Genetic and phylogenetic diversity in the draft post-2020 global biodiversity framework
We screened the zero, 0.5, and first drafts of the post-2020 GBF to examine whether GD and PD are mentioned in Goals, Milestones or Targets (see Box 1 for explanation of these terms and the hierarchical nature of the GBF). Focusing on the first draft (CBD/WG2020/3/3), although PD was not mentioned once, we found five instances of GD:
We screened two further documents to investigate whether any GD or PD indicators were included in the post-2020 GBF draft monitoring framework: (i) the proposed monitoring approach and headline, component and complementary indicators from the third Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG-3) (CBD/WG2020/3/INF/2) and (ii) the latest report from an expert workshop on the proposed indicators held in Bonn, Germany (CBD/ID/OM/2022/1/2). Specifically, we examined whether the indicators proposed by Hoban et al. (2020) and the Coalition for Conservation Genetics (Kershaw et al., 2022) for GD and those proposed by the IUCN Species Survival Commission’s Phylogenetic Diversity Task Force (PDTF) for PD were included in the draft monitoring framework. We found that among the three indicators proposed for GD - namely (i) the number of populations within species with effective population size (Ne) above 500 versus those with Ne below 500, (ii) the proportion of distinct populations maintained within species and (iii) the number of species and populations in which genetic diversity is being monitored using DNA based methods - the first two indicators are included in the proposed monitoring approach and headline, component and complementary indicators of the post-2020 GBF (Table 1). The first indicator is included as a headline indicator to inform Goal A (and previously recognised Milestone A.3), and is a recommended component indicator for Target 4. The second one is included as a possible component indicator for Goal A. These first two indicators are also included in the latest report from an expert workshop on the post-2020 GBF (Table 1). Importantly, the third indicator – which is the only one assessing GD monitoring using DNA based methods – is not included (Table 1). This third indicator is relevant to Target 4, because GD studies often inform active management actions that support species and genetic conservation and recovery \citep{Bolam_2022,Hoban_2021a}. These indicators were recently demonstrated to be feasible for reporting genetic status for thousands of species at a national scale by Sweden \citep{Thurfjell_2022} using available non-genetic data (e.g. population sizes, historic maps) in national biodiversity agencies. The indicators are currently undergoing further testing in Japan, South Africa, Mexico, Sweden, Columbia, Belgium, France, Australia, and USA (Hoban, Mastretta-Yanes, and da Silva, personal comm.). Beyond the three GD indicators proposed by \citet{Hoban_2020} and the Coalition for Conservation Genetics, four other GD indicators are included in the proposed monitoring approach and headline, component and complementary indicators of the post-2020 GBF and/or in the latest report from an expert workshop on the post-2020 GBF (Table 1).
Regarding the two PD indicators proposed by the PDTF, namely (i) expected loss of PD (also used in \citealp{ipbes2019}) and (ii) the changing status of Evolutionarily Distinct and Globally Endangered species (EDGE index), they are both included in the proposed monitoring approach and headline, component and complementary indicators of the post-2020 GBF (Table 1). The expected loss of PD is included as a complementary indicator to inform 2050 Goal B (“Nature’s contributions to people have been valued, maintained or enhanced through conservation and sustainable use supporting the global development agenda for the benefit of all”), and the EDGE index as a complementary indicator to inform 2030 Action Target 4 and 2050 Goal A. They are also included in the latest report from an expert workshop on the post-2020 GBF (Table 1). These two indicators explicitly link benefits from biodiversity measured by PD under Goal B, with monitoring the conservation of evolutionarily distinctive species under Goal A. The two proposed indicators can demonstrably be produced at the global and national level for multiple taxonomic groups \citep{ipbes2019,Gumbs_2021}, and the PDTF has committed to producing these indicators on a regular basis to reduce the reporting burden on Parties \citep{Gumbs_2021}.
Opportunity to strengthen the conservation of species’ evolutionary potential and history Unlike the CBD strategic plan 2011-2020, GD and PD are now considered in the draft text for the post-2020 GBF. While their inclusion could be larger (e.g., including the third GD indicator, adopting the PD indicators as headline indicators), this represents a significant improvement compared to the CBD strategic plan 2011-2020 and an unprecedented opportunity to bring species’ evolutionary potential and history to the core of public biodiversity policies. Moreover, GD and PD capture non-market values of biodiversity, and mainstreaming these non-market values is necessary to achieve transformative change \citep{ipbes2022}. For instance, while GD embodies strong intrinsic values as it determines the possibility of the species to survive to new conditions, PD captures a relational value of biodiversity that ensures intergenerational equity – representing both current and yet-to-be discovered biodiversity benefits – which is otherwise neglected in Goal B.
However, this policy opportunity is necessary but not sufficient to effectively protect species’ evolutionary potential and history. Whether this would happen depends on (i) the actual inclusion of GD and PD into the final, adopted post-2020 GBF and (ii) the implementation of its targets by the 196 Parties to the CBD, including the European Union. Parties will need to revise and update their national biodiversity strategy action plans following the adoption of the post-2020 GBF to include measures to reach its targets. This may require changes in policies, legislation and incentives as well as improved monitoring to report on the above-mentioned GD and PD indicators at the national level – at least those that will be adopted as headline indicators. Some legislation is already poised for this – for example, the ‘favourable conservation status’ targeted for species under the EU Birds and Habitats Directives is compatible with the first GD indicator on effective population size while Canada’s Species At Risk Act protects genetically distinct populations, which is compatible with the second GD indicator on the proportion of distinct populations maintained within species. Further policy work will need to be followed closely, and supported by scientists, in the coming years.