A bold successor to Aichi Target 11—Response

See allHide authors and affiliations

Science  16 Aug 2019:
Vol. 365, Issue 6454, pp. 650-651
DOI: 10.1126/science.aay2768

eLetters is an online forum for ongoing peer review. Submission of eLetters are open to all. eLetters are not edited, proofread, or indexed.  Please read our Terms of Service before submitting your own eLetter.

Compose eLetter

Plain text

  • Plain text
    No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Enter the characters shown in the image.

Vertical Tabs

  • RE: Visconti et al - Dancing Angels - Do we really need a successor to Aichi Biodiversity target 11?
    • Peter Bridgewater, Adjunct Professor, Institute for Applied Ecology, University of Canberra, Bruce, ACT 2617, Australia
    • Other Contributors:
      • Suraj Suraj Upadhaya, PostDoctoral fellow, Department of Natural Resource Ecology and Management, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011

    Woodley et al. (16 August, p.649), criticize the Policy Forum by Visconti et al. (19
    April, p. 239), on establishing a new protected area target under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), with Visconti et al. (16 August, p. 650) rebutting the criticisms. The arguments are on the type of target needed – a focus on biodiversity importance or spatial percentage protection targets; the “angels on a pinhead” argument. Woodley et al. note both are needed, as well as “a bold new target” including “biodiversity, human rights, and achievement of climate goals”. Who can argue, but this blends work under the CBD with that of the UNFCCC, and the UN Sustainable Development Goals. No bad thing, but activating this network needs careful thought.
    In their Policy Forum, Visconti et al. suggest use of remote sensing and other
    “technocratic” tools for monitoring the targets. Many of the worlds protected areas are in developing countries where they struggle daily with basic management problems. Given the current capacity of most developing nations the option of using remote sensing appears unviable (1). Surprisingly, neither of these sets of authors refer to the work of the IPBES Global Assessment. The Summary for Policy Makers (2) of that assessment states “the majority of terrestrial species ranges are projected to shrink profoundly. Such changes in ranges can adversely affect the capacity of terrestrial protected areas to conserve species”, suggesting creation of...

    Show More
    Competing Interests: None declared.

Stay Connected to Science