It retains much of the original ambition, and particularly the parts that I felt were more solid and important. Such as the "all areas" in Target 1 under integrated spatial planning.
Ambitious restoration (Target 2), protected area (Target 3) and endangered species (Target 4) targets. And ambitious Target 10 on agriculture that still recognises the need for sustainable intensification in some areas.
Particularly glad to see monitoring mentioned in several targets, particularly Target 20 and 21. This is a huge win for the multi-year efforts of @GEOBON_org to raise the importance of biodiversity monitoring.
And yes, it would be nice to have some (quantitative) milestones for 2030 (now missing), but I think the main issue now is to move towards the implementation of these targets. I would leave these for the national plans and an eventual mid-term review by 2026 or so.
Fingers crossed now that the plenary will approve this!
And did I mention Target 19a)? 30 billion Dollars (the currency choice is unfortunate for obvious reasons) annually of financial flows from developed to developing nations. That’s really good news.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
❗️❗️❗️Global Biodiversity framework just approved @UNBiodiversity#COP15. Extraordinary achievement of the global policy and scientific community. Years in the making. Now the hard work starts: implementing those targets and goals.
Some last minute reservations from Democratic Republic of Congo hopefully will not come back to haunt this agreement.
There’s a lot of work for the scientific community ahead. How to support decision-makes in translating targets to national level, how to create enabling conditions for implementation and of course monitoring, monitoring!
Last week @IPBES welcomed the #naturefuturesframework, an approach to develop a new generation of nature-centred scenarios exploring desirable futures. Why is this important and how did we arrive here? A thread👇
In 2016 @IPBES published an assessment on scenarios and models. It found that existing scenarios failed to fully incorporate the multiple benefits of biodiversity to people at multiple scales. It encouraged the scientific community to develop a new generation of scenarios.
The assessment called for scenarios that addressed multiple temporal and spatial scales, that addressed multiple components of the @IPBES conceptual framework, and that used a participatory approach to develop intervention and exploratory scenarios.
So after a bit of a delay, the @EU_Commission finally published the proposal of #RestoreNature. This is a major step forward in the implementation of the @EUEnvironment Biodiversity Strategy for 2030. However there is still some potential for improvement. A thread.
First a brief examination of the many positive aspects of the proposal. It’s ambitious but arguably achievable in most of its goals. It covers agricultural, forest, freshwater, marine and habitats with specific targets, indicators and approaches for each.
It is progressive over time, with targets for 2030, 2040 and 2050. And aims for a positive future for biodiversity as in the #naturefuturesframework@ipbes or the ideas of bending the curve of biodiversity loss, by Georgina Mace and others.
We provide a synthetic review of major policy-relevant developments on biodiversity science around multiple values, remote responsibility, restoration, positive futures, multidimensional change, and monitoring/ modelling biodiversity change.
We hope that this can have an impact on the negotiations of COP 15 of the @UNBiodiversity but the relevance of our framework goes beyond that to laying down what needs to be done in each country.
So I get this question a lot - how to write a paper review - and decided to write a short thread with a few recommendations.
1. Be kind. Think about what style of comments you’d like to receive yourself. Feedback can be hard to receive, and there’s no need to be harsh.
2. Be rigorous but respect that the authors may have a different way of doing things. A reviewer is not an author. Suggestions that really improve the paper should be given, but don’t try to push your favorite approach just because. Don’t micromanage the paper.