1. A review of the benefits, costs and resource needs associated with the delivery of the Aichi biodiversity targets Matt Rayment, ICF International James Vause, Defra Robert Munroe, UNEP-WCMC 13 March 2015Envecon 2015

2. Quick introduction to the CBD The Earth Summit in Rio in 1992 developed international agreements on Climate Change, Biodiversity and Desertification Objectives of the Convention: 1. The conservation of biological diversity 2. The sustainable use of the components of biological diversity 3. The fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources 13 March 2015Envecon 2015

3. 2002: Parties to the CBD committed themselves to a target for 2010 to achieve a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss at the global, regional and national level… By 2010 it was clear we failed…...but the response was positive In Nagoya, Japan, Parties to the CBD developed a new strategic plan, a new vision and agreed 20 specific targets aimed to more smartly address biodiversity loss by 2020. These targets known as the Aichi Targets were to be delivered over the UN Decade of Biodiversity Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing also agreed… Ran out of time for resourcing discussion! 13 March 2015Envecon 2015

4. The Aichi Targets Goal A Addressing the underlying drivers Goal B Reduce direct pressure & encourage sustainable use Goal C Safeguard ecosystems, species and genes Goal D Enhance benefits to people Goal E Enable implementation 13 March 2015Envecon 2015

5. 2011 – Planning for the next Conference of the Parties (Hyderabad, India) Preparing for a difficult discussion 2010 – Aichi Targets agreed, decision on how to mobilise resource to meet the targets postponed to 2012. Parties asked to update National Biodiversity Strategies and Actions Plans to reflect new strategic plans and report on financing needs. Very few parties able to deliver on this, and clear none would be able to report on finance. Problem: How to discuss resourcing without knowing what actions and resources are required? UK response – aimed maintain positive discussions & momentum Approached CBD and next meeting presidency – India Worked together to develop proposal for top-down research, supported by High-Level Panel to review research / draw out key lessons for Parties to inform negotiations. UK expected the work to show that the actions and resources needed to meet the Aichi targets were significant and could not be achieved through Biodiversity / Official Development Assistance budgets alone, hence need for more holistic approach. UNEP-WCMC & ICF coordinated the research. 13 March 2015Envecon 2015

6. Methods Phase 1 – Assessment of Global Resource Requirements “Top-down” global assessment of the financial resources needed to deliver individual Aichi Targets or clusters of Targets, built on individual research studies by a team of experts/ consultants Used to inform global aggregation and synthesis which assessed the overall resources required to deliver the Aichi Targets Reported to CBD COP11, Hyderabad, 2012 Phase 2 – Review of Benefits, Costs and Resource Needs Wider review of evidence of benefits, costs, investment needs, resource requirements and contribution to wider policy and development goals. Delivered through evidence reviews in six world regions as well as global literature review, combining “bottom-up” and global estimates, and global synthesis Reported to CBD COP12, Korea, 2014 13 March 2015Envecon 2015

7. Findings – Costs and Resource needs Meeting the Aichi Targets requires expenditures of US$ 150 billion to US$ 440 billion per year, equivalent to US$20 to US$60 per capita, or between 0.2 to 0.5% of global GDP Estimates include opportunity costs only to the extent to which they affect the financial cost of biodiversity action (e.g. through incentives, compensation payments or land purchase) Global estimates are broadly supported by national, local and regional estimates, which fall in similar ranges. However, evidence is patchy. Where there are differences, they tend to suggest the High Level Panel’s estimates are conservative. Only 18% of required expenditures are on biodiversity focused actions – most contribute to wider agendas (climate, sustainable agriculture etc.) Estimates include existing expenditures. However, evidence points to a significant finance gap for all Targets and regions. Estimates are based on individual targets. But sequencing and synergies will affect overall costs and cost effectiveness. 13 March 2015Envecon 2015

8. TargetInvestment needs (US$ million) Recurrent expenditure per annum (US$ million) Average annual expenditure (2013 – 2020) (US$ million) Strategic Goal A: Address the underlying causes of biodiversity loss by mainstreaming biodiversity across government and society Target 1 – Awareness raising54440 – 1,400280 – 890 Target 2 – Biodiversity values450 – 61070 – 130100 – 160 Target 3 – Incentives1,300 – 2,0008 – 15170 – 270 Target 4 - Sustainable consumption & production55 – 1078 – 1512 – 23 Strategic Goal B: Reduce the direct pressures on biodiversity and promote sustainable use Target 5 – Reducing habitat loss (forests and wetlands)152,300 – 288,80013,300 – 13,70039,200 – 52,100 Target 6 – Fisheries129,900 – 292,200800 – 3,20016,900 – 40,000 Target 7 – Sustainable Agriculture, Aquaculture and Forestry 20,800 – 21,70010,700 – 11,000 13,200 – 13,600 Target 8 – Pollution77,600 – 772,70024,400 – 42,70035,400 – 139,200 Target 9 – Invasive alien species34,100 – 43,90021,000 – 50,10023,300 – 52,900 Target 10 – Coral reefs600 – 9606 – 1080 – 130 Strategic Goal C: Improve the status of biodiversity by safeguarding ecosystems, species and genetic diversity Target 11 – Protected areas (terrestrial and marine)66,100 - 626,400970 - 6,7009,200 – 85,000 Target 12 – Species conservation-3,400 - 4,8003,400 – 4,800 Target 13 – Genetic diversity550 – 1,40015 – 1780 – 190 Strategic Goal D: Enhance the benefits to all from biodiversity and ecosystem services Target 14 – Ecosystem restoration30,000 – 299,900-3,750 – 37,500 Target 15 – Restoration of forests 100 6,400 Target 16 – Nagoya Protocol55 – 313-7 – 39 Strategic Goal E: Enhance implementation through participatory planning, knowledge management and capacity building Target 17 – NBSAPs114 – 1,100110 – 56050 – 170 Target 18 – Traditional knowledge210 – 340 Target 19 – Science base1,800 - 4,2001,400 - 1,6001,600 - 2,100 Target 20 – Mobilisation of financial resources10 - 793 - 204 - 30 The numbers.... 13 March 2015Envecon 2015

9. Findings – Benefits There is strong evidence of the benefits of biodiversity action for society across a wide range of Aichi targets, for all types of ecosystems, for a wide range of ecosystem services, and for all regions of the world Global assessments, though methodologically controversial, demonstrate substantial benefits of halting biodiversity loss globally - e.g. Balmford et al. (2002), Braat & ten Brink (2008), Hussein et al (2012), Costanza et al (2014) National case studies indicate the costs of degradation of ecosystems and benefits of conservation - e.g. Africa - unsustainable resource use impacts negatively on economies of Malawi, Kenya and Mozambique; wildlife tourism is a large share of some economies (e.g. Botswana) Strong evidence of the value of ecosystem services provided by a range of ecosystems, especially coral reefs, tropical forests and wetlands Evidence applies to a range of actions. Protected areas have been shown to deliver substantial benefits to many regions. e,g. EU Natura 2000 network delivers benefits of between 200 and 300 billion euro p.a. 13 March 2015Envecon 2015

10. Findings – Benefits vs costs Many studies show that the benefits of biodiversity conservation and sustainable use can greatly exceed the costs. Evidence covers all regions and a wide range of Aichi Targets, e.g. Balmford estimated a benefit cost ratio of 100:1 for the first $45 billion invested in protected areas globally Sumaila et al. (2012) estimated that rebuilding global marine fisheries would deliver net gains of US$600 to US$1,400 billion in present value over fifty years, and would repay costs within 12 years. Eliasch (2008) estimated that the global economic cost of climate change caused by deforestation could reach US$1 trillion a year by 2100, greatly exceeding the costs of halting deforestation Many studies show benefit: cost ratios of 2:1 or more for Marine Protected Areas in Australasia and the Pacific Other studies demonstrate that the costs of conservation can exceed the benefits at a local level, and in the short term. This explains why biodiversity continues to be lost. 13 March 2015Envecon 2015

11. Challenges in applying economic evidence to global biodiversity policy Timetables for analysis and reporting. Targets aim to halt biodiversity loss by 2020; COPs are every 2 years. How to reconcile urgent need for action and robust evidence? Continuing demand for headline numbers and global estimates. This presents challenges for robust assessment, and is often at odds with evidence gaps and complexity. Existing evidence often corresponds imprecisely to the needs of policy makers. e.g. few of many studies of benefits of biodiversity at different spatial scales correspond precisely with the Aichi Targets. Evidence may inform process but does not remove political barriers. Evidence suggests that benefits of conservation and sustainable use far exceed costs, but reaching agreement on who pays and how is far more challenging Evidence can be used by different parties to support different negotiating positions. 13 March 2015Envecon 2015

12. Where next? GBO-4 (also released in Pyeongchang) “In most cases progress will not be sufficient to achieve the targets set for 2020, and additional action is required to keep the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 on course.” Resourcing text agreed in Pyeongchang International flows target Targets around understanding resource gaps Domestic target (new) Further decision to… review, at the thirteenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties, progress towards the above targets, and their adequacy, and to consider the need for appropriate action, based on information provided by Parties through the Financial Reporting Framework, including their respective identified resource needs, and taking into account their absorption capacities; Los Cobos, Mexico - 2016 13 March 2015Envecon 2015

13. In the meantime… Given a mandate from the Rio+20 conference in 2012, in 2015 World Leaders are set to agree a universally applicable set of Sustainable Development Goals – likely to include biodiversity both through specific goals and as sub-targets under other goals. How will this change the financing and priorisation picture for meeting the Aichi targets? 13 March 2015Envecon 2015