Perspective

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-01375-y

Ensuring effective implementation of the post-

2020 global biodiversity targets
Haigen Xu   1,6 ✉, Yun Cao1,6, Dandan Yu1,6, Mingchang Cao1, Yuxiao He1, Michael Gill2 and
Henrique M. Pereira   3,4,5

Biodiversity underpins the fundamental elements for human well-being including food security, human health and access to
clean water. In 2010, the Aichi Targets were adopted by world leaders to address the crisis of biodiversity loss. Despite con-
servation efforts, none of the Aichi Targets have been fully met. However, comprehensive analysis of the reasons for failure in
terms of implementation mechanisms is, to date, rare and limited in scope. Here, we demonstrate that most parties did not set
effective national targets in accordance with the Aichi Targets, and investments, knowledge and accountability for biodiver-
sity conservation have been inadequate to enable effective implementation. We recommend that the new global targets under
the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework should be adopted by parties as the minimum national targets to achieve the
2050 Vision. We propose that financial resources for biodiversity conservation are substantially increased through a variety
of sources, including the deployment of new economic instruments such as payments for ecosystem services. In addition, sci-
ence–policy interfaces at all levels need to be strengthened to integrate scientific, Indigenous and local knowledge to support
decision-making. We suggest that a compliance and accountability mechanism, based on monitoring systems, is created to
provide transparent and credible review of parties’ implementation of the new global targets.

T
he extinction of species and degradation of ecosystems con- Here, we analyse the reasons for failure to fully deliver the Aichi
tinues at rates unprecedented in human history1–4. Loss of bio- Targets in terms of national policy responses, financial resources,
diversity influences the functioning of natural ecosystems and science–policy interfaces and review mechanisms. We put forward
imperils human well-being3. To address the biodiversity crisis, global the potential solutions to provide guidelines for the design and
targets have been set to mobilize, guide and coordinate conservation implementation of the post-2020 GBF (Table 1 and Fig. 2).
efforts2. In 2002, world leaders adopted the 2010 Biodiversity Target
through the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) to “achieve a Inadequate national policy responses
significant reduction of the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010”1. After The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and its Aichi Targets
failing to meet the 2010 Target, countries approved the Strategic purposely provide a flexible framework rather than compulsory
Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and the Aichi Targets5 to motivate commitments for the establishment and implementation of national
effective and urgent actions to halt biodiversity loss in this decade targets5. Owing to the non-binding nature of the Aichi Targets, their
(Fig. 1), thereby contributing to sustainable development, climate coherence with national policies and processes was not sufficiently
adaptation and mitigation, and poverty reduction. considered by parties13. For instance, stipulations on how the Aichi
Despite continued conservation efforts, none of the Aichi Targets Targets are translated and implemented in terms of legislations and
have been fully achieved4,6,7. As in 20101, we are, once again, con- policies were not clear enough14. It has led to the very finite uptake
fronted with the failure in realizing the global biodiversity targets4,6,7. of the Aichi Targets on the national scale15.
In January 2020, the Secretariat of the CBD released the zero draft of NBSAPs are the critical tool to translate the global biodiversity
the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF)8, and carried targets into national policies and instruments11. However, the major-
out the first renewal in August9, with the new goals, global targets, ity of national targets in NBSAPs are not well aligned with the Aichi
implementation support mechanisms, enabling conditions, moni- Targets and do not address all of their elements7. As of March 2020,
toring and review mechanisms now being discussed and developed. 167 countries have prepared or revised their NBSAPs. For Aichi
To inform the effective design and implementation of the post-2020 Targets 3, 6, 10 and 14, NBSAPs from countries did not have asso-
GBF, analysis of the reasons for previous failure is crucial. Currently, ciated national targets or commitments. Even where there has been
various studies have attributed the failure to the setting of the Aichi high levels of translation at the national level (for example, for Aichi
Targets itself10, weak National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Targets 1, 9, 16, 17, 19 and 20), only 22% of the NBSAPs have con-
Plans (NBSAPs)11, inadequate financial resources3 and imperfect tained targets that met or exceeded the scope and level of ambition
indicators2,12. However, comprehensive analysis of the reasons for found in these corresponding Aichi Targets16. According to the sub-
failure in terms of the implementation mechanisms is, to date, sequent national reports and regional assessments12,17,18, efforts to
lacking. Without this analysis, the post-2020 GBF implementation embed commitments into legal instruments for effective implementa-
approach may run the risk of repeating some of the mistakes made tion of the Aichi Targets are broadly lacking across countries. In addi-
over the past decade. tion, most NBSAPs have been adopted by environmental ministries

Nanjing Institute of Environmental Sciences, Ministry of Ecology and Environment of China, Nanjing, China. 2NatureServe, Arlington, VA, USA. 3German
1

Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany. 4Institute of Biology, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg,
Halle (Saale), Germany. 5CIBIO (Research Centre in Biodiversity and Genetic Resources)–InBIO (Research Network in Biodiversity and Evolutionary
Biology), Universidade do Porto, Vairão, Portugal. 6These authors contributed equally: Haigen Xu, Yun Cao, DandanYu. ✉e-mail: [email protected]

Nature Ecology & Evolution | VOL 5 | April 2021 | 411–418 | www.nature.com/natecolevol 411
Perspective NATure EcoloGy & EVoluTIon

a Post-2020 GBF
IPBES global report
Sixth national reports
GEF-7 replenishment
Action agenda for nature and people
COP review
COP review
IPBES thematic reports
Aichi Targets integrated into SDGs
COP review
GBO 4
Fifth national reports
GEF-6 replenishment
Indicative list of indicators
Strategy for resource mobilization
Japan biodiversity fund
GEF-5 replenishment
GBO 3
Fourth national reports
Develop and update NBSAPs

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020

UN Decade on Biodiversity and update NBSAPs

Adoption of the Aichi Target at COP 10
UN International Year of Biodiversity
COP review
Strategy for resource mobilization
GEF-4 replenishment
2010 Target endorsed by UN general assembly
GBO 2
Third national reports
COP review and temporary indicators
GEF-3 replenishment
2010 target endorsed by world summit on sustainable development
Adoption of 2010 target at COP 6
GBO 1
Second national reports
COP 5’s decision to develop the first strategic plan

b
Review and monitoring
COP
GBO
Subsidiary body on implementation
IPBES, indicators framework
Vision

Supporting Reporting
Mission
GEF National
Strategy for resource mobilization reports
Five strategic Programmes of work
goals Tools and guidelines

20 Aichi Targets

Implementation
Strategic Plan for Parties
Biodiversity 2011–2020 Biodiversity strategies and action
plans, legislation, and enabling
conditions

Fig. 1 | The chronology and current implementation processes of global biodiversity targets. The COP to the CBD is the body that provides the overall
guidance and develops supporting measures for the 196 parties to implement global targets. Parties develop NBSAPs, which can be implemented through
national legislations and other tools. Through regular national reports to the COP, parties identify the measures and describe the implementation of the
CBD and their national targets. a, Chronology. Green dots, supporting measures; blue dots, reporting process; red dots, review process; red squares, global
targets; IPBES, Intergovernmental Science–Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services; GEF, Global Environment Facility; UN, United Nations;
GBO, Global Biodiversity Outlook. b, Current implementation processes.

rather than ‘whole-of-government’ (for example, parliament, cabinet, established under the post-2020 GBF should be considered the
head of government, or an equivalent body). Such low engagement minimum national targets of parties. The setting of new global
and mainstreaming of these plans at the national level, combined targets should primarily consider how they would be worded to
with the lack of a coordinating mechanism, creates a significant bar- ensure consistent interpretation, timely translation into national
rier to implementation of the global targets on the national scale19. It targets and legal instruments, effective implementation and accu-
further creates the obstacle to the engagement of key sectors whose rate tracking of progress at the national level. The Paris Agreement
actions are often the biggest drivers of biodiversity loss. provides a coherent set of features that combines a top-down and
bottom-up approach as well as legally binding and non-binding
Recommendation 1. Each party is obligated to implement all elements20. This agreement encompasses several long-term global
new global targets that are relevant to the party. The global targets goals for which parties are authorized to propose their own

412 Nature Ecology & Evolution | VOL 5 | April 2021 | 411–418 | www.nature.com/natecolevol
NATure EcoloGy & EVoluTIon Perspective
Table 1 | Deficiencies in current implementation of the Aichi Targets and recommendations for more effective implementation of the
post-2020 GBF
Challenges Limitations Recommendations
1. Inadequate national The majority of national targets in NBSAPs across The global targets established under the post-2020 GBF are the
policy responses different countries are not well aligned with the Aichi minimum national targets of parties (Fig. 2). Each party is obligated
Targets. to implement all new global targets that are relevant to them. The
Efforts to embed commitments into legal and policy minimum national targets are the most basic requirements for
instruments for effective implementation of the Aichi parties to achieve the 2050 Vision and obligations of the CBD.
Targets are broadly lacking across countries. Parties, subnational governments, corporations and stakeholders
present voluntary commitments to enhance the ambition of the
post-2020 GBF and account for their different circumstances.
2. Funding shortages Biodiversity financial resources have been inadequate Biodiversity financial resources are mobilized for a substantial
at all levels. increase from all sources.
Biodiversity-related economic instruments can be developed
including payments for ecosystem services, biodiversity-relevant
taxes, fees and charges.
3. Science–policy Knowledge gaps exist in social sciences and Science–policy interfaces at different levels are strengthened to
knowledge gaps transdisciplinary research, and in the integration of integrate scientific, Indigenous and local knowledge to support
scientific, Indigenous and local knowledge, limiting decision-making.
the understanding of the conditions, synergies and More scientific and suitable indicators are studied and created to
trade-offs among conservation efforts. measure national and global biodiversity targets.
Lack of existing indicators hinders measuring and
tracking progress towards the Aichi Targets.
4. Imperfect review The performance of specific parties’ implementation A compliance and accountability mechanism is created to review
mechanisms of obligations under the CBD and the global targets is specific parties’ implementation of the post-2020 GBF based on
rarely reviewed by the COP. standardized monitoring systems.
The review mechanism is also established for voluntary
commitments from different non-state actors to record their
contribution to biodiversity targets.

nationally determined contributions. Learning from the Paris developing countries. Such a process would encourage parties to
Agreement’s architecture, the post-2020 GBF could be discussed increase their ambition, because the level of support depends on the
in an adaptive manner: ambition of national commitments.
First, all parties make their ambitious national commitments Third, parties and non-state actors discuss the post-2020 GBF
based on the key elements (and numbers or percentages) of the at the upcoming meetings of the Open-ended Working Group on
goals and targets of the draft post-2020 GBF (Supplementary Table the Post-2020 GBF. The national commitments can and should be
1) and tailored to their unique national circumstances21,22, and pres- employed as a basis to shape the common global targets. To agree
ent the baselines of their biodiversity and conservation status. The on the common goals, global targets should be worded in an inclu-
following two criteria are observed: (1) the national commitments sive manner to accommodate unique national circumstances to
should be well aligned with the 2050 Vision, goals, mission and key ensure that each target is relevant to and obligatory for each party
elements of the 20 targets contained in the draft post-2020 GBF, (see example in Box 1). We call such global targets the minimum
and the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)8; and (2) the national targets. The minimum national targets are the most basic
national commitments are made to address the need to stabilize bio- requirements for parties to undertake obligations of the CBD in
diversity loss in the next 10 years and stimulate recovery over the terms of policies, resource mobilization, conservation, restoration,
following 20 years, with significant net gains in biodiversity status sustainable use, knowledge, information sharing, public engage-
by 2050 to achieve the 2050 Vision8. Definitions and standards for ment, monitoring and reporting, contributing to the achievement
national commitments need to be designed to ensure consistency of the 2050 Vision.
and feasible scaling-up of the contributions for the global targets23. Such an approach would ensure minimum standards for ambi-
The national commitments serve to catalyse relevant and effective tion to guarantee that the action-oriented targets at the national
biodiversity movements on many scales, enhance political will and level are sufficient to halt biodiversity loss and enable some level
ambition, and promote accelerated transformations across eco- of recovery. In this way, the essential elements of the global targets
nomic, social, political and technological dimensions, to fulfil obli- can be promptly translated into national targets and time lags can
gations of the CBD and the 2050 Vision. be reduced between the points when new global targets are adopted
Second, the national commitments are reviewed by the and national targets established7.
Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice It would be ideal for the post-2020 GBF to be legally binding as
and the Open-ended Working Group on the Post-2020 GBF, based a separate agreement. However, establishing a legally binding agree-
on the best available science and evidence22. If the national commit- ment would take time to negotiate (for instance, it took four years
ments are not ambitious enough or not well aligned with the draft to reach the Paris Agreement20) and is unachievable in less than one
post-2020 GBF and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, year. Therefore, we recommend that the global targets established
they will need to be updated by the party. Incentives such as finan- under the post-2020 GBF are obligatory for each party (Fig. 2). We
cial and technical support could be provided for countries that found that the core elements except the numbers or percentages in
present higher commitments24. For example, financial resources the goals and 20 global targets of the draft post-2020 GBF are in line
are allocated from the Global Environment Facility to qualified with many of the articles of the CBD (Supplementary Table 1). So

Nature Ecology & Evolution | VOL 5 | April 2021 | 411–418 | www.nature.com/natecolevol 413
Perspective NATure EcoloGy & EVoluTIon

Parties

Implementation

Minimum
national targets

e z
bili
Mo
Vision

Targets
Non-governmental Non-governmental
stakeholders Indicators stakeholders
Enabling conditions
Development Review

COP Post-2020 GBF COP

and new global targets

Galvanize

Fig. 2 | Enhanced implementation of global biodiversity targets. Parties to the CBD will adopt the post-2020 GBF and new global targets at the Fifteenth
meeting of the COP. The new global targets should be adopted as the minimum national targets of parties. Parties will implement the post-2020 GBF
and report their progress to the COP. The COP will review on specific parties’ implementation of the post-2020 GBF based on monitoring indicators
and systems. Non-governmental stakeholders will galvanize the development and review of the post-2020 GBF, and participate in its implementation.
Supporting and mainstreaming measures will be created, including strategies and policies, financial resources, science–policy interface, awareness-raising
activities and training courses.

there is great potential for agreement on obligatory global targets stimulate broad implementation of various sectors and stakehold-
by parties. ers for biodiversity conservation and its sustainable use27. Voluntary
Legally binding international biodiversity-related agreements commitments from governments, Indigenous peoples, local com-
are likely to improve the level of implementation across nations. The munities, civil society organizations and the private sector can
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Fauna facilitate and accelerate positive political and societal momentum
and Flora (CITES) contains a number of legally binding provisions. in conservation worldwide20,28. Voluntary commitments from par-
Parties to CITES are obliged to implement their national legisla- ties are encouraged, but must go beyond obligations under the CBD
tions to ensure that trade in protected species is legal, sustainable and existing national policies and actions. Parties can make volun-
and traceable. By 2018, 55% of 183 parties had met all the regulation tary commitments beyond the new global targets based on their
requirements established by CITES25. The Agreement on Port State national priorities, capabilities and conservation status (see example
Measures has been constructed as the first binding international in Box 1)22. Voluntary commitments from non-government actors
agreement specifically directed against illegal, unreported and bear great extra potential to make transformative changes. They
unregulated fishing. This international framework aims to assist can launch new partnerships and initiatives to mobilize commit-
parties in fulfilling their responsibilities to conserve and use fish ments and resources for biodiversity conservation (for example,
stocks in a sustainable way. By 2018, 49% of parties had achieved full with respect to sustainable production and consumption pathways)
implementation of the agreement26. Evidence shows that the levels across diverse sectors and actor groups23.
of implementation of CITES (55%) and the Agreement on Port State Under the global biodiversity agenda, the existing registry plat-
Measures (49%) are higher than that of the Aichi Targets of the CBD form for voluntary commitments can act as a strong starting point
(less than 22%) in terms of the number of countries implementing to foster a polycentric and innovative governance for channelling
relevant agreements. This may be the result of the legally binding effective actions towards biodiversity conservation. Potential chal-
nature and more narrow focus of both CITES and the Agreement lenges relate to the difficulty of establishing common definitions,
on Port State Measures. standards and baselines to facilitate the submission and analysis
of effective and coordinated voluntary commitments27. A unified
Recommendation 2. Parties, subnational governments, corpora- and integrated global registry can act as a key component for vol-
tions and stakeholders present voluntary commitments to enhance untary commitments from non-government actors, and national
the ambition of the post-2020 GBF and account for their different and subnational governments, and offer the necessary information
circumstances. Biodiversity commitments developed on a voluntary on who, where and how to take action27. Such an approach would
basis have become a well-recognized mechanism to expedite the direct action to areas and issues that are in greatest need for action.
implementation of international environmental policy23,27. At the Learning from the governance of global climate27 and ocean23, the
14th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the CBD in CBD could consider the creation of opportunities for non-state
November 2018, the Sharm El Sheikh to Beijing (now changed into actors to take part in such steps of technical examinations and show-
‘Kunming’) Action Agenda for Nature and People was initiated to casing their pledges20. To guarantee the effective implementation of

414 Nature Ecology & Evolution | VOL 5 | April 2021 | 411–418 | www.nature.com/natecolevol
NATure EcoloGy & EVoluTIon Perspective
Box 1 | Example of protected area target

Inadequate national policy responses. Protected areas are es- importance for biodiversity through a well-connected and
sential to conserve nature and reverse the loss of biodiversity61. effective system of protected areas and other effective area-based
As of July 2018, terrestrial protected areas accounted for 14.9% of conservation measures, by 2030 protecting a higher percentage
the Earth’s land surface, and marine protected areas reached 7.3% of its national territory such as 30% (or even 40%). Voluntary
of the world’s oceans and 16.8% of national waters62, which is on commitments can also be made by non-government actors.
track to reach the Aichi Targets of 17% coverage of protected areas Insufficient financial resources. A sum of US$76.1 billion
on land and 10% on marine and coastal waters4. However, up to annually was estimated to be needed to protect and effectively
2018, 73 countries reported at least 3,749 downgrading, downsiz- manage all terrestrial sites of global conservation significance32.
ing and degazettement events, which detached 519,857 km2 from It indicates that conservation funding should be augmented by
protection and tempered regulations in an additional 1,659,972 at least an order of magnitude32,33. Thus, financial resources for
km2 (ref. 63). Furthermore, the existing global protected area net- protected areas should be mobilized for a substantial increase
work is inadequate to conserve biodiversity64. For instance, 85% from governments at all levels, the private sector and other
of threatened terrestrial vertebrates are not sufficiently covered stakeholders, thereby generating significant social, economic and
in protected areas, which are biased towards locations of limited ecological benefits70.
economic value but away from biodiversity important areas65; Science–policy knowledge gaps. Scientific, Indigenous and
91% of migratory bird species do not host adequate protected area local knowledge on sites of particular importance for biodiversity
coverage, which requires the inclusion of at least one part of their are not systematically integrated for protected area policymaking44,
annual cycle66; and 97.4% of 17,348 marine species had less than and such sites are not fully documented68. Connectivity and
10% of their ranges represented in stricter protected area catego- management effectiveness are essential elements of protected area
ries67. Overall, more than half of all ecosystems on land and sea networks71,72 and yet are not effectively measured and monitored.
have not gained adequate protection64. There is a need to docu- Some metrics have been developed to measure connectivity
ment and protect all sites of particular importance for biodiver- at the global level72, but the principles of connectivity are not
sity68, and effectively conserve at least 30% of the Earth’s surface incorporated into institutional and legal frameworks62. It is hard
by 203040,69. to track progress on the management effectiveness of protected
Target 2 of the update of the zero draft of the post-2020 GBF areas owing to the lack of harmonized tools and consistent data62.
is9: “By 2030, protect and conserve through well connected and Therefore, more efforts are required to improve our knowledge of
effective system of protected areas and other effective area-based the linkages between management and biodiversity outcomes62,
conservation measures at least 30 per cent of the planet with the and enhance the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool71.
focus on areas particularly important for biodiversity.” First, the Imperfect review mechanisms. Protected area monitoring
global target should be worded such that it is obligatory for all programmes often suffer from varying measurements, insufficient
parties, similar to the text of the CBD articles in which “each taxonomic and spatial coverage, and the lack of funding73–75. There
contracting party” is their subject. The global target (minimum is a need to coordinate and strengthen a standardized compliance
national target) could thus be worded as follows: Each contracting monitoring system of protected areas75–77 and enhance the
party shall document and protect all sites of particular importance completeness and accuracy of the World Database on Protected
for biodiversity through a well-connected and effective system Areas62,78. The COP to the CBD reviews the progress towards
of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation Aichi Target 11 at the global level, but rarely on a specific party’s
measures68. The protected area percentage depends on the ratio performance of the target15. Hence, a robust review mechanism
of the area of all documented sites of particular importance for should be urgently established to promote governments, academia,
biodiversity to the party’s territory, and it might vary with the Indigenous peoples and civil society organizations in the review
condition of parties. Therefore, there are no percentages in the of individual parties’ performance on protected areas in order to
proposed global target. Second, the voluntary commitment of encourage effective national contributions towards a target for
one party might be: Document and protect all sites of particular protected areas15.

such commitments across heterogeneous initiatives and actions, the volume required to avoid extinctions and recover threatened spe-
global registry would provide unified definitions, quality criteria cies31. In addition, a comprehensive habitat conservation network
and baselines, for pledge registration and progress evaluation23,27. for the United States would cost US$5.4–7.7 billion per year, while
actual spending was estimated at US$3.2 billion30. The challenges
Insufficient financial resources with regard to adequate conservation financing are even greater in
Global inadequacy of funding has been considered a major hurdle developing countries, many of which are heavily reliant on interna-
to achieving effective biodiversity conservation29. Despite the expe- tional aid. Although official development assistance for biodiversity
dited mobilization of financial resources, the amount of increase shows an increasing trend during 2002–2017 (Supplementary Fig.
is so far insufficient to meet the needs of the Aichi Targets2,3,7. 1), the small increase in biodiversity aid has been insufficient rela-
According to the report of the High-Level Panel on Global tive to estimates of conservation costs on the national scale3,32,33.
Assessment of Resources for Implementing the Strategic Plan for
Biodiversity 2011–2020, US$150–440 billion per year was esti- Recommendation. Biodiversity financial resources are mobilized
mated to be required globally to meet the Aichi Targets by 202030. for a substantial increase from all sources. To reverse the ongoing
However, total spending on conservation worldwide was estimated biodiversity loss, adequate financial resources are essential to the
at US$51–53 billion annually30. At the national level, such insuf- successful implementation of the post-2020 GBF34. According to
ficiency in funding is common both in developed countries and the CBD’s latest report, the lower annual estimate of US$103–178
developing countries. For instance, the annual spending on targeted billion to the higher annual estimate of US$613–895 billion across
threatened species recovery by Australian governments is around the world is needed in support of the framework34. Parties should
US$92 million, which accounts for only 15% of the total financing make tangible financial plans for policy innovation, conservation

Nature Ecology & Evolution | VOL 5 | April 2021 | 411–418 | www.nature.com/natecolevol 415
Perspective NATure EcoloGy & EVoluTIon

networks and capacity building to diversify funding mechanisms such as epistemological differences between knowledge systems48,
and enhance policy sustainability. To ensure that biodiversity is bet- low academic recognition of Indigenous and local knowledge49, and
ter reflected across different sectors, we recommend the compre- issues of scale and power50. To date, less than half of the parties to the
hensive integration of biodiversity values into investment strategies CBD have reported information on management practices of wild
and development plans7. National and subnational governments populations and near-natural ecosystems based on the Indigenous
could increase public funding for conservation and restoration of and local knowledge44. Further, the value of Indigenous and local
biodiversity34. Moreover, governments could help align funding knowledge is not fully identified and incorporated into the for-
from the private sector towards biodiversity-friendly investment35 mulation of management plans6. It is evident that such Indigenous
that is further backed up by the democratic and transparent gov- and local knowledge gaps have limited the full involvement of
ernance systems11. Biodiversity-related economic instruments Indigenous peoples and local communities in the implementation
can be developed including payments for ecosystem services, of innovative strategies for meeting the global biodiversity targets.
biodiversity-relevant taxes, fees and charges35. For instance, one
study36 suggested that countries hosting tropical forests could ben- Recommendation. Science–policy interfaces at different levels are
efit from funds generated via a tropical carbon tax to fill the invest- strengthened to address priority knowledge gaps that integrate sci-
ment gap for biodiversity in South and Central America, Africa, entific, Indigenous and local knowledge to inform more targeted and
Asia and the Pacific. Official development assistance is an impor- effective actions for achieving the post-2020 GBF. Through these
tant financial resource for biodiversity conservation in developing interfaces, multidisciplinary researchers could work together to
countries. However, direct support to achieve global biodiversity explore the key social–ecological issues that can direct targeted and
targets accounts for a small proportion of official development effective actions towards the achievement of the post-2020 GBF and
assistance37. It is also necessary to propel mainstreaming into other SDGs. Owing to the complex and multi-scalar nature of key knowl-
sectors and guidelines on impact assessments for biodiversity ben- edge gaps, it is conducive to carry out more intensive research on driv-
efits38. The Paris Agreement has initiated the Green Climate Fund, ers of change and on the interaction of direct and indirect drivers that
under which developed countries have committed to providing the influence biodiversity on numerous scales42,51. Moreover, future sce-
climate finance of US$100 billion a year for developing countries by narios and pathways can be explored on different scales to find ways
2020 and have extended this pledge to 202539. Similarly, the CBD and means for directing conservation decision-making on the right
can negotiate the establishment of a global fund for biodiversity, and course of halting biodiversity loss52. Furthermore, uniform, compre-
integrate it with the Green Climate Fund to leverage nature-based hensive, scalable and science-based indicators are also required to
solutions that meet the objectives of both global agreements39,40. dynamically measure progress towards the post-2020 GBF12,53.
Improved reporting and tracking on the use of biodiversity-relevant We also propose improved integration of scientific, Indigenous
funding is also important for assessing the effectiveness of policy and local knowledge under science–policy interfaces at differ-
responses and preventing corruption35. ent levels to support decision-making44,46,54. During the course of
knowledge co-production, the distinctiveness and epistemology of
The prevalence of science–policy knowledge gaps Indigenous and local knowledge must be explicitly recognized55,56.
Comprehensive analyses of recent assessments of four major regions Such knowledge co-production for biodiversity can galvanize
and three key themes by the Intergovernmental Science–Policy urgent and transformative action from the whole of society includ-
Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services demonstrate that ing Indigenous peoples and local communities6. Meanwhile, insti-
progress towards achieving the Aichi Targets and SDGs is hampered tutional structures and capacity are required for such knowledge
by knowledge gaps41,42. Despite a substantial growth during the few integration and co-production from local to global scales46.
past years, significant knowledge gaps still exist in the science and
policy interface on biodiversity43, such as the feedbacks between Imperfect review mechanisms
social and ecological systems, and the effects of governance and Review mechanisms work as valuable processes to provide consis-
institutional systems on nature and nature’s contributions to peo- tent and transparent tracking of implementation and thereby make
ple6,42,43. The deficiency of policy-relevant knowledge unveils very countries accountable for their enforcement of international envi-
limited understanding of the complexities of human societies and ronmental agreements15. In particular, consistently applied review
their consequences for biodiversity, particularly in relation to gov- mechanisms to evaluate parties’ individual performance within the
ernance, equity, social heterogeneity and resource access, and their CBD are missing15,57. It is hard to associate pledged national com-
relationships to biodiversity conservation42. These knowledge defi- mitments with actual implementation without transparent and
ciencies have limited our ability to generate informed global and rigorous review systems15,23. National reporting was adopted as the
national guidelines to ensure effective implementation of the global building block to evaluate national performance and overall prog-
biodiversity targets. ress towards global targets15. However, the reviews by the COP
The establishment of national targets for the parties to the CBD have largely provided summaries of global implementation trends
requires indicators to facilitate and guide informed, step-wise rather than parties’ individual performance15,57. It suggests a seri-
actions for achieving the targets and continually evaluate implemen- ous defect of the accountability framework in the CBD that it does
tation progress. Although a series of global biodiversity indicators not empower account-giving by (or account-holding of) individual
have been established and operationalized2, available indicators are parties15.
often insufficiently reliable for application at the national level3,12. In The voluntary peer review mechanism denotes a step forward
fact, many Aichi Targets are ineffectively gauged on any scale due towards building a more robust review system for a specific party15.
to the lack of existing indicators to measure and track progress6,41. However, compared with the review mechanism under the com-
Such scientific knowledge gaps have undermined the parties’ ability pulsory Measurement, Reporting and Verification system from the
to conduct national biodiversity assessments and regulate policies United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the
for more effective implementation6. voluntary peer review process is still in its infancy and is likely to
Indigenous and local knowledge has increasingly gained recog- be insufficient15. It is difficult to effectively put CBD goals and tar-
nition as an important contribution to effective biodiversity con- gets into practice at the national level due to the lack of compliance
servation and sustainable use44. However, little progress has been mechanisms, explicit assignment of responsibilities, and guidance
reported on the integration of Indigenous and local knowledge into with regard to how to consistently translate and track global targets
implementation of biodiversity targets45–47, due to multiple barriers on the national scale12.

416 Nature Ecology & Evolution | VOL 5 | April 2021 | 411–418 | www.nature.com/natecolevol
NATure EcoloGy & EVoluTIon Perspective
Recommendation. A compliance and accountability mechanism is Received: 28 February 2020; Accepted: 3 December 2020;
created to review specific parties’ implementation of the post-2020 Published online: 25 January 2021
GBF based on monitoring indicators and systems. To learn whether
commitments from the whole of society will produce the desired References
outcomes towards global targets and assess the adequacy, the CBD 1. Butchart, S. H. et al. Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science
should establish a robust review mechanism that consists of a moni- 328, 1164–1168 (2010).
2. Tittensor, D. P. et al. A mid-term analysis of progress toward international
toring, reporting and verification system20,23. The CBD is expected
biodiversity targets. Science 346, 241–244 (2014).
to create an arena for the review mechanism to motivate construc- 3. Johnson, C. N. et al. Biodiversity losses and conservation responses in the
tive criticism and collaborative learning to achieve global targets Anthropocene. Science 356, 270–275 (2017).
in a concerted and timely way15,58. To check whether each party’s 4. Díaz, S. et al. Pervasive human-driven decline of life on Earth points to the
implementation progress collectively contributes to the global tar- need for transformative change. Science 366, eaax3100 (2019).
5. The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets
gets, the system could guide a structured format to facilitate the
UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/X/2 (CBD, 2010).
review of individual national reports. National reports of the par- 6. Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the
ties to the CBD could be not only peer-discussed but also reviewed Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem
by technical experts. Stakeholders could be involved in the review Services (IPBES, 2019).
processes, and make substantial contributions to the improvement 7. Global Biodiversity Outlook 5 (CBD, 2020).
of individual parties’ performance15. To encourage the parties to 8. Zero Draft of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework CBD/WG2020/2/3
(CBD, 2020).
increase their ambition and keep them on the trajectory of meeting 9. Update of the Zero Draft of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework CBD/
the global targets, the ‘ratcheting up’ mechanism can also be con- POST2020/PREP/2/1 (CBD, 2020).
structed with an iterative review process59. 10. Butchart, S. H. M., Marco, M. D. & Watson, J. E. M. Formulating smart
As with the Climate Action Tracker for the United Nations commitments on biodiversity: lessons from the Aichi Targets. Conserv. Lett.
Framework Convention on Climate Change, the parties to the CBD 9, 457–468 (2016).
11. Whitehorn, P. R. et al. Mainstreaming biodiversity: a review of national
could design and adopt a similar monitoring system (for example, strategies. Biol. Conserv. 235, 157–163 (2019).
‘Biodiversity Action Tracker’) to consistently and transparently 12. Bhatt, R. et al. Uneven use of biodiversity indicators in fifth national
track and report on national progress towards global targets59. reports to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Environ. Conserv. 47,
Better transparency and accountability could be realized in terms 15–21 (2020).
of careful formulation and integration of targets, baselines, indica- 13. Doherty, T. S. et al. Expanding the role of targets in conservation policy.
Trends Ecol. Evol. 33, 809–812 (2018).
tors, data sources, and review and verification methodology23. In 14. Stuart, S. N. & Collen, B. in Biodiversity Monitoring and Conservation:
addition, new technologies could be embraced to transform the Bridging the Gap Between Global Commitment and Local Action (eds Collen
review process from a static and backward-looking to a continual B. et al.) Ch. 18, 421–438 (John Wiley, 2013).
and forward-looking mode for tracking target progress, through 15. Ulloa, A. M., Jax, K. & Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, S. I. Enhancing implementation
the automated updates and visualization of indicators from national of the Convention on Biological Diversity: a novel peer-review mechanism
aims to promote accountability and mutual learning. Biol. Conserv. 217,
to global scales60. The integration of multiple observation sources, 371–376 (2018).
such as in  situ monitoring and remote sensing, using models to 16. Analysis of the Contribution of Targets Established by Parties and Progress
produce spatially explicit essential biodiversity variables over time, towards the Aichi Biodiversity Targets CBD/SBI/3/2/Add.2 (CBD, 2020).
could underpin this system52. Such a dynamic system can alert poli- 17. Rice, J. et al. (eds) The IPBES Regional Assessment Report on Biodiversity and
cymakers to emerging issues facing biodiversity. Ecosystem Services for the Americas (IPBES, 2018).
18. Pisupati, B. & Prip, C. Interim Assessment of Revised National Biodiversity
Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) (UNEP-WCMC, Fridtjof Nansen
The way forward Institute, 2015).
Global targets are critical tools to galvanize and coordinate actions 19. Prip, C. & Pisupati, B. Assessment of Post-2010 National Biodiversity Strategies
to address the unprecedented crisis of biodiversity loss. Inadequate and Action Plans (UNEP, 2018).
implementation is one of the main reasons for the failure of global 20. Kok, M. et al. From Paris to Beijing: Insights Gained from the UNFCCC Paris
Agreement for the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (PBL Netherlands
targets. Policies and legislation at the national level have not been Environmental Assessment Agency, 2018).
fully aligned with global targets and commitments. Financial 21. von Bieberstein, K. R. et al. Improving collaboration in the implementation of
resources, knowledge and accountability for conservation are insuf- global biodiversity conventions. Conserv. Biol. 33, 821–831 (2019).
ficient to facilitate effective implementation. Based on the current 22. Comprehensive and Participatory Process for the Preparation of the Post-2020
trajectory, negative trends in biodiversity and ecosystem functions Global Biodiversity Framework CBD/COP/DEC/14/34 (CBD, 2018).
23. Neumann, B. & Unger, S. From voluntary commitments to ocean
are predicted to continue to 2050 and beyond6. sustainability. Science 363, 35–36 (2019).
An ambitious new strategy is urgently needed to tackle the 24. Ostrom, E. Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global
pressing issues of biodiversity loss that takes into account past environmental change. Glob. Environ. Chang. 20, 550–557 (2010).
failure and establishes the conditions for increased potential of 25. National Laws for Implementing the Convention (Convention on International
success. We propose that creative ways are explored to set com- Trade in Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora, accessed 7 September
2019); https://cites.org/legislation
pulsory targets and voluntary commitments under the CBD. A 26. Degree of Implementation of International Instruments Aiming to Combat
nimble and forward-looking monitoring and evaluation system Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (Global SDG Indicators
with high transparency and accountability could also be devel- Database, accessed 7 September 2019); https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/
oped to enhance political will and promote societal momentum indicators/database/
in conservation worldwide. The post-2020 GBF is currently being 27. Pattberg, P., Widerberg, O. & Kok, M. T. J. Towards a global biodiversity
action agenda. Glob. Policy 10, 385–390 (2019).
discussed by parties to the CBD and other stakeholders, and will 28. Nocito, E. S., Brooks, C. M. & Strong, A. L. Gazing at the crystal ball:
be adopted at the 2021 United Nations Biodiversity Conference in predicting the future of marine protected areas through voluntary
Kunming, China. Our study can offer insights into key elements commitments. Front. Mar. Sci. 6, 835 (2020).
required for the successful development and implementation of 29. Waldron, A. et al. Targeting global conservation funding to limit immediate
the post-2020 GBF. biodiversity declines. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 12144–12148 (2013).
30. Resourcing the Aichi Biodiversity Targets: An Assessment of Benefits,
Investments and Resource Needs for Implementing the Strategic Plan for
Reporting Summary. Further information on research design is Biodiversity 2011-2020 (CBD, 2014).
available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this 31. Wintle, B. A. et al. Spending to save: what will it cost to halt Australia’s
article. extinction crisis? Conserv. Lett. 12, e12682 (2019).

Nature Ecology & Evolution | VOL 5 | April 2021 | 411–418 | www.nature.com/natecolevol 417
Perspective NATure EcoloGy & EVoluTIon
32. McCarthy, D. et al. Financial costs of meeting global biodiversity 60. Han, X. M. et al. Monitoring national conservation progress with indicators
conservation targets: current spending and unmet needs. Science 338, derived from global and national datasets. Biol. Conserv. 213, 325–334 (2017).
946–949 (2012). 61. Geldmann, J., Manica, A., Burgess, N. D., Coad, L. & Balmford, A. A
33. Hein, L., Miller, D. C. & Groot, R. Payments for ecosystem services and global-level assessment of the effectiveness of protected areas at resisting
the financing of global biodiversity conservation. Curr. Opin. Env. Sust. 5, anthropogenic pressures. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 23209–23215 (2019).
87–93 (2013). 62. Protected Planet Report 2018 (UNEP-WCMC, IUCN and NGS, 2018).
34. Estimation of Resources Needed for Implementing the Post-2020 Global 63. Kroner, R. E. G. et al. The uncertain future of protected lands and waters.
Biodiversity Framework (CBD, 2020). Science 364, 881–886 (2019).
35. Biodiversity: Finance and the Economic and Business Case for Action. 64. Maxwell, S. L. et al. Area-based conservation in the twenty-first century.
Report Prepared for the G7 Environment Ministers’ Meeting, 5–6 May 2019 Nature 586, 217–227 (2020).
(OECD, 2019). 65. Venter, O. et al. Targeting global protected area expansion for imperiled
36. Barbier, E. B., Lozano, R., Rodríguez, C. M. & Troëng, S. Adopt a carbon tax biodiversity. PLoS Biol. 12, e1001891 (2014).
to protect tropical forests. Nature 578, 213–216 (2020). 66. Runge, C. A. et al. Protected areas and global conservation of migratory
37. A Comprehensive Overview of Global Biodiversity Finance (OECD, 2020); birds. Science 350, 1255–1258 (2015).
https://www.oecd.org/environment/resources/biodiversity/ 67. Klein, C. J. et al. Shortfalls in the global protected area network at
report-a-comprehensive-overview-of-global-biodiversity-finance.pdf representing marine biodiversity. Sci. Rep. 5, 17539 (2015).
38. Farooqui, M. F. & Schultz, M. Co-chairs’ Summary of Dialogue Seminar on 68. Visconti, P. et al. Protected area targets post-2020. Science 364, 239–241 (2019).
Scaling up Biodiversity Finance, Quito 6-9 March 2012 (CBD, 2012). 69. O'Leary, B. C. et al. Effective coverage targets for ocean protection. Conserv.
39. Barbier, E. B., Burgess, J. C. & Dean, T. J. How to pay for saving biodiversity. Lett. 9, 398–404 (2016).
Science 360, 486–488 (2018). 70. Lindsey, P. A. et al. More than $1 billion needed annually to secure
40. Dinerstein, E. et al. A global deal for nature: guiding principles, milestones, Africa’s protected areas with lions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115,
and targets. Sci. Adv. 5, eaaw2869 (2019). E10788–E10796 (2018).
41. Karki, M. et al. (eds) The IPBES Regional Assessment Report on Biodiversity 71. Geldmann, J. et al. Changes in protected area management effectiveness over
and Ecosystem Services for Asia and the Pacific (IPBES, 2018). time: A global analysis. Biol. Conserv. 1991, 692–699 (2015).
42. Mastrángelo, M. E. et al. Key knowledge gaps to achieve global sustainability 72. Santini, L., Saura, S. & Rondinini, C. Connectivity of the global network of
goals. Nat. Sustain. 2, 1115–1121 (2019). protected areas. Divers. Distrib. 22, 199–211 (2016).
43. Mehring, M., Bernard, B., Hummel, D., Liehr, S. & Lux, A. Halting 73. Stephenson, P. J. et al. Overcoming the challenges to conservation
biodiversity loss: how social–ecological biodiversity research makes a monitoring: integrating data from in-situ reporting and global data sets to
difference. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manag. 13, 172–180 (2017). measure impact and performance. Biodiversity 16, 68–85 (2015).
44. Local Biodiversity Outlooks: Indigenous Peoples’ and Local Communities’ 74. Xu, H. G. et al. Optimized monitoring sites for detection of biodiversity
Contributions to the Implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity trends in China. Biodivers. Conserv. 26, 1959–1971 (2017).
2011-2020 (Forest Peoples Programme, 2016). 75. Muller-Karger, F. E. et al. Advancing marine biological observations and
45. Tengö, M., Brondizio, E. S., Elmqvist, T., Malmer, P. & Spierenburg, M. data requirements of the complementary Essential Ocean Variables (EOVs)
Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance: and Essential Biodiversity Variables (EBVs) frameworks. Front. Mar. Sci. 5,
the multiple evidence base approach. Ambio 43, 579–591 (2014). 211 (2018).
46. Sutherland, W. J., Gardner, T. A., Hiader, L. J. & Dicks, L. V. How can local 76. Mairota, P. et al. Using landscape structure to develop quantitative baselines
and traditional knowledge be effectively incorporated into international for protected area monitoring. Ecol. Indic. 33, 82–95 (2013).
assessments? Oryx 48, 1–2 (2014). 77. Schmeller, D. S. et al. Building capacity in biodiversity monitoring at the
47. Gadamus, L. et al. Building an indigenous evidence-base for tribally-led global scale. Biodivers. Conserv. 26, 2765–2790 (2017).
habitat conservation policies. Mar. Policy 62, 116–124 (2015). 78. Failler, P., Touron-Gardic, G. & Traore, M. Is Aichi Target 11 progress
48. Löfmarck, E. & Lidskog, R. Bumping against the boundary: IPBES and the correctly measured for developing countries? Trends Ecol. Evol. 34,
knowledge divide. Environ. Sci. Policy 69, 22–28 (2017). 875–879 (2019).
49. Farwig, N. et al. Bridging science and practice in conservation: deficits and
challenges from a research perspective. Basic Appl. Ecol. 24, 1–8 (2017). Acknowledgements
50. Beck, S., Esguerra, A. & Goerg, C. The co-production of scale and power: the This work was supported by the National Major Science and Technology Projects of
case of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and the Intergovernmental China (grant no. 2018YFC0507206 and 2018YFC0507202).
Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. J. Environ. Pol. Plan. 19,
534–549 (2014).
51. Key Finding from the Four IPBES Regional Assessments of Biodiversity and Author contributions
Ecosystem Services CBD/COP/14/INF/24 (CBD, 2018). H.X. conceived the idea. Y.C., D.Y. and H.X. designed the study. H.X., Y.C., D.Y., M.C,
52. Navarro, L. M. et al. Monitoring biodiversity change through effective global Y.H., M.G. and H.M.P. collected and analysed data, and wrote and edited the manuscript.
coordination. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 29, 158–169 (2017).
53. Mace, G. M. et al. Aiming higher to bend the curve of biodiversity loss. Nat.
Sustain. 1, 448–451 (2018).
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
54. Rounsevell, M. et al. (eds) The IPBES Regional Assessment Report on
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services for Europe and Central Asia (IPBES, 2018).
55. Mistry, J. & Berardi, A. Bridging indigenous and scientific knowledge. Science Additional information
352, 1274–1275 (2016). Supplementary information is available for this paper at https://doi.org/10.1038/
56. Norström, A. V. et al. Principles for knowledge co-production in s41559-020-01375-y.
sustainability research. Nat. Sustain. 3, 182–190 (2020).
57. Morgera, E. & Tsioumani, E. Yesterday, today, and tomorrow: looking afresh Correspondence should be addressed to H.X.
at the Convention on Biological Diversity. Yearb. Int. Environ. Law 21, 3–40 Peer review information Nature Ecology & Evolution thanks Benis N. Egoh, Martine
(2011). Maron and Melodie McGeoch for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
58. Lemieux, C. J. et al. How the race to achieve Aichi Target 11 could jeopardize Reprints and permissions information is available at www.nature.com/reprints.
the effective conservation of biodiversity in Canada and beyond. Mar. Policy
99, 312–323 (2019). Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in
59. Rounsevell, M. D. A. et al. A biodiversity target based on species extinctions. published maps and institutional affiliations.
Science 368, 1193–1195 (2020). © Springer Nature Limited 2021

418 Nature Ecology & Evolution | VOL 5 | April 2021 | 411–418 | www.nature.com/natecolevol
nature research | reporting summary
Corresponding author(s): Haigen Xu ([email protected])
Last updated by author(s): Nov 30, 2020

Reporting Summary
Nature Research wishes to improve the reproducibility of the work that we publish. This form provides structure for consistency and transparency
in reporting. For further information on Nature Research policies, see Authors & Referees and the Editorial Policy Checklist.

Statistics
For all statistical analyses, confirm that the following items are present in the figure legend, table legend, main text, or Methods section.
n/a Confirmed
The exact sample size (n) for each experimental group/condition, given as a discrete number and unit of measurement
A statement on whether measurements were taken from distinct samples or whether the same sample was measured repeatedly
The statistical test(s) used AND whether they are one- or two-sided
Only common tests should be described solely by name; describe more complex techniques in the Methods section.

A description of all covariates tested

A description of any assumptions or corrections, such as tests of normality and adjustment for multiple comparisons
A full description of the statistical parameters including central tendency (e.g. means) or other basic estimates (e.g. regression coefficient)
AND variation (e.g. standard deviation) or associated estimates of uncertainty (e.g. confidence intervals)

For null hypothesis testing, the test statistic (e.g. F, t, r) with confidence intervals, effect sizes, degrees of freedom and P value noted
Give P values as exact values whenever suitable.

For Bayesian analysis, information on the choice of priors and Markov chain Monte Carlo settings
For hierarchical and complex designs, identification of the appropriate level for tests and full reporting of outcomes
Estimates of effect sizes (e.g. Cohen's d, Pearson's r), indicating how they were calculated
Our web collection on statistics for biologists contains articles on many of the points above.

Software and code

Policy information about availability of computer code
Data collection All data collected is presented in our manuscript and the Supplementary Information, including links to sites from which publicly-
accesible data were collected and the date of download

Data analysis No software was used for analyses presented in this manuscript
For manuscripts utilizing custom algorithms or software that are central to the research but not yet described in published literature, software must be made available to editors/reviewers.
We strongly encourage code deposition in a community repository (e.g. GitHub). See the Nature Research guidelines for submitting code & software for further information.

Data
Policy information about availability of data
All manuscripts must include a data availability statement. This statement should provide the following information, where applicable:
- Accession codes, unique identifiers, or web links for publicly available datasets
- A list of figures that have associated raw data
- A description of any restrictions on data availability

Our manuscript contains a data availability statement: All data used in the paper are presented in our manuscript and the Supplementary Information, including
October 2018

links to sites from which publicly-accessible data were collected, and the date of download.

1
nature research | reporting summary
Field-specific reporting
Please select the one below that is the best fit for your research. If you are not sure, read the appropriate sections before making your selection.
Life sciences Behavioural & social sciences Ecological, evolutionary & environmental sciences
For a reference copy of the document with all sections, see nature.com/documents/nr-reporting-summary-flat.pdf

Ecological, evolutionary & environmental sciences study design

All studies must disclose on these points even when the disclosure is negative.
Study description Our Perspective outlines recommendations for effective implementation of post-2020 global biodiversity targets

Research sample We sampled data from peer-reviewed papers and online sources as described in the Supplementary Information

Sampling strategy We sampled data from peer-reviewed papers and online sources

Data collection We collected data on national policy responses, financial resources, science-policy interfaces and review mechanisms, and
put forward the potential solutions for the design and implementation of the post-2020 global biodiversity targets

Timing and spatial scale We provided data and information in last decade and in future 30 years at the global scale

Data exclusions No data were excluded

Reproducibility We provided data in our figures, tables, text and supplementary information

Randomization Our manuscript did not use randomization

Blinding Our manuscript did not use blinding

Did the study involve field work? Yes No

Reporting for specific materials, systems and methods

We require information from authors about some types of materials, experimental systems and methods used in many studies. Here, indicate whether each material,
system or method listed is relevant to your study. If you are not sure if a list item applies to your research, read the appropriate section before selecting a response.

Materials & experimental systems Methods

n/a Involved in the study n/a Involved in the study
Antibodies ChIP-seq
Eukaryotic cell lines Flow cytometry
Palaeontology MRI-based neuroimaging
Animals and other organisms
Human research participants
Clinical data
October 2018