CONVENTION ON
biological diversity
Progress Report towards TheAichi Biodiversity Targets

National commitments fall short of actionneeded to safeguard nature

In 2010, the world agreed to a bold and ambitious agenda to address thedecline in global biodiversity. The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020
and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets (The Aichi Targets) set out challenges forthe global community to meet by 2020.
With four years left, five of the world’s largest conservation
NGOs (Birdlife International, Conservation International, TheRSPB, The Nature Conservancy and WWF) came togetherto produce an assessment to highlight national and regional
progress and ambition to date.

Concerned by these findings, we call on CBD Parties to:
1.	Be bold and raise the ambition of theirnational targets,
2. Intensify progress on implementation,

While there is evidence of positive progress on a numberof the targets, the overall picture is poor, with inadequate
progress to date in most countries, and weak levels of future
ambition. Based on the current trajectory, the world will notmeet the Aichi Targets.

3.	Increase support and resources to
low-income countries to translate ambitioninto implementation,
4. Take responsibility for global ambition,
5. Ensure accurate and regular reporting.

METHODOLOGY
101 parties submitted their National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans(NBSAPs) and 5th National Reports between 2011 and 2016. As of July 2016,
5th National Reports have been submitted by 90% of the Parties, andNBSAPs by 52%1. These were collated, analysed and scored by the CBD
Secretariat2, 3 (SCBD).
This NGO assessment uses this scored data set to examine two things:
1. Alignment This measure aims to provide an indication of how a country’s
national target compares to the scope and level of ambition of each Aichi
Target as stated in countries’ NBSAPs, and as scored by the SCBD.
2. Progress This measure provides an indication of national progress
towards the Aichi Targets based on the information contained in the 5th
National Reports, and as scored by the SCBD.
Each country where scored data was available was ranked into three broad
categories – (reduced down from eight categories that the SCBD used forease of analysis):
ALIGNMENT OF NATIONAL TARGET
Red: Significantly below the Aichi Target, or is not clearly related to it
Orange: Less ambitious and/or does not address all elements of the Aichi Target
Green: Commensurate with, or exceeds the Aichi Target
PROGRESS
Red: No progress, or a decline against the Aichi Target
Orange: Progress to achieve the Aichi Target but at insufficient rate
Green: On track to meet or exceed the Aichi Target

The data was then grouped by target, and by political and economicgroupings. This assessment counts the number of countries within each of
the categories above, based on target, economic group and political group,
using plotted bars to complement those done by the SCBD4.
Although a similar analysis was presented in the Global Biodiversity Outlook
4 and in COP documentation prepared by the SCBD, this new assessment
adds analysis on alignment and examines differences in progress andalignment in political and economic groups.
LIMITATIONS• Only 52% of the Parties’ NBSAPs have been submitted for SCBD review
and therefore fed into this study, while others have yet to be developed
or updated, meaning that we lack a truly “global” picture of national
ambition. Based on the current trajectory, it is likely that other NBSAPs
when received, will mirror the results in this analysis. Therefore, theoverall picture is unlikely to change up to 20205.
• For the “alignment” data, some national targets may be ambitious in lightof national circumstances. A country’s starting point should be consideredwhen comparing data6. However, the lack and availability of information
prevented this evaluation.
• Not all targets are relevant to all countries e.g. a coral reef target forland-locked Mongolia.
• Targets are based on the assumption that all countries make the same
contribution to the total effort, despite varying land area.

https://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/cop/cop-13/official/cop-13-08-add2-en.pdf, para 7
https://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/cop/cop-13/official/cop-13-08-add2-en.pdf
https://www.cbd.int/impact/assessment-table-2016-04-22-en.pdf
4
https://www.cbd.int/reports/.
5
https://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/cop/cop-13/official/cop-13-08-add2-en.pdf, para 96https://www.cbd.int/impact/assessment-table-2016-04-22-en.pdf , para 51231. Alignment of national targets to Aichi Targets
Analysis: This chart displays countries’ alignment at the nationallevel, towards all 20 of the Aichi Targets. Overall, only about
10% of countries reported national targets that exceed or arecommensurate with the global level of ambition, whilst about 40%
of countries were less ambitious and 50% indicate targets withsignificantly lower ambition. In particular Target 2 (Developmentand Poverty Reduction) and Targets 5 to 7 in Strategic Goal B,
reducing direct pressures on biodiversity and promoting
sustainable use, seem to be areas where countries have thelowest ambition.
Conclusion: Given we are already past the half-way point of
the CBD Strategic Plan, the translation of the global targets into
NBSAPs is very disappointing. If 90% of countries that havecurrently submitted their NBSAP have set national targets that arelower than the global ambition, then national level ambition is not
sufficient to achieve the global commitment. Unless countries
significantly increase their ambition, the Aichi Targets will
not be delivered.

Alignment of national targets to Aichi Targets

Overall
T1: awareness raising
T2: biodiversity values
T3: incentives/harmful subsidies
T4: sustainable production/consumptionT5: habitat loss
T6: sustainable fisheries
T7: sustainable agriculture/forestry
T8: pollution
T9: invasive alien species
T10: coral reefs
T11: protected areas
T12: threatened species
T13: genetic diversity
T14: ecosystem services
T15: ecosystem resilience
T16: Nagoya Protocol implementation
T17: NBSAP update
T18: traditional knowledge
T19: knowledge, science, technology
T20: financial resources mobilization

Significantly below the Aichi Target, or is not clearly related to it
Less ambitious and/or does not address all elements of the Aichi Target
Commensurate with, or exceeds the Aichi Target

025% of reporting countries

5075100

2. Progress of national targets towards
the Aichi Targets
Analysis: This chart displays countries’ progress against all
20 Aichi Targets. It is striking that overall, only about 5% of countries’
national reports indicate that they are on track to meet the globaltargets. Meanwhile, around 75% of countries have made progress
but at an insufficient rate to meet the global ambition by 2020,
and 20% of national reports indicate that countries have made noprogress or have even moved away from the global targets. Target
20 on resource mobilization has one of the lowest scores; 35% ofcountries indicate no progress and 65% of countries are on track or
making insufficient progress.
Conclusion: Countries appear to be progressing better ontargets which are more procedural in nature, such as Target 16 on
Ratification of the Nagoya Protocol, and Target 17 on updating theNBSAPs. Target 11, and work on protected areas, has a long historyof integration into national strategies, so this may explain why
progress is higher for this target. Unfortunately, progress on Target 20on resource mobilization is less positive, with over 85% of countries
not meeting their commitments so far. The low level of progress formany countries is likely to be explained in part due to competing
national resource allocation. Based on current progress, and with
95% of countries behind schedule, the Aichi Targets are noton track unless countries significantly increase their efforts.
No progress, or a decline against the Aichi Target
Progress to achieve the Aichi Target but at insufficient rate
On track to meet or exceed the Aichi Target

Progress of national targets towards the Aichi Targets

Overall
T1: awareness raising
T2: biodiversity values
T3: incentives/harmful subsidies
T4: sustainable production/consumption
T5: habitat loss
T6: sustainable fisheries
T7: sustainable agriculture/forestry
T8: pollution
T9: invasive alien species
T10: coral reefs
T11: protected areas
T12: threatened species
T13: genetic diversity
T14: ecosystem services
T15: ecosystem resilience
T16: Nagoya Protocol implementation
T17: NBSAP update
T18: traditional knowledge
T19: knowledge, science, technology
T20: financial resources mobilization
025% of reporting countries5075100

Conclusion: Only 5% of high-income countries reportedtargets that are commensurate with the Aichi Targets. It isencouraging to see that low-income countries have set more
ambitious targets than higher-income countries, despite
making less progress. To make significant progress to 2020,
high-income countries need to ramp up their ambition,whilst further action is needed to support lower-income
countries to translate their ambition into action.

World Bank economic
country grouping

Analysis: The charts display national target alignment byeconomic groups, based on World Bank categories7. Theanalysis shows that, compared to the overall picture, highincome countries seem to be less aligned in their nationaltarget setting than lower-income countries. However, when
examining progress, high-income countries reported moreprogress than low and middle-income countries.

Alignment of national targets by World Bank economic grouping
OverallHigh income
Upper middle income
Lower middle income
Low income
025100Progress of national targets by World Bank economic grouping
OverallHigh income
Upper middle income
Lower middle income
Low income
25% of reporting countries
No progress, or a decline against the Aichi Target
Progress to achieve the Aichi Target but at insufficient rate
On track to meet or exceed the Aichi Target
http://data.worldbank.org/income-level/high-income

75

Significantly below the Aichi Target, or is not clearly related to it
Less ambitious and/or does not address all elements of the Aichi Target
Commensurate with, or exceeds the Aichi Target

0750% of reporting countries

World Bank economic
country grouping

3. Alignment and progress of national targets
by economic groups

5075100

4. Alignment of national targets by key
political groupings

Alignment of national targets by key political groupings

OverallAnalysis: The Least Developed Countries have the highestalignment with the scope and ambition of the Aichi Targets,
followed by the African Group, G77 and Group of Latin AmericanCountries, whereas JUSCANZ8, the Small Island Developing
States and the EU demonstrate the least target alignment.

SIDS
Least Developed Countries

UN political country grouping

Conclusion: Political groupings with a higher proportion ofdeveloped countries, in particular the EU, show less alignment
with the scope and ambition of the Aichi Targets than othergroupings with a higher proportion of developing countries.
With the current level of alignment, it is unlikely that the2020 timeline of the Aichi Targets will be met across any
political group.

The African GroupJUSSCANNZGRULAC
G77EU
02550% of reporting countries

The group of countries composed of Australia, Canada, Iceland, Israel, Japan, Liechtenstein,
New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, and the United States (not party to the convention).
8Significantly below the Aichi Target, or is not clearly related to it
Less ambitious and/or does not address all elements of the Aichi Target
Commensurate with, or exceeds the Aichi Target

75100

5. Call to Action for CBD Parties
1. Be bold and raise the ambition of national targets:With 90% of assessed countries’ NBSAPs not showing the same levelof ambition as the Aichi Targets, and without a significant increase inambition across countries, the targets will not be met. All countries
therefore, need to significantly raise their level of ambition.
2. Intensify progress on implementation:
Across all regions and economic groups many countries are making
progress, but still at an insufficient rate. Understanding where and why
progress is being made against certain targets will be key to drivingfurther implementation. COP 13 and COP 14 should primarily focus on
monitoring implementation of the Aichi Targets, recognising whereprogress has been made and facilitating sharing of “lessons learnt’.
3. Increase support to low-income countries to translate
ambition into action:
Many lower-income countries and groups have demonstrated theirwillingness to set ambitious national targets, but lack sufficient progressat the national level. Therefore, a range of actions are needed to support
low-income countries, such as capacity building, financial resources
and technical assistance. Since the adoption of the SDGs in 2015,better integration of biodiversity action into development plans andprogrammes should be prioritised by low-income countries. This should
also be a priority for funding by bilateral and multilateral financing
mechanisms, including the Global Environment Facility.

4. Take responsibility for achieving the global ambition:
We recall that the Aichi Targets are a global agreement to achieve a
common level of ambition, for which all countries must take responsibility.
Many countries have still to submit their updated National Biodiversity
Strategy and Action Plan. There are also regional imbalances both inalignment and progress towards the Aichi Targets. Improved regional
coordination and addressing countries’ strengths and weaknesses shouldplay an increasingly important role going forwards.
5. Ensure accurate, reliable and regular reporting:Currently it is hard to see where effective progress is being achieved, andwhich countries face challenges. COP 13 should give clear guidance on how
to harmonise and improve reporting that is transparent, true and accurate,using indicators to allow for consistent measures of progress. Without this,we will face a situation where it will be impossible to know if targets havebeen met. This might lead to overall scepticism when setting future global
goals and targets for the next decade.
Cancun, MexicoDecember 2016