longitude/latitude or Google Maps link (if location is identified)
Ecosystem(s)Forestx
Grasslandx
Agriculturalx
In-land waterx
Coastalx
Dryland x
Mountainx
Urban/peri-urban x
Other (Please specify)
Socioeconomic and environmental characteristics of the area
Socioeconomic and environmental characteristics of studied areas are diverse. Studied areas are based onnational commitments extracted from multiple documents. Sometimes commitments do not geographicallyexplicit. Commitments make reference to areas within or around protected areas and propose interventions
aiming to improve qualitative elements of Aichi Biodiversity Target 11.
Description of human-nature interactions in the area
Human-nature interactions in the studied commitments are diverse. The majority of human-nature interactions
include interventions to improve the sustainability of the use of natural resources, facilitate the stakeholder
engagement in the landscape management process and enhance the socio-economic development of targetedcommunities.

Contents
Status (“ongoing” or “completed”)
CompletedPeriod (MM/YY to MM/YY)
Rationale (why activities or policies described, or information shared in the case study are needed)
The Like-Minded Megadiverse Countries (LMMCs) are home to over 50 percent of the world’s population and around 70
percent of its biodiversity. Efforts to create pathways for achieving socio-economic development that safeguards
ecosystems and biodiversity in these countries represents a great challenge for global conservation and are essential forachieving societies in harmony with nature.

Objectives(goals of activities or policies described, or of producing the case study)
In order to facilitate the implementation of national commitments and enhance the achievement of Aichi Biodiversity
Target 11 in the LMMCs, we performed an analysis to determine the extent to which LMMCs’ commitments make use ofsustainable productive strategies and whether the commitments incorporate the perspectives of the Satoyama Initiative.
The analysis was later used to mainstream the benefits of the implementation of selected commitments.

Activities and/or practices employed

Commitments from the LMMCs addressing the qualitative elements of Target 11 were drawn from National
Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans, National Priority Actions, 5th National Reports and protected areasrelated biodiversity projects. Commitments related to SEPLS were identified as those which address sustainableproductive practices. The relevant text was extracted and analysed in relation to the contribution of proposed
actions to enhance the elements of Target 11 and perspectives of the Satoyama Initiative.
Results
The results indicate that a subset of LMMCs’ commitments to Target 11 is aligned with the perspectives of the Satoyama
Initiative. These commitments are predominantly related to integration and equitable management of protected areas,
elements of Target 11 whose progress was deemed to require more action to meet the target by 2020.

Lessons learned(factors in success or failure, challenges and opportunities)
By embracing the network of the International Partnership for the Satoyama Initiative (IPSI) partners and making use of theSEPLS strategy, the LMMCs could gain access to valuable knowledge and funding to accelerate implementation.

Key messages
Considering the importance of LMMCs to biodiversity, implementation of the SEPLS-related commitments from thesecountries will have global impacts for biodiversity conservation, contribute to the achievement of Aichi Biodiversity Target
11and promote sustainable socio-economic development.

Relationship to other IPSI activities(if the case study is related to any other IPSI collaborative activities, case studies, etc.)
This case study originally appeared in the Satoyama Initiative Thematic Review v. 4.

Funding (any relevant information about funding of activities or projects described in the case study)
We thank Elizabeth Bacon from the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Heena Ahmed and Kirti Kyab fromthe United Nations Development Programme for the support in the preparation of the LMMC commitment table, and AnaBedmar and Jung-Tai Chao for insightful reviews of earlier versions of the manuscript BL was supported by FAPESP
2015/107784. This work, among others, was made possible through the generous funding support of the Governments ofJapan (Japan Biodiversity Fund), the Republic of Korea, and Germany (Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit(GIZ)), as well as the European Commission. The authors assume full responsibility for the views and opinions expressed inthis article, that may not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of any organizations.

Contributions to Global Agendas
CBD Aichi Biodiversity Targets (https://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/)
The table below shows based on the self-evaluation by author(s). and indicates the “direct” or “indirect” contributions to theCBD’s Aichi Biodiversity Targetsrespectively to which the work described in this case study contributes to.

Strategic Goal A

Strategic Goal C

Strategic Goal B

Strategic Goal D

Strategic Goal E

UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdgs)
The table below shows based on the self-evaluation by author(s). and indicates the “direct” or “indirect” contributions to theSDGsrespectively to which the work described in this case study contributes to.

