Global Environmental Change 29 (2014) 202212

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Global Environmental Change

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/gloenvcha

International targets and environmental policy integration:

The 2010 Biodiversity Target and its impact on international policy
and national implementation in Latin America and the Caribbean
Jose Octavio Velazquez Gomar *
Sustainability Research Institute, School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Article history:
Received 29 April 2014
Received in revised form 8 September 2014
Accepted 10 October 2014
Available online 1 November 2014

International environmental policy has evolved from a focus on single issues to more integrated
approaches under the framework of sustainable development. This transition has been accompanied by
a growing use of targets among international organisations. Targets have long been used in industry and
corporate planning, but some have questioned their relevance in the ambit of environmental and
sustainable development policy. This paper addresses the question of whether international targets help
advance environmental policy integration in international governance. It explores whether the
international target of signicantly reducing the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010, adopted by the
Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 2002, enabled co-ordination
and coherence in international biodiversity governance. The effects of the Target on the cluster of
biodiversity-related conventions and their implementation in countries of Latin America and the
Caribbean are examined. The analysis is based on ofcial documents and interviews with secretariat
ofcials, international experts and national focal points conducted between September 2011 and April
2012. A claim is made that the 2010 Biodiversity Target was, in essence, a conservation goal that did not
fully honour the CBDs sustainable development mission. The Target triggered increased co-operation in
the biodiversity cluster without bringing greater alignment of policies and implementation activities
around the CBDs sustainability principles. The study suggests that, if targets are to advance EPI among
international institutions, they need to be appropriated by relevant stakeholders and supported by
implementation strategies that secure their continuous commitment.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Targets
Environmental policy integration
Synergies
Biodiversity governance
Convention on Biological Diversity
Latin America and the Caribbean

1. Introduction
International environmental policy has become embedded in
the broader institutional framework for sustainable development
(IFSD) (Bernstein and Brunnee, 2011; Najam, 2005). This raises the
need for environmental policy integration (EPI) among international institutions (Nilsson et al., 2009). EPI involves the balancing
of different environmental objectives as well as the incorporation
of environmental considerations into other policies (Oberthur,
2009). The evolution of international environmental policy from its
original piecemeal, sectoral approach towards more integrated,
cross-sectoral approaches has gone hand-in-hand with the
increasing popularity of outcome-oriented targets among international organisations (Quental et al., 2011). Targets are seen as an

* Corresponding author at: Sustainability Research Institute, School of Earth and

Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK. Tel.: +44 113 343 2846.
E-mail address: ee08jovg@leeds.ac.uk
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.10.002
0959-3780/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

essential component of sustainable development (see Dernbach,

2005), but the relationship between international targets and EPI
has been little explored. International targets can mobilise
audiences and harness political commitment (see Wood, 2011;
Manning, 2010; Vandemoortele, 2009; Roberts, 2005), but it
remains unclear whether they lead to sustained institutional
support for EPI. Some consider that the conventional style of
international governance based on internationally agreed goals
and targets has become exhausted, and believe that more
decentralised forms of international co-operation are needed
(e.g. Halsns and Shukla, 2008).
This paper examines whether international targets contribute
to EPI in international governance. It does so by looking at the case
of the 2010 Biodiversity Target, a political commitment to
signicantly reduce the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010 as a
contribution to efforts to reduce poverty (see CBD Decision VI/26
par. 11). The Target was adopted at the sixth meeting of the
Conference of the Parties (CoP) to the Convention on Biological
Diversity (CBD) (The Hague, 719 April 2002), and endorsed by

J.O. Velazquez Gomar / Global Environmental Change 29 (2014) 202212

world leaders at the World Summit on Sustainable Development

(WSSD) (Johannesburg, 26 August4 September 2002). In an
overall evaluation of the 2010 Target, the CBDs Global Biodiversity
Outlook observed that it helped stimulate action to protect
biodiversity, but that actions to address the underlying drivers of
biodiversity loss were insufcient (CBD Secretariat, 2010). It
concluded that the Target was not met. Failure to convey the CBDs
message beyond the constituencies supportive of the convention
was considered one of the main reasons for this (ibid.). Analysing
the impact of the 2010 Target on EPI in international biodiversity
governance seems timely as the international community makes
headway towards the Aichi Biodiversity Targets established at
CBD CoP10 (Aichi Prefecture, Nagoya, 1829 October 2010).
This contribution analyses the effects of the 2010 Biodiversity
Target on internal EPI as opposed to external EPI, the typical
interest of EPI studies. External EPI or environmental mainstreaming is critical to reducing human pressures on the
environment, but internal EPI or harmonisation of distinct
environmental objectives is no less important, with scholars
suggesting that the way in which policies are integrated within
one sector determines the success of policy integration across
sectors (see Ugland and Veggeland, 2006). The empirical focus is
on the inuence of the 2010 Target on synergies among
biodiversity-related conventions at the level of international
policy and national implementation.
Six major biodiversity-related multilateral environmental
agreements (MEAs) are generally recognised (see UNEP-WCMC,
2012; Urho, 2009), including the CBD as framework convention,
and ve specialist regimes: (1) the 1971 Convention on Wetlands
of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat (the
Ramsar Convention); (2) the 1972 Convention Concerning the
Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (WHC); (3)
the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species
of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES); (4) the 1979 Convention on the
Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS); and (5)
the 2001 International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food
and Agriculture (ITPGRFA). The six conventions, through their
secretariats, comprise the Liaison Group of Biodiversity-related
Conventions (BLG). At its rst formal meeting in 2004, the BLG
made the 2010 Biodiversity Target one of its top priorities (see CBD
Doc BLG-2), and the governing bodies of the ve founding
conventions (the ITPGRFA joined the group in 2006) adopted or
acknowledged the Target at their next meetings (see EMG
Secretariat, 2008; CBD Secretariat, 2006). This paper explores
whether such political commitment enabled institutional alignment in the cluster and cohesion in national implementation,
focussing on experiences in countries of Latin America and the
Caribbean (LAC) as one of the most biologically diverse regions in
the world (Bovarnick and Alpizar, 2010). Previous studies looking
at how international commitments under different environmental
agreements are implemented at the national level have explored
developments in Africa (e.g. Masundire, 2006) and the Asia-Pacic
region (e.g. Chasek, 2010; Boyer et al., 2002; Van Toen, 2001), but
not yet in LAC. Empirical evidence is collected from ofcial
documents and interviews with secretariat ofcials, international
experts and CBDs national focal points carried out between
September 2011 and April 2012.
The links between international targets and EPI are examined in
the next section. The paper then describes the 2010 Biodiversity
Target and considers whether it promoted EPI in international
biodiversity governance. Materials and methods are discussed
next. Ensuing sections explore the impact of the 2010 Biodiversity
Target on the cohesiveness of institutional arrangements in the
biodiversity cluster and national implementation systems in LAC
countries. Empirical observations are then discussed followed by
concluding remarks.

203

2. International targets and EPI: exploring the links

For purposes of clarity, targets need to be conceptualised
alongside goals, objectives, instruments and indicators. From a
policy perspective, McCallum (1989) explains that targets are
intermediate variables between instruments and goals. Instruments are directly controlled by the relevant policy authority
(p. 3), whilst goals represent the ultimate objectives of policy
(ibid.). Goals are sometimes disaggregated into more specic
objectives (Sondik et al., 2010; Slocombe, 1998). Targets are
readily observable, usually quantiable, events or characteristics
that can be aimed for as part of a goal or objective (Slocombe,
1998). McCallum (1989, p. 4) points out that targets serve as an
operational guide to policy when the latter is conducted according
to a two-stage process in which (1) the policy authority rst
chooses a time path for some target variable (or variables) that
promises to lead to desirable outcomes for the goal variables;
and (2) policy efforts are then directed towards achieving the
designated path for the target variable. Indicators provide
information on the current state of the problem of focus
(McCallum, 1989). They are a priori identied system characteristics that can provide feedback on progress toward goals and
objectives (Slocombe, 1998, p. 484).
Targets are a distinctive feature of new public management or
managing by objectives (Bille et al., 2010), and have their origins
in the ambit of industry and corporate planning (Bridgewater,
2011). Targets can be output-oriented (when the focus in on
process and compliance), or outcome-oriented (when the focus is
on the benets arising from public sector activities) (see Perrin,
2006). Good targets are commonly described as being Specic,
Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and Time-bound (SMART)
(Bridgewater, 2011; Wood, 2011).
Few international treaties, notably the 1987 Montreal Protocol
on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer and the 1997 Kyoto
Protocol on Climate Change, incorporate environmental or
sustainable development targets (Parris and Kates, 2003). Nevertheless, targets of a soft (non-binding) nature addressing different
aspects of human development have long been used, with their
origins tracing back to the UN Development Decade of the 1960s
(see Jolly, 2003). Similarly, targets of different kinds and forms
have been common in international environmental policy since the
1970s (Bridgewater, 2011; UNEP, 2010). A gradual move towards
results-based management supported by quantitative targets
started at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment
and Development (Rio de Janeiro, 314 June) and acquired
notoriety at the 2000 UN Millennium Summit (New York, 68
September), where world leaders agreed on a number of targets,
ranging from poverty eradication to environmental sustainability,
to be met by 2015 (or in one case by 2020) (see Geoghegan and
Renard, 2008; Garonna and Menozzi, 2001). These provided the
basic structure of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) that
emerged one year later in a road map towards the implementation
of the Millennium Declaration prepared by the UN SecretaryGeneral (endorsed by the UN General Assembly through Resolution 56/95 of 14 December 2001).
As Geoghegan and Renard (2008, p. 80) notice, targets have
gained increased international prominence through the MDGs, and
target-setting has become an essential part of virtually every
international process. The latest UN major summit, the United
Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio + 20) (2022
June 2012), launched a process to develop a set of Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) that will build upon the MDGs and
should be in line with the UN development agenda beyond 2015
(see UN General Assembly Res. 66/288).
If, as Stuart and Collen (2013) put it, we live in a target-driven
world, it is pertinent to ask whether targets contribute to the

204

J.O. Velazquez Gomar / Global Environmental Change 29 (2014) 202212

sustainability enterprise. One of the main deciencies in the IFSD is

the weak integration of the three pillars of sustainable development environment, economic and social at different levels of
policy-making and across levels of governance (Bernstein and
Brunnee, 2011). Back in the late 1990s, Raustiala and Victor (1998)
observed that deep integration required signicant and novel
action beyond established commitments. New international
commitments, they noted, emerge as domestic and international
policies co-evolve, with changes at one level exerting inuence
upon the other. Non-binding instruments and other forms of
institutionalised exibility are an essential aspect of co-evolution,
since they allow the balance between domestic autonomy and
international collaboration to be adjusted to particular circumstances, electoral cycles, and economic conditions (Raustiala and
Victor, 1998, p. 693). Targets, as non-binding commitments,
exemplify these exible modes of co-operation.
Dernbach (2005) claims that targets help advance sustainability
goals in international governance because they make sustainable
development more understandable and more achievable. The
question remains, however, whether international targets have
actually instigated EPI or policy integration under the framework
of sustainable development (see Nilsson et al., 2009). EPI has an
internal, intra-policy dimension related to balancing different
environmental objectives; and an external, inter-policy dimension
concerned with the integration of environmental objectives into
other policies (Oberthur, 2009). Some believe that EPI demands the
streamlining of existing institutional and organisational arrangements (e.g. Biermann et al., 2009), whereas others emphasise the
importance of inter-institutional learning and shared knowledge
(e.g. Oberthur and Stokke, 2011; Nilsson et al., 2009; Oberthur,
2009). Non-binding targets arguably offer a third, alternative way,
as normative commitments that the international community
strives to achieve in the absence of hard planning (Fukuda-Parr and
Greenstein, 2010).
One of the attributes most frequently ascribed to international
targets relates to their function of generating action. Fukuda-Parr
and Greenstein (2010) acknowledge that the MDGs have led to an
unprecedented mobilisation of the United Nations system and the
international community. Countries have enacted poverty reduction strategies in line with the MDGs, and with the support of
donors committed to facilitating this process (Roberts, 2005).
MDG-based policies are not always reected in expenditure
programmes, but the increasing use of customised MDG-based
outcomes as a basis for local discussion of progress suggests that
the potential of the MDGs to change behaviour over time might be
signicant (Manning, 2010, p. 10). Targets have delivered similar
results in international biodiversity governance. The Global
Strategy for Plant Conservation (GSPC), a framework of 16 outcome-oriented targets adopted by the CBD CoP in 2002, has
achieved some success in engaging stakeholders and prompting
the formation of networks supporting national implementation
(see Chase et al., 2011). It has also been noticed that global marine
protection targets have stimulated political will and action to
protect marine waters (see Wood, 2011).
Some might say that targets can facilitate EPI due to their
catalytic functions, but there are arguments to contest this idea.
These derive from critiques to new public management
approaches which Bille et al. (2010) summarise in their discussion
on target-setting in international biodiversity governance. First, as
Bille et al. notice, targets underemphasise the environment in
which implementation takes place, overlooking the synergies and
trade-offs between different policy areas. Second, targets are set on
the (often concealed) belief that a policy area can be managed in
the same way as a business, where the problem of reconciling
different interests, typical of public policy, is relatively trivial.
Third, again based on Bille et al., targets are not usually supported

by a working plan conducive to the desired ends, which creates

incentives for ad-hoc adaptations within sectors rather than crosscutting, out-of-the box, solutions.
Scholars have noticed that target-based planning underlies
some sectoral thinking. Contrasting the way in which the
environment is framed in the MDGs and the Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment (MA), Roe et al. (2006, p. vi) notice that
while the MA (and to some extent the CBD) emphasises the
linkages between ecosystem services and human well-being, the
MDGs separate environment out into one of eight goals rather
than integrating it across the goals. In a similar vein, Halsns
and Shukla (2008) claim that the setting of emission reduction
targets under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC) is based on an environment-centric policy agenda that
does little to advance the linkages between climate change and
broader economic development goals. Also, Paton and Lughadha
(2011) observe that the GSPC Targets have strengthened
synergies within the plant conservation community, but have
been less effective in reaching out to broader audiences, notably
those involved in sustainable use issues, whose action is needed
to further the goals of the strategy. Recent studies suggest, as
well, that global marine protection targets have driven the
expansion of marine protected areas where conservation
concerns override socio-economic considerations, resulting in
lack of stakeholder engagement and support (see De Santo, 2013;
Hamel et al., 2013).
The contribution of targets to EPI in international governance
seems to depend on at least two factors: (1) the effective
incorporation of stakeholders into the different stages of targetbased planning, and (2) the adoption of a multi-level strategy that
could lead to the achievement of the desired ends. In their review
of the literature on target-based conservation planning, Carwardine et al. (2009) found that many limitations of the approach
result from poor communication among stakeholders. Finding
common ground is critical. Analysing international negotiations on
emission reduction targets under the UNFCCC, Corfee-Morlot and
Hohne (2003) point out that a long-term perspective that focusses
not only on the costs of mitigation, but also on the avoided impacts
or benets of mitigation (creating synergies between climate
change and other policy domains), can broaden support for targetbased commitments. Experiences in the implementation of the
GSPC suggest, on the other hand, that having a formal,
internationally agreed strategy provided a common focus for
activity and made it more likely that governments would accept it
and put resources into local implementation (Chase et al., 2011, p.
213). Such a strategy requires a multi-level focus because policy
priorities and, therefore, the way in which issue-aspects or issueareas are inter-linked, differs across levels of governance (see Roe
et al., 2006; Maxwell, 1999). The use of international targets as part
of a multi-level governance strategy is currently being explored in
the context of the Millennium Consumption Goals (MCG)
Initiative, a project complementary to the MDGs that seeks to
make consumption and production more sustainable in economic,
environment and social terms (see Munasinghe, 2012).
The next section examines whether the 2010 Biodiversity
Target was designed to serve EPI goals in international biodiversity
governance. Their actual impact on EPI is then explored within the
cluster of biodiversity-related conventions.
3. The 2010 Biodiversity Target and EPI in international
biodiversity governance
The 2010 Biodiversity Target emerged during negotiations of
the CBDs Strategic Plan 20022010. The Strategic Plan was an
attempt to bring focus and coherence to a body of policy of over
500 pages of decisions, much of which had not been implemented

J.O. Velazquez Gomar / Global Environmental Change 29 (2014) 202212

or could not be implemented (CBD Doc UNEP/CBD/MSP/2). Parties

believed that outcome-oriented targets were essential to enhance
co-ordination and alignment, drawing inspiration on the UN
Millennium Declaration and its time-bound international development objectives (ibid.).
The rst draft of the Strategic Plan emanated from a workshop
convened in Port Glaud, Seychelles, from 28 to 30 May 2001. Participants emphasised that the mission of the Strategic Plan should
be to achieve the three objectives of the Convention as outlined in
its Article 1, namely, the conservation of biological diversity, the
sustainable use of its components and the fair and equitable
sharing of the benets arising out of the utilisation of genetic
resources (UNEP/CBD/WS-StratPlan/5). They further proposed a
vision for 2010 which incorporated three targets:
 Current trends in the loss of biodiversity are effectively reversed
at the global and national level.
 The incidence and impacts of unsustainable use are considerably
reduced.
 The benets arising from the use of genetic resources and
associated traditional knowledge are shared equitably.
The rst target was far more ambitious that the other two. It
went beyond conservation to promote restoration of biological
diversity. The second target failed to encourage sustainable use
and focussed instead on the reduction of unsustainable use
practices, whilst the third target proposed that the benets arising
from the use of genetic resources and associated traditional
knowledge be shared equitably, but not fairly (as Smagadi (2006)
explains, fairness refers to the process of wealth distribution,
whereas equity relates to benet-sharing outcomes). These
misbalances became apparent at the Open-ended Inter-Sessional
Meeting on the Strategic Plan, National Reports and Implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity (Montreal, 1921
November 2001), where two alternative visions for the Strategic
Plan were considered (see CBD Doc UNEP/CBD/COP/6/5). One of
them, advocated by the EU, focussed on halting the loss of
biodiversity. In June 2001, as part of the EUs strategy for
sustainable development, the European Council had agreed that
biodiversity decline should be halted with the aim of reaching this
objective by 2010 (European Council, 2001, p. 8).
No agreement had been reached by the time of CBD CoP6. The
European Community stressed the need for a political commitment to halt biodiversity loss by 2010 (CBD Doc UNEP/CBD/COP/6/
20). In contrast, the LAC Group expressed concerns over the
balance of the three objectives of the Convention (ibid.). Sharing
this view, the Group of Like-Minded Megadiverse Countries
called for greater focus on sustainable use and benet-sharing
(IISD, 2002).
The nal version of the Strategic Plan reected a compromise
between the EUs emphasis on stopping biodiversity loss and
demands from other countries for the three objectives of the
Convention to receive equal weight in CBDs planning. The mission
and vision statements discussed at previous meetings were
consolidated in one single mission whereby Parties commit
themselves to a more effective and coherent implementation of the
three objectives of the Convention, to achieve by 2010 a signicant
reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss at the global,
regional and national level as a contribution to poverty alleviation
and to the benet of all life on earth (CBD Decision VI/26).
The 2010 Biodiversity Target was reframed by the Ministers
responsible for the implementation of the CBD when they met on
17 and 18 April 2002 at CBD CoP6. In the Ministerial Declaration,
they resolved to strengthen our efforts to put in place measures to
halt biodiversity loss, which is taking place at an alarming rate, at
the global, regional, sub-regional and national levels by the year

205

2010 (CBD Doc UNEP/CBD/COP/6/20 par. 11). Later on, the

Ministers call the WSSD to reconrm the commitment to have
instruments in place to stop and reverse the current alarming
biodiversity loss at the global, regional, sub-regional and national
levels by the year 2010 (CBD Doc UNEP/CBD/COP/6/20 par. 15 (d),
emphasis in original). The Ministerial Declaration demanded
action not to reduce the rate of biodiversity loss, as per the
Strategic Plans mission, but to stop and even reverse negative
trends. The 2010 Biodiversity Target was here closer to the EUs
2010 Biodiversity Target in its intention. Sustainable use and
benet-sharing, eclipsed by conservation in the Strategic Plans
target, became invisible in the Ministerial Declarations target. The
latter, on the other hand, did not make the link between
biodiversity conservation and human development explicit.
The WSSD endorsed the 2010 Biodiversity Target as outlined in
the CBDs Strategic Plan. World leaders gathered at the Summit
requested support for a more efcient and coherent implementation of the three objectives of the Convention and the
achievement by 2010 of a signicant reduction in the current
rate of loss of biological diversity (UN Doc A/CONF.199/20 par.
44). Some deviation from the original target can nonetheless be
noticed. The mission of the CBDs Strategic Plan established that a
coherent implementation of the three objectives of the Convention
should be conducive to a signicant reduction of biodiversity loss.
That connection was severed by the WSSD. Achieving a coherent
implementation of the three objectives of the CBD and reducing
biodiversity loss became two separate objectives. Furthermore, the
WSSD did not acknowledge the contribution of biodiversity
conservation to poverty alleviation as expressed in the CBDs
Strategic Plan. In the end, the WSSD reinforced the conservation
bias of the 2010 Biodiversity Target. The way in which the Target
was presented at the WSSD mattered because it could affect how
actors that were not part of the CBDs established constituency
would help in the achievement of the Target.
The seventh meeting of the CBD CoP (Kuala Lumpur, 920
February 2004) attempted to clarify the 2010 Biodiversity Target
by developing a framework for assessing progress in the
implementation of the Strategic Plan and, in particular, its mission.
The framework comprised 7 focal areas, 11 goals, and 21 outcomeoriented targets, as well as a list of provisional indicators (see CBD
Decision VII/30). The prominence of conservation objectives was
evident. The focal area associated with conservation included three
goals and ve targets; whereas the focal areas for sustainable use
and benet-sharing encompassed one goal and three targets, and
one goal and two targets, respectively (see CBD Decision VII/30).
The CBD CoP encouraged Parties to use the framework as a basis for
developing national biodiversity targets (ibid.). However, no
specic tools or mechanisms for national implementation were
envisaged. Harrop and Pritchard (2011, p. 479) point out that, by
prioritising the production of global targets, and not support for
country-level and implementable instruments, the CBD has
signalled its priority and an important modus operandi in which
it seeks to inuence the agendas of other international initiatives
and conventions (emphasis in original).
The 2010 Target made inroads into major international
processes, but the WSSDs framing where conservation appears
unlinked to the broader sustainable development objectives of the
CBD prevailed. At the 2005 World Summit (New York, 1416
September), a high-level plenary meeting of the UN General
Assembly attended by Heads of State and Government, world
leaders resolved that parties to the CBD and the Cartagena Protocol
on Biosafety should support the implementation of the Convention and the Protocol, as well as other biodiversity-related
agreements and the Johannesburg commitment for a signicant
reduction in the rate of loss of biodiversity by 2010 (UN General
Assembly Res. 60/1 par. 56 (c)). It further declared that all States

J.O. Velazquez Gomar / Global Environmental Change 29 (2014) 202212

206

will full [biodiversity-related international] commitments and

signicantly reduce the rate of loss of biodiversity by 2010 (ibid.).
In August 2006, Ko Annan, then UN Secretary-General, recommended the UN General Assembly to incorporate the 2010 Biodiversity Target into the set of targets used to assess progress
towards the MDGs (UN Doc A/61/1). The 2010 Target was
presented as a commitment made by world leaders at the
2005 World Summit. In 2007, the Target was incorporated into
the MDGs framework as Target 7.B under MDG 7 (Reduce
biodiversity loss, achieving, by 2010, a signicant reduction in the
rate of loss).
Arguably, the structure of the 2010 Biodiversity Target and its
different framings made it inadequate to advance EPI in
international biodiversity governance. In what follows, the paper
explores whether the Target facilitated EPI among biodiversityrelated conventions.

implementation arrangements in the biodiversity cluster and

not only political commitment. For condentiality reasons, the
names and organisational afliations of interviewees are not
disclosed. Secretariat ofcials and international experts are
identied with distinctive tags consisting of two letters and one
random number. The two letters indicate the type of organisation
in which participants were employed at the time of the interview
(TS standing for a treaty secretariat; IG standing for an intergovernmental organisation (IGO); NG standing for a non-governmental organisation (NGO); and OT standing for other). National
focal points are only associated with their country of origin. Tags
were deemed unnecessary as no single country was represented
with more than two interviewees.
5. The 2010 Biodiversity Target and EPI among biodiversityrelated conventions
5.1. International policy dimension

4. Materials and methods

The implications of the 2010 Biodiversity Target on EPI among
biodiversity-related conventions are examined at two different
levels: international policy and national implementation. The
paper relies on documentary and interview material collected as
part of a research project examining the co-evolution of regime
complexes and national implementation systems with a focus on
international biodiversity governance.
The international dimension of the problem is approached
based on 25 interviews with ofcials from the secretariats of the
six conventions of the biodiversity cluster and international
experts selected from a pool of organisations and agencies with
regular participation in meetings of the biodiversity-related
conventions. These were conducted via Skype between September
2011 and January 2012. Complementary material comes from
resolutions, decisions and other ofcial documents produced on
occasion of those meetings.
To analyse national implementation, this study considers the
experiences of 15 LAC countries that are parties to four or more
biodiversity-related conventions (as of April 2011) and display
high levels of biological diversity (see Table 1). Research data is
retrieved from 18 remote interviews with CBD focal points carried
out between December 2011 and April 2012. National biodiversity
strategies and action plans (NBSAPs) were also considered in the
analysis.
The analysis aimed to determine whether the 2010 Biodiversity
Target fostered increased cohesiveness of institutional and
Table 1
A sample of LAC countries that are contracting parties to four or more biodiversityrelated conventions (as of April 2011).
Country

GEF Benets
Index (GBI)
for Biodiversity

Number of
conventions
adopted

Conventions not yet

adopted

Brazil
Mexico
Colombia
Peru
Ecuador
Argentina
Chile
Bolivia
Cuba
Panama
Costa Rica
Guatemala
Honduras
Dominican Republic
Jamaica

663.7
503.1
380.0
241.0
199.4
122.9
107.3
91.9
89.8
78.0
73.6
58.9
52.7
45.0
32.8

5
4
4
6
6
6
6
5
6
6
6
5
6
4
5

CMS
CMS and ITPGRFA
CMS and ITPGRFA

ITPGRFA

CMS

CMS and ITPGRFA

CMS

Adapted from Velazquez Gomar et al. (2014)

In the opinion of some interviewees, the 2010 Biodiversity

Target fostered increased collaboration within the cluster of
biodiversity-related conventions. One interviewee remarked that
the 2010 Target made a very big impact on co-operation as it
provided a common goal to work towards (Interviewee IG4).
Another interviewee similarly suggested that the 2010 Target was
a unifying theme. It spurred much collaboration over the past
10 years. Without the 2010 Target there would still be Memoranda
of Co-operation and Understanding, but I do not think we would
see the levels of co-operation that we have now (Interviewee IG2).
Ten co-operative instruments were formalised in the biodiversity cluster after the adoption of the 2010 Biodiversity Target in
April 2002 and before the nal assessment of progress presented at
CBD CoP10 in October 2010. Table 2 shows that six of these
instruments made explicit references to the Target. Standing out
among them is the 2006 MoC to Support the Achievement of the
2010 Biodiversity Target, signed by the heads of eleven international agencies, including the Secretariats of the CBD, the Ramsar
Convention, CITES and the CMS. The Target was mentioned in all of
the co-operative agreements in which the CBD was a party. Four
out of ve instruments in which the CBD was not a party did not
refer to the 2010 Target. In these four cases, however, at least one of
the parties had not signed a co-operative agreement with the CBD
after April 2002.
The rst-generation biodiversity-related conventions, i.e., those
adopted in the 1970s and focussed on the protection of specic
species and habitats (Jardin, 2010), embraced the 2010 Biodiversity
Target in their strategic plans/programmes and policy decisions
(see Table 3). The ITPGRFA, which came into force in 2004,
provided more nominal support. Some interviewees considered,
however, that the 2010 Target was supported on paper and
through public utterances, but real work to ensure that the Target
would be achieved did not occur.
Among the specialist conventions of the cluster, CITES, the WHC
and the ITPGRFA showed less formal commitment to the
2010 Target. The Target was not incorporated in the CITES
Strategic Vision until 2007 (the strategy had been reviewed in
2004), and only one decision adopted by the CITES CoP between
2002 and 2010 explicitly mentioned the target. CITES Parties did
not perceive the need to revise the operation of the Convention in
the light of the 2010 Target. The CBDs framework for assessing
progress in the implementation of the Strategic Plan and its
mission (see Section 3) included one target on wildlife trade
which was compatible with CITES core work since 1973; the
convention could therefore carry on pursuing its mandate as usual
while contributing to the 2010 Target (Interviewee NG5). In the
case of the WHC, support for the 2010 Target was expressed in the

J.O. Velazquez Gomar / Global Environmental Change 29 (2014) 202212

207

Table 2
The 2010 Biodiversity Target in formal co-operation instruments established in the biodiversity cluster.a
Co-operation instruments referring to the Target
Instrument
MoC between Agencies to Support the Achievement of the 2010
Biodiversity Target (2006)
MoC between the CBD Secretariat, the World Heritage Centre and the
UNDP/GEF Smalls Grant Programme (2004)

MoC between the CBD and the Ramsar Convention (2005)

Joint Work Programme between the CBD and the CMS (20062008)
Fourth Joint Work Plan between the CBD and the Ramsar Convention
(20072010)

Joint Action Plan between CITES and the CMS (20082010)

References to the 2010 Target

Signed by 11 international agencies, including the Secretariats of the CBD, the
Ramsar Convention, CITES and the CMS, the MoC had at is overall aim to
contribute to the achievement of the 2010 Biodiversity Target.
As described by the CBD Secretariat (2004), a central aim of the MoC was to link
World Heritage sites and networks that each party supports in order to build
national and community-based capacity to secure the long term sustainability of
protected areas and help meet the biodiversity 2010 target.b
The preamble provides a general overview of the two conventions. The 2010
Target is mentioned as the central element of the CBDs Strategic Plan 20022010.
One of the tasks ascribed to the convention bodies was to develop tools to
measure the achievement of the 2010 target.
The goal of the Plan was the conservation and sustainable and wise use of
biodiversity especially in wetlands, helping to assure the full achievement of the
2010 Biodiversity Target.
The scientic bodies of the conventions were expected to work on tools to
measure the achievement of the 2010 target.
The Plan was to be revised in late 2010 in the context of its contribution to the
2010 target and subsequent strategies identied by the Parties.
The conventions were to co-operate to identify indicators for shared species
considering existing convention indicators, and monitor progress towards the
2010 target and beyond.

Co-operation instruments making no reference to the Target

MoU between the United Nations Educational, Scientic and Cultural Organisation (representing both the WHC and the Man and the Biosphere Programme) and the CMS
Secretariat (September 2002)
MoU between the CITES Secretariat and the CMS Secretariat (September 2002)
Joint Work Plan between the Bureau of the Ramsar Convention and the CMS Secretariat, and between the Bureau of the Ramsar Convention and the Secretariat of the
Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds (AEWA) (20032005)
Joint Action Plan between CITES and the CMS (20052007)
a
Considered in the analysis were MoCs/MoUs and joint work plans/programmes concluded after CBD CoP6 in April 2002 (when the 2010 Biodiversity Target was adopted)
and before CBD CoP10 in October 2010 (when the CBDs Parties assessed whether the Target was achieved).
b
A copy of the MoC could not be obtained to conrm this wording.

World Heritage Centres Natural Heritage Strategy, but not in the

broader Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the
WHC. A WHC Secretariat ofcial suggested that the 2010 Target
allowed the convention to communicate and market its work as
contributing to the achievement of global biodiversity goals,
enriching the panoply of arguments offered to donors when
seeking funding. The 2010 Target, however, did not affect the way
in which the convention was implemented. Within ITPGRFA
venues, the 2010 Target had low visibility. One interviewee
observed that, taken as a single, generic target, the 2010 Target was
concerned with conservation; whereas the ITPGRFA is mainly
about sustainable use and benet-sharing (Interviewee NG10). The
Target did not provide a substantive linkage between the ITPGRFA
and the CBD (ibid.). Indeed, what is common to CITES, the WHC and
the ITPGRFA is that their mandates span beyond the narrow sphere
of biodiversity conservation. CITES is both a protectionist and a
trading treaty (Lyster, 1985); the WHC deals with natural as well as
cultural heritage; whilst the ITPGRFA pursues conservation as part
of a broader food security agenda. These elements of institutional
design posed natural constraints to their commitment to the
2010 Target.
The CMS and the Ramsar Convention appeared to be
particularly engaged with the 2010 Target, as judged by the
number of decisions referring to it (see Table 3). Compared with
the other specialist conventions of the biodiversity cluster, the CMS
and the Ramsar Convention have more focussed conservation
mandates, making them innately receptive to the Target.
Moreover, these two conventions have long had institutional links
with the CBD. The 1996 MoC between the CBD and the Ramsar
Convention, and the 1996 MoC between the CBD and the CMS are
the earliest co-operative agreements in the biodiversity cluster.
The CBD formally recognises the CMS and the Ramsar Convention
as its lead partners for conservation of wetlands and migratory
species, respectively (Urho, 2009).

Even within these two conventions, however, political support

for the 2010 Target did not necessarily translate into substantive
policy change. Discussing the linkages between the CMS and the
CBD in the framework of the 2010 Target, a CMS Secretariat ofcial
noted that the Target provided a boost to co-operation between the
two treaties, but if you look at the 2010 Target itself, it is unclear
whether it has brought us more closely together. A former Ramsar
Secretariat ofcial observed that endorsement of the 2010 Target
by the Ramsar CoP did not have practical consequences in the
operation of the convention.
Some interviewees noticed that the specialist conventions of
the biodiversity cluster saw the 2010 Target as the CBDs Target
(Interviewees IG5, NG2, OT2). Indeed, when the governing bodies
of the non-CBD conventions referred to the 2010 Target, they were
generally cautious not to frame it as such (see Table 3). That
framing carried an implicit commitment to support implementation of the CBDs Strategic Plan 20022010 (to which design the
other conventions did not contribute). Thus, while the 2010 Target
(as a UN conservation target) provided a common focus for all the
biodiversity-related conventions, it did not trigger policy changes
that could lead to greater integration under the CBD.
5.2. National implementation dimension
Some of the CBD focal points interviewed (from Chile,
Colombia, Costa Rica and Jamaica) believed that the 2010 Target
had a positive impact on national biodiversity policy and action.
Others, in contrast, acknowledged that the Target did not produce
the desired impact in their countries (Argentina, Ecuador, Mexico,
Panama, and Peru). The evidence generally suggests that the Target
had much less inuence at the national level than it had at the
international level.
NBSAPs were considered a primary instrument for implementing the CBDs Strategic Plan 20022010 and achieving the

208

Table 3
The 2010 Biodiversity Target in strategic documents and decisions of rst-generation biodiversity-related conventions.
Convention

Strategic document incorporating the 2010 Target

2010 Target as a
generic target

2010 Target as a CBDs

target

WHC

CITES
CMS

2010 Target as
a CBD/WSSDs
target

Strategic Plan
20032008

2010 Target as
a generic target

2010 Target as
a CBDs target

2010 Target as
a WSSDs target

2010 Target as
a CBD/WSSDs
target

Resolution IX.8 (main text

and annex)
Resolution IX.1 (Annex E)
Resolution X.10 (Annex 2)

Resolution IX.1
(Annex D)

Resolution IX.3
(preamble)
Resolution X.22 (main
text,
preamble and Annex I)

Resolution
(Annex D)
Resolution
(Annex 2)
Resolution
(main text
preamble)

IX.1
IX.2
X.3
and

World Heritage Centres

Natural Heritage Strategy
(2006)a
Strategic Vision
20082013
Strategic Plan
20062011

Resolution 8.5 (preamble)

Resolution 8.7 (main text
and preamble)
Resolution 8.8 (preamble
and annex)
Resolution 8.18 (main
text, preamble, and
Annexes I
and II)
Resolution 9.2 (preamble)
Resolution 9.4 (main text)
Resolution 9.5 (preamble
and annex)

Resolution 13.2
(preamble)b
Resolution 8.13
(preamble)
Resolution 9.7
(preamble)

Decision 13.2 (main

text)
Resolution 8.11 (main
text and preamble)
Recommendation 9.4
(preamble)

Resolution
8.22
(preamble)
Resolution
9.12
(preamble)

a
The strategy was designed to guide the World Heritage Centres work on natural heritage. The strategic objectives of the conventions are outlined in a different document, namely, the Operational Guidelines for the
Implementation of the World Heritage Convention.
b
The Resolution makes an implicit reference to the CBDs 2010 Target by recalling Target 4.3 of the CBDs framework to assess progress in the implementation of the Strategic Plan (including progress towards achieving the 2010
Target).

J.O. Velazquez Gomar / Global Environmental Change 29 (2014) 202212

Ramsar Convention

Decisions referring to the 2010 Target

2010 Target as
a WSSDs target

J.O. Velazquez Gomar / Global Environmental Change 29 (2014) 202212

209

Table 4
Synergies among biodiversity-related MEAs in NBSAPs.
Synergies explicitly addressed
Country
Brazil

NBSAP and year of adoption

Poltica Nacional da Biodiversidade
2002

Observations
The strategy features three objectives on international co-operation, one of
which is to create synergies in the implementation of international
environmental agreements.

Explicit references to implementation of biodiversity-related MEAs other than the CBD

Country
Argentina

NBSAP and date of adoption

Estrategia Nacional sobre Diversidad
Biologica 2003

Bolivia

Estrategia Nacional de Biodiversidad

2001

Cuba

Estrategia Nacional para la Diversidad

Biologica y Plan de Accion en la
Republica de Cuba 1999

Observations
In section XVI of the strategy, Argentina commits to implementing
international environmental agreements and enhancing the countrys
capacity to participate in international environmental fora.
One of the priorities of the strategy is to improve implementation of
international environmental agreements, in particular, the CBD, the
UNFCCC, the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, CITES and the
Ramsar Convention.
One of the goals of the strategy is to strengthen international co-operation,
supporting implementation of the CBD and other related instruments.

Synergies and/or implementation of conventions other than the CBD are not explicitly considered
Chile Estrategia Nacional de Biodiversidad (2003)
Colombia Poltica Nacional de Biodiversidad (1995)
Costa Rica Estrategia Nacional de Biodiversidad (2000)
Ecuador Poltica y Estrategia Nacional de Biodiversidad del Ecuador 20012010 (concluded in 2000 and ofcially endorsed in 2007)
Guatemala Estrategia Nacional para la Conservacion y Uso Sostenible de la Biodiversidad y Plan de Accion (1999)
Honduras Estrategia Nacional de Biodiversidad y Plan de Accion (2001)
Jamaica National Strategy and Action Plan on Biological Diversity (2003)
Mexico Estrategia Nacional sobre Biodiversidad de Mexico (2000)
Panama Estrategia Nacional de Biodiversidad (2000)
Peru Estrategia Nacional sobre Diversidad Biologica (2001)
Adapted from Velazquez Gomar et al. (2014)

2010 Biodiversity Target (CBD Decision VI/26; CBD Decision

VII/30). NBSAPs provide a framework for national biodiversity
planning and are seen as an instrument for implementing the
biodiversity-related conventions in a coherent manner (see Prip
et al., 2010). Decision VII/30 encouraged CBDs Parties to develop or
review their NBSAPs and set national targets in accordance with
the goals and targets established by the CoP to assess implementation of the Strategic Plan and progress towards the 2010 Target
(see Section 3). At its eighth meeting (Curitiba, Brazil, 2031 March
2006), the CBD CoP endorsed voluntary guidelines to Parties for the
review of NBSAPs (CBD Decision VIII/8). The guidelines asked
Parties to consider whether biodiversity concerns were being
integrated into other processes, including into activities undertaken in the framework of other biodiversity-related conventions
(CBD Decision VIII/8, Annex).
Few LAC countries reviewed their NBSAPs and/or set national
targets as required by the CBD CoP. Table 4 shows that in 4 of the
15 LAC countries examined (Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Jamaica),
NBSAPs were developed following the adoption of the 2010 Target.
Only the Brazilian and Chilean NBSAPs included national targets.
In 10 countries (Bolivia, Cuba, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador,
Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Panama and Peru), NBSAPs predated
the 2010 Target and did not feature outcome-oriented targets. Costa
Rica, however, adopted national conservation targets linked to the
2010 Biodiversity Target in 2009 (Costa Rican Interviewee). The
Dominican Republic was the only country of the sample that lacked
a valid NBSAP at the time of CBD CoP6 and failed to produce a
new strategy in the course of efforts to meet the 2010 Target.
As it seems from the interviews conducted, in most LAC
countries NBSAPs were reviewed as part of preparations for the
fourth national reports to the CBD (due on 30 March 2009), rather
than as part of on-going monitoring of NBSAPs implementation.
More importantly for the purposes of this study, of all the NBSAPs
prepared or reviewed after the adoption of the 2010 Target, the
Brazilian strategy was the only one that explicitly addressed interlinkages between biodiversity-related conventions. Three
NBSAPs (Argentina, Bolivia and Cuba) referred to national

commitments under biodiversity-related conventions other than

the CBD without clearly promoting synergies between them (see
Table 4).
Problems of ownership, diffusion and bureaucratic change
limited the impact of the 2010 Target in national arenas. An
Argentinian interviewee noticed that the Target was not embraced
by national stakeholders due to its poor design and lack of
planning. Some noticed problems of information dissemination
from international to national levels (Ecuadorian Interviewee) and
of internal communication within the national government
(Panamanian and Peruvian Interviewees). In Panama, the institutions addressing activities relevant to the CBDs implementation
were unaware of the Target. While they knew that some of their
actions had collateral benets for biodiversity, they ignored that
those actions contributed to the achievement of an international
goal (Panamanian Interviewee). CBD ofcials in Mexico commented that the 2010 Target had low visibility even within the
environment sector, exerting limited inuence on national
agendas. In Peru, internal discussions on the national contribution
to the 2010 Target were disrupted by changes in public
administration. Similar political difculties were mentioned by
Ecuadorian and Panamanian interviewees.
In 2008, the CBD Secretariat organised three capacity-building
workshops in the LAC region to support countries in the implementation of their NBSAPs (see CBD Secretariat, 2014b). The CBD
Secretariat has proved capable of inuencing political discourses (see
Jinnah, 2011), but its ability to affect implementation on the ground
has been more limited because it lacks specic tools and instruments
to work in the eld. Co-operation with the other specialist
conventions of the biodiversity cluster is crucial to achieve impact,
not least because the powers of the CBD Secretariat are unlikely to be
extended to a point where it can bring state behaviour in line with its
goals. States are generally wary of empowering international
organisations amid fears of external intrusion in domestic affairs
(see Eberlein and Newman, 2008). Indeed, while interviewees from
Argentina and Costa Rica believed that secretariats could do more
to assist national implementation, they emphasised that the

210

J.O. Velazquez Gomar / Global Environmental Change 29 (2014) 202212

management of international environmental agreements at the

national level is ultimately the responsibility of states.
6. International targets and EPI: lessons from international
biodiversity governance
Soft-law international targets have become a distinct feature of
environmental and sustainable development governance (see
Bridgewater, 2011; Quental et al., 2011). Targets are known to
mobilise action towards common aspirations (see Wood, 2011;
Manning, 2010; Vandemoortele, 2009; Roberts, 2005), but
whether they lead to long-term institutional support for EPI or
policy integration under sustainability principles remains underresearched. This paper aimed to address this gap by looking at the
effects of the 2010 Biodiversity Target on EPI in international
biodiversity governance. The case shows how targets can be
appropriated by specic policy communities, reducing their
impact on encouraging inter-institutional synergy.
Section 2 suggested that targets, despite their mobilising role,
may not necessarily facilitate EPI. Building on criticisms to new
public management approaches, three propositions were advanced to support this claim. Through these, the sectoral
orientation of the 2010 Biodiversity Target becomes clear. First,
targets are issue-based and pay insufcient attention to issuelinkages (Bille et al., 2010). In its original framing, the 2010 Target
appeared as a conservation target connected to the broader
sustainability agenda of the CBD. The message was that a
signicant reduction of biodiversity loss would be achieved
through a coherent implementation of the three objectives of
the Convention, and that this should contribute to poverty
alleviation. Nevertheless, subsequent reinterpretations of the
Target at UN fora isolated it from the CBDs sustainable
development mission, portraying it (whether intentionally or
not) as a plain conservation target.
Second, an underlying assumption behind target-based planning is that business management strategies can be used to pursue
public policy goals (see Bridgewater, 2011; Bille et al., 2010).
Businesses, however, are rather homogeneous social units,
whereas public policy demands the engagement and participation
of different stakeholders. The 2010 Biodiversity Target raised the
interest and support of the conventions of the biodiversity cluster,
but did not prove to be a factor of cohesion around the CBDs
sustainability agenda. The policies and strategies of the rstgeneration conventions do not seem to have changed in a
substantive way as a result of the 2010 Target. Inter-agency cooperation was high, but the constituencies of some of the
conventions did not see the Target as their own (see CBD Doc
BLG-5/2). This lack of ownership was felt even within the CBDs
constituency. The Target emerged from a political compromise
between those pushing for strong protection measures (notably
the EU) and those concerned with social justice issues (e.g. the
Group of Like-Minded Megadiverse Countries). Such a compromise
eventually became diluted when subsequent framings of the
Target delinked its conservation focus from broader sustainability
objectives. Arguably, the 2010 Target became appropriated by
specic interest groups. Consequently, its impact in LAC countries,
some of which had expressed concerns over the centrality of
conservation in the mission of the CBDs Strategic Plan (see Section
3), was marginal. A similar situation has impinged upon efforts to
achieve the MDGs: some groups have attempted to repackage
these goals in ways that support their specic agendas (see
Vandemoortele, 2009).
Third, because managing by objectives prioritises the ends over
the means, target-based planning does not normally incorporate
a work plan for implementation (Bille et al., 2010). This
means that stakeholders do not have to engage in cross-sectoral

communication and co-ordination if they can support target

achievement through more exible (sectoral) means. In principle,
success in meeting the 2010 Biodiversity Target depended on the
effective implementation of the CBDs Strategic Plan 20022010.
Nevertheless, no specic implementable instruments were
designed in support of the Target (Harrop and Pritchard, 2011).
Moreover, the connection between the 2010 Target and the CBDs
Strategic Plan became lost as the target was reframed in UN fora as
an overarching conservation target. The rst-generation conventions of the biodiversity cluster perceived it as such (most
decisions and documents referring to the Target did not link it
to the CBDs strategic goals). Because their missions were in line
with the conservation focus of the Target, these conventions could
co-operate in its achievement without having to align their goals to
those of the CBD. They would not have supported a biodiversity
target closer to the CBDs threefold mission as this would have
created the impression of their being upholding the goals of an
external regime. The absence of a clear pathway for implementation had more serious repercussions at the national level, where
the 2010 Biodiversity Target did not seem to foster greater synergy
in the implementation of biodiversity-related instruments,
as experiences in LAC countries suggest. The Target had low
penetration among stakeholders not directly involved in the
implementation of the CBD.
Targets can contribute to EPI in international governance when
they are fully appropriated by the actors supporting their
achievement. The 2010 Biodiversity Target became seized by
narrow sectoral interests, and had thus limited impact on EPI
among biodiversity-related conventions. The Aichi Biodiversity
Targets, 20 targets to be achieved by 2015 (Targets 10 and 17) and
2020 (all other Targets), give nonetheless reasons for hope. They
are part of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 20112020, which,
unlike its predecessor, provides an overarching framework on
biodiversity for the biodiversity-related conventions and the UN
system more broadly (CBD Secretariat, 2014a). The mission of the
Strategic Plan is action-oriented and based on an ecosystem
approach, aiming for effective and urgent action to halt the loss of
biodiversity in order to ensure that by 2020 ecosystems are resilient
and continue to provide essential services, thereby securing the
planets variety of life, and contributing to human well-being, and
poverty eradication (CBD Decision X/2; my emphasis). The
2020 mission seems to replicate the previous 2010 goal in that
it places nature and humans in two separate spheres (as worded,
the mission seems to conceive of ecosystems as ecological units the
vitality of which contributes to human development). Nevertheless, because the 2020 mission is no longer geared towards
biodiversity conservation, but towards ecosystem resilience and
services, the need for synergies between issue-aspects and issueareas appears more imperative. Thus, while the specialist
conventions of the biodiversity cluster may still conveniently
see the 2020 mission as another conservation target, this time they
will be more strongly compelled to seek a closer relationship with
the CBD and embrace its ecosystem approach.
Recent developments suggest that the Aichi Biodiversity
Targets are fostering EPI among biodiversity-related conventions.
Some of these conventions have revised or are revising their
strategic plans in support of the implementation of the Strategic
Plan for Biodiversity 20112020; and some have also participated
in the second series of regional workshops organised by the CBD
Secretariat to assist countries as they revise their NBSAPs in line
with the Strategic Plan (see CBD Doc UNEP/CBD/COP/11/17). These
are critical steps towards closing the gap between international
policy and national implementation that hindered efforts to
achieve the 2010 Biodiversity Target (see CBD Doc BLG-5/2).
NBSAPs are expected to create a framework for the coherent
implementation of the biodiversity-related conventions, which

J.O. Velazquez Gomar / Global Environmental Change 29 (2014) 202212

should in turn allow greater alignment of international policy

objectives. Most of the LAC countries that were part of this study
have already updated their NBSAPs or have taken action in that
direction. Some of them have addressed or considered interlinkages among biodiversity-related agreements in their revised
NBSAPs (Colombia, Dominican Republic and Guatemala); while
others are taking into account those synergies as they update their
strategies (Argentina, Honduras and Panama). Ecuadorian and
Mexican interviewees believed that synergies between the CBD
and other MEAs should arise during the NBSAP review process. It
remains to be seen, however, whether these initial efforts at
international and national levels will be sustained throughout the
decade to advance EPI among biodiversity-related instruments.
7. Concluding remarks
Since targets are an essential component of environmental and
sustainable development policy, their function in catalysing EPI
needs to be acknowledged and encouraged. Targets are commonly
assessed according to their SMARTness, but such business
approaches are not readily applicable to public policy (Bridgewater, 2011; Bille et al., 2010). Target-based planning in public
policy is less about getting the targets right and more about
securing the engagement and participation of different stakeholders at different stages of policy-making.
Sustainable development has not been sufciently mainstreamed in international biodiversity policy and practice. The
low penetration of biodiversity considerations into sectors that are
behind biodiversity threats was one of the fundamental reasons
why the 2010 Biodiversity Target was not achieved. The
integration of sustainability principles into the programmes of
work and strategies of biodiversity-related instruments remains,
on the other hand, incomplete. By placing the ecosystem approach
at the core of its mission, the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011
2020 makes a positive step towards furthering sustainable
development goals in international biodiversity governance.
International biodiversity targets for 2015 and 2020 have been
embedded in a sustainable development framework as opposed to
linked to an overarching conservation mission, as was previously
the case. As such, they promise to encourage the policy changes
required to address the current biodiversity crisis.
Acknowledgement
The author wishes to acknowledge Mexicos National Council of
Science and Technology for their nancial support (grant number:
308636).
References
Bernstein, S., Brunnee, J., 2011. Options for Broader Reform of the Institutional
Framework for Sustainable Development (IFSD): Structural, Legal, and Financial
Aspects. Available from: http://www.uncsd2012.org/index.php?page=viewandtype=400andnr=211andmenu=45 (accessed 03.09.14).
Biermann, F., Davies, O., van der Grijp, N., 2009. Environmental policy integration
and the architecture of global environmental governance. Int. Environ.
Agreem.: Polit. Law Econ. 9 (4), 269351.
Bille, R., Le Duc, J.P., Mermet, L., 2010. Global biodiversity targets: vain wishes or
signicant opportunities for biodiversity governance? In: Bille, R., Chabason, L.,
Chiarolla, C., Jardin, M., Kleitz, G., Le Duc, J.P., Mermet, L. (Eds.), Global Governance of Biodiversity: New Perspectives on a Shared Challenge. Institut Francais
des Relations Internationales, Paris, pp. 4586.
Bovarnick, A., Alpizar, F., 2010. Introduction. In: Bovarnick, A., Alpizar, F., Schnell, C.
(Eds.), The Importance of Biodiversity and Ecosystems in Economic Growth and
Equity in Latin America and the Caribbean: An Economic Valuation of Ecosystems. United Nations Development Programme, New York, pp. 25.
Boyer, B., Velasquez, J., Piest, U., 2002. Inter-linkages Policy Brief 3 National and
Regional Approaches in Asia and the Pacic. The United Nations University,
Tokyo.
Bridgewater, P., 2011. SMART or CUTE what makes a good target? Bot. J. Linn. Soc.
166 (3), 240249.

211

Carwardine, J., Klein, C.J., Wilson, K.A., Pressey, R.L., Possingham, H.P., 2009. Hitting
the target and missing the point: target-based conservation planning in context. Conserv. Lett. 2 (1), 411.
CBD Decision VI/26, 2002. Strategic Plan for the Convention on Biological Diversity.
In: Adopted at the Sixth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the
Convention on Biological Diversity. 719 April 2002, The Hague, CBD Doc
UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/VI/26.
CBD Decision VII/30, 2004. Strategic Plan: Future evaluation of progress. In:
Adopted at the Seventh Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the
Convention on Biological Diversity. Kuala Lumpur, 920 February 2004, CBD
Doc UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/VII/30.
CBD Decision VIII/8, 2006. Implementation of the Convention and its Strategic Plan.
In: Adopted at the Eighth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the
Convention on Biological Diversity. Curitiba, 2031 March 2006, CBD Doc
UNEP/CBD/COP/8/31.
CBD Decision X/2, 2010. The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 20112020 and the Aichi
Biodiversity Targets. In: Adopted at the Tenth Meeting of the Conference of the
Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Aichi Prefecture, Nagoya, 18
29 October 2010, CBD Doc UNEP/CBD/COP/10/27.
CBD Doc BLG-2, 2004. Minutes of the Second Meeting of the Liaison Group of the
Biodiversity-Related Conventions, 16 August 2004, Geneva.
CBD Doc BLG-5/2, 2006. Draft Report of the Fifth Meeting of the Liaison Group of the
Biodiversity-Related Conventions, 14 September 2006, Gland.
CBD Doc UNEP/CBD/COP/11/17, 2012. Cooperation with other conventions, international organizations and initiatives. In: Note by the Executive Secretary to the
Eleventh Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on
Biological Diversity, Hyderabad, India, 819 October 2012.
CBD Doc UNEP/CBD/COP/6/5, 2002a. Report of the Open-Ended Inter-Sessional
Meeting on the Strategic Plan, National Reports and Implementation of the
Convention on Biological Diversity. In: Submitted to the Sixth Meeting of the
Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, The Hague,
719 April 2002.
CBD Doc UNEP/CBD/COP/6/5, 2002b. Report of the Sixth Meeting of the Conference
of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. The Hague, 719 April
2002.
CBD Doc UNEP/CBD/MSP/2, 2001. Strategic Plan for the Convention on Biological
Diversity. In: Note by the Executive Secretary to the Open-Ended InterSessional Meeting on the Strategic Plan, National Reports and Implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, 1921 November
2001.
CBD Doc UNEP/CBD/WS-StratPlan/5, 2001. Conclusions of the Workshop on the
Strategic Plan for the Convention on Biological Diversity. Port Glaud, Seychelles,
2830 May 2001.
CBD Secretariat, 2004. Signing of MoC between SCBD, UNDP & World Heritage
Centre. Available from: http://www.cbd.int/kb/record/sideEvent/332?RecordType=sideEvent&Event=COP-07 (accessed 06.09.14).
CBD Secretariat, 2006. Global Biodiversity Outlook 2. Montreal: Secretariat of the
Convention on Biological Diversity.
CBD Secretariat, 2010. Global Biodiversity Outlook 3. Montreal: Secretariat of the
Convention on Biological Diversity.
CBD Secretariat, 2014a. Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 20112020, Including Aichi
Biodiversity Targets. Available from: https://www.cbd.int/sp/ (accessed 26.04.14).
CBD Secretariat, 2014b. NBSAP Capacity Building Workshops on Implementing
NBSAPs and Mainstreaming Biodiversity. Available from: http://www.cbd.int/
nbsap/workshops1/default.shtml (accessed 06.09.14).
Chase, M.W., Ali, N.S., Paton, A.J., Lughadha, E.N., Fay, M.F., 2011. Science and
development of government policy post-global strategy for plant conservation:
lessons for the future. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 166 (3), 213216.
Chasek, P.S., 2010. Confronting Environmental Treaty Implementation Challenges
in the Pacic Islands. EastWest Center, Honolulu.
Corfee-Morlot, J., Hohne, N., 2003. Climate change: long-term targets and shortterm commitments. Glob. Environ. Change 13 (4), 277293.
De Santo, E.M., 2013. Missing marine protected area (MPA) targets: how the push
for quantity over quality undermines sustainability and social justice. J. Environ.
Manage. 124, 137146.
Dernbach, J.C., 2005. Targets, timetables and effective implementing mechanisms:
necessary building blocks for sustainable development. Sustain. Dev. Law Policy
6 (1), 4650.
Eberlein, B., Newman, A.L., 2008. Escaping the international governance dilemma?
Incorporated transgovernmental networks in the European Union. Governance
Int. J. Policy Admin. Inst. 21 (1), 2552.
EMG Secretariat, 2008. Enhancing MEAs Coherence: Analysis of Existing Cooperative Frameworks and Proposals for MEAs Cooperation and Synergies, in Particular Lessons Learned and Successful Examples, and Identication of Areas
Where Further Cooperation might be Explored. First unedited draft. Available
from: http://www.biodivcluster./default.htm (accessed 26.04.14).
European Council, 2001. Presidency conclusions: Goteborg European Council,
15 and 16 June 2001 European Council Doc SN 200/1/01 REV 1.
Fukuda-Parr, S., Greenstein, J., 2010. How should MDG Implementation be Measured: Faster Progress or Meeting Targets? Working Paper No. 63. International
Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth, Brasilia.
Garonna, P., Menozzi, C., 2001. Monitoring social and development policies: a
konomie
survey of the current approaches. In: Gabriel, J., Neugart, M. (Eds.), O
als Grundlage politischer Entscheidungen: Essays on Growth, Labor Markets,
and European Integration in Honor of Michael Bolle. Leske + Budrich, Opladen,
pp. 271295.

212

J.O. Velazquez Gomar / Global Environmental Change 29 (2014) 202212

Geoghegan, T., Renard, Y., 2008. Improving the coherence and relevance of the
regional environmental policy framework: preliminary observations and lessons from the case of the St. Georges declaration. J. Bus. Finance Econ. Emerg.
Economies 3 (1), 6187.
Halsns, K., Shukla, P., 2008. Sustainable development as a framework for developing country participation in international climate change policies.
Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change 13 (2), 105130.
Hamel, M.A., Andrefouet, S., Pressey, R.L., 2013. Compromises between international habitat conservation guidelines and small-scale sheries in Pacic Island
countries. Conserv. Lett. 6 (1), 4657.
Harrop, S.R., Pritchard, D.J., 2011. A hard instrument goes soft: the implications of
the convention on biological diversitys current trajectory. Glob. Environ.
Change 21 (2), 474480.
IISD, 2002. CBD COP-6 highlights: Wednesday, 11 April 2002. Earth Negotiations
Bull. 9 (232) . Available from: http://www.iisd.ca/biodiv/cop6/ (accessed
03.09.14).
Jardin, M., 2010. Global biodiversity governance: the contribution of the main
biodiversity-related conventions. In: Bille, R., Chabason, L., Chiarolla, C., Jardin,
M., Kleitz, G., Le Duc, J.P., Mermet, L. (Eds.), Global Governance of Biodiversity:
New Perspectives on a Shared Challenge. Institut Francais des Relations Internationales, Paris, pp. 644.
Jinnah, S., 2011. Marketing linkages: Secretariat governance of the climate-biodiversity interface. Glob. Environ. Polit. 11 (3), 2343.
Jolly, R., 2003. Global Goals the UN Experience. United Nations Development
Programme, New York.
Lyster, S., 1985. International Wildlife Law: an Analysis of International Treaties
Concerned with the Conservation of Wildlife. Grotius Publications, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Manning, R., 2010. The impact and design of the MDGs: some reections. IDS Bull.
41 (1), 714.
Masundire, H.M., 2006. Opportunities for synergies in planning and implementing projects for biological diversity and combating desertication in Africa.
In: King, C., Bigas, H., Adeel, Z. (Eds.), Desertication and the International
Policy Imperative: Proceedings of a Joint International Conference, 1719
December, Algiers, Algeria. The United Nations University, Hamilton, ON,
pp. 307318.
Maxwell, S., 1999. International targets for poverty reduction and food security: a
mildly sceptical but resolutely pragmatic view with a call for greater subsidiarity. IDS Bull. 30 (2), 92105.
McCallum, B.T., 1989. Targets, Indicators, and Instruments of Monetary Policy. NBER
Working Paper No. 3047. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
Munasinghe, M., 2012. Millennium consumption goals (MCGs) for Rio+ 20 and
beyond: a practical step towards global sustainability. Nat. Resour. Forum 36
(3), 202212.
Najam, A., 2005. Developing countries and global environmental governance: from
contestation to participation to engagement. Int. Environ. Agreem.: Polit. Law
Econ. 5 (3), 303321.
Nilsson, M., Pallemaerts, M., von Homeyer, I., 2009. International regimes and
environmental policy integration: introducing the special issue. Int. Environ.
Agreem.: Polit. Law Econ. 9 (4), 337350.
Oberthur, S., 2009. Interplay management: enhancing environmental policy integration among international institutions. Int. Environ. Agreem.: Polit. Law Econ.
9 (4), 371391.
Oberthur, S., Stokke, O.S., 2011. Conclusions: decentralized interplay management
in an evolving interinstitutional order. In: Oberthur, S., Stokke, O.S. (Eds.),
Managing Institutional Complexity: Regime Interplay and Global Environmental Change. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 313341.
Parris, T.M., Kates, R.W., 2003. Characterizing a sustainability transition:
goals, targets, trends, and driving forces. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 100 (14),
80688073.

Paton, A., Lughadha, E.N., 2011. The irresistible target meets the unachievable
objective: what have 8 years of GSPC implementation taught us about target
setting and achievable objectives? Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 166 (3), 250260.
Perrin, B., 2006. Moving from Outputs to Outcomes: Practical Advice from Government
Around the World. IBM Center for The Business of Government, Washington, DC.
Prip, C., Gross, T., Johnston, S., Vierros, M., 2010. Biodiversity Planning: an Assessment of National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans. United Nations
University, Institute of Advanced Studies, Yokohama.
Quental, N., Lourenco, J.M., da Silva, F.N., 2011. Sustainable development policy:
goals, targets and political cycles. Sustain. Dev. 19 (1), 1529.
Raustiala, K., Victor, D.G., 1998. Conclusions. In: Victor, D.G., Raustiala, K., Skolnikoff, E.B.
(Eds.), The Implementation and Effectiveness of International Environmental
Commitments: Theory and Practice. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 659707.
Roberts, J., 2005. Millennium development goals: are international targets now
more credible? J. Int. Dev. 17 (1), 113129.
Roe, D., Jones, B., Bond, I., Bhatt, S., 2006. Local Action, Global Aspirations: The Role
of Community Conservation in Achieving International Goals for Environment
and Development. Natural Resource Issues Series No. 4. International Institute
for Environment and Development, London, UK.
Slocombe, D.S., 1998. Dening goals and criteria for ecosystem-based management.
Environ. Manage. 22 (4), 483493.
Smagadi, A., 2006. Analysis of the objectives of the convention on biological
diversity: their interrelation and implementation guidance for access and
benet sharing. Columbia J. Environ. Law 31 (2), 243284.
Sondik, E.J., Huang, D.T., Klein, R.J., Satcher, D., 2010. Progress toward the healthy
people 2010 goals and objectives. Annu. Rev. Public Health 31, 271281.
Stuart, S.N., Collen, B., 2013. Conserving biodiversity in a target-driven world. In:
Collen, B., Pettorelli, N., Baillie, J.E.M., Durant, S.M. (Eds.), Biodiversity Monitoring and Conservation: Bridging the Gap between Global Commitment and Local
Action. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, UK, pp. 421438.
Ugland, T., Veggeland, F., 2006. Experiments in food safety policy integration in the
European Union. J. Common Mark. Stud. 44 (3), 607624.
UN Doc A/61/1, 2006. Report of the Secretary-General on the Work of the Organization. General Assembly Ofcial Records, Sixty-rst Session, Supplement No. 1
(A/61/1) (16.08.06).
UN Doc A/CONF.199/20, 2002. Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development. Johannesburg, 26 August4 September 2002.
UN General Assembly Res. 56/95, 2001. Follow-up to the Outcome of the Millennium Summit UN Doc A/RES/56/95 (14.12.01).
UN General Assembly Res. 60/1, 2005. 2005 World Summit Outcome UN Doc A/RES/
60/1 (16.09.05).
UN General Assembly Res. 66/28, 2012. The Future We Want UN Doc A/RES/66/288
(27.06.12).
UNEP, 2010. Compilation of Internationally Agreed Environmental Goals
and Objectives. UNEP Division of Environmental Law and Conventions, Nairobi.
UNEP-WCMC, 2012. Promoting Synergies within the Cluster of Biodiversity-related
Multilateral Environmental Agreements. UNEP World Conservation Monitoring
Centre, Cambridge.
Urho, N., 2009. Possibilities of Enhancing Cooperation and Co-ordination among
Meas in the Biodiversity Cluster. Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen.
Vandemoortele, J., 2009. The MDG conundrum: meeting the targets without
missing the point. Dev. Policy Rev. 27 (4), 355371.
Van Toen, C., 2001.In: Delegates Perceptions on Synergies and the Implementation
of MEAs: Views from the ESCAP Region, Informal Regional Consultation on
Interlinkages, 2627 February, Kuala Lumpur.
Velazquez Gomar, J.O., Stringer, L.C., Paavola, J., 2014. Regime complexes and
national policy coherence: experiences in the biodiversity cluster. Glob. Gov.
20 (1), 119145.
Wood, L., 2011. Global marine protection targets: how SMART are they?
Environ. Manage. 47 (4), 525535.