The Convention on Biological Diversity aims to conserve biodiversity, ensure sustainable use of its components, and see to it that the benefits of genetic resources are shared fairly. Achieving this will require awareness, not least among those who base their livelihoods on biological resources.
By: Alf Håkon Hoel // UiT – The Arctic University of Norway and Institute of Marine Research
Since the adoption of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 1992, a major concern has been how to “mainstream” biodiversity, meaning how the three aims of the convention can be pursued across the various sectors of the economy. This is important to the management of living marine resources, where the economic activity is based on nature.
In 2010, the conference of parties under the CBD adopted a global strategic plan for biodiversity that included 20 targets (the Aichi biodiversity targets) for the 2011–2020 period. Target 11 addresses improving the status of biodiversity, stating among other things that by 2020, 10% of coastal and marine areas should be conserved by protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures. In the revised Global Biodiversity Framework adopted in 2022, which includes 23 targets, the conservation target was raised to 30% of land and sea areas. What does this mean in practice, and how do fisheries management measures contribute to conservation of biodiversity?
Other effective conservation measures
Following the adoption of the 2010 framework, there was a need to develop instructions for how the targets could be implemented. In 2018 the CBD conference of the parties adopted a non-binding decision that defined “other effective area-based conservation measures (OECM)” thus:
…a geographically defined area other than a Protected Area, which is governed and managed in ways that achieve positive and sustained long-term outcomes for the in situ conservation of biodiversity, with associated ecosystem functions and services and where applicable, cultural, spiritual, socio-economic, and other locally relevant values.
The decision also included non-binding guidance notes on how the definition is to be operationalised, including scientific and technical criteria.
On the basis of this there have been several initiatives to develop practical advice on how the definition and the guidance can be used to assess how fisheries management measures can qualify as OECMs and thereby be counted against the 30% target in the same way as protected areas. The UN Food and Agriculture Organization FAO, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea ICES, the IUCN Fisheries Expert Group as well as several regional fisheries management organisations have elaborated on the 2018 guidance to make it applicable to fisheries management measures.
From paper to practice
CBD decisions are not legally binding, so addressing the targets in the Global Biodiversity Framework is not a legal obligation for states. Also, the 30% target is a global target and not a domestic one, relevant to national as well as international waters. Nevertheless, nature conservation is urgent. In keeping with the mainstreaming mandate, it is important for nature-based industries such as fisheries to consider their ecological footprint and document conservation benefits of management measures.
Conservation of target stocks as well as ecosystems is a major goal of fisheries management today. Broadly speaking, this is achieved by limiting access to fisheries, limiting how much can be caught of a given fish stock, and by restrictions on how, when, and where fishing can occur.
In Norway, the 2008 Marine Resources Act requires the fisheries authorities to consider biodiversity when developing fisheries regulations. The act also mandates a number of area-based measures, including partially or wholly protected areas. A recent assessment of area-based fisheries management measures based on the above criteria concluded that a number of these were OECMs, while others needed more restrictive regulations in order to qualify. Important criteria include that the measure in question is permanent in nature, and that the area it covers contains significant biodiversity and is subject to management by a legitimate authority.
An example of a regulatory measure that clearly qualifies as an OECM, is the Norwegian fisheries regulation on protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems, adopted in 2011. Also regulations that do not have nature conservation as an explicit objective can qualify as OECMs, as long as they provide a lasting conservation benefit.
An important question concerns the level of scientific knowledge and documentation required for assessments of area-based protection measures to be undertaken. The Norwegian assessment is based on expert knowledge, which in turn builds on a large number of scientific publications, including recent studies that synthesise our understanding of marine and coastal ecosystems. Norway’s marine areas exceed 2 million km2 – more than five times its land area – and its coastline is 100,000 km long, so the level of knowledge on biodiversity needed is also a question of costs.
Other targets
Fisheries management addresses a number of objectives and is therefore also relevant to the CBD aim of use of biodiversity as well as other targets in the Global Biodiversity Framework. Its target 10, for example (Enhance Biodiversity and Sustainability in Agriculture, Aquaculture, Fisheries, and Forestry), addresses the sustainable use of areas where natural resources are leveraged to contribute to food security, among other things. An important aspect of the global framework is also its relation to the 2030 agenda and the UN Sustainable Development Goals. In both cases it is paramount to consider the documents as a whole and view the various goals and targets in relation to each other. In all cases, securing adequate scientific data on important nature attributes is critical for the assessment of conservation effects of regulations.