SMART or CUTE – what makes a good target?

SMART or CUTE – what makes a good target?

PETER BRIDGEWATER*

Joint Nature Conservation Committee, City Road, Peterborough, PE1 1JY, UK

Received 26 August 2010; revised 24 January 2011; accepted for publication 13 April 2011

Is a target a goal? What is an indicator? Targets, or goals, are the desired outcomes of a policy framework; theyshow where we want to be and represent the successful implementation of policy. To get there, a mission is needed,but all too often this is confused with targets, goals and vision. Good targets need good indicators to measuresuccess along the way. However, indicators are often left aside from target setting, a self-defeating strategy andone regrettably followed by the Convention on Biological Diversity in 2002 and again in 2010 in setting globaltargets for reducing the rate of loss of biodiversity. Embracing a highly aspirational target (i.e. reduce the rate ofloss of biodiversity by 2010) is easy, but measuring the success of that target is the tricky bit! SMART targets arewell known, but CUTE targets (Comprehensive, Understandable, Time-bound and Enabling) can be more effectivein public policy setting. Often in public policy, the focus is all on process and outputs, and all too rarely onoutcomes. Targets can capitalize on the input from policy, but must be informed by potential indicators from theoutset and, in the end, must also enable policy delivery and refreshed outcomes, a critical failing of the 2010target. © 2011 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2011, 166, 240–249.

ADDITIONAL KEYWORDS: goals – GSPC – indicators – objectives – 2010 target.

INTRODUCTIONWHAT IS THIS PAPER ABOUT?

This paper was written as a general backgrounddiscussion on targets for the Symposium on theGlobal Strategy for Plant Conservation (GSPC) of theConvention on Biological Diversity (CBD), organizedby the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, and the RoyalSociety in June 2010.

Targets have been used in industry and corporateplanning for many decades, but their use in interna-tional public policy has been less widespread. Gener-ally, in industry, good targets are made by linkage toan overall vision and strong mission for the enter-prise, are carefully thought through in design and,critically, must be backed by comprehensive and mea-surable indicators. Examining the approaches takenby conventions dealing with biological diversity withrespect to targets, we find a terminological soup,where targets, goals, objectives and strategies areoften mixed in the same paragraphs, and sometimeseven in the same sentence!

This does not assist clarity or focus, and serves onlyto promote confusion. A critical failing within theCBD and related conventions has been a lack of clearindicators to help track and monitor targets/goals orobjectives which may be established, further ensuringa lack of focus and measurability. In this paper, Iexamine the ways and means by which conventionshave used and defined targets, and conclude with anexamination of the performance of selected targets ofthe GSPC in the last decade.

GOAL, TARGET OR OBJECTIVE?

Even within dictionary definitions of these terms, wefind circularity and confusion. The Concise OxfordDictionary (Soanes & Stevenson, 2008) has thefollowing:

• Target – an objective or result towards whichefforts are directed;

• Objective – a goal or aim;• Goal – an aim or desired result.

The online Wiktionary (Wiktionary, 2010) has thefollowing:*E-mail: [email protected]

Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2011, 166, 240–249.

© 2011 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2011, 166, 240–249240

• Target – a goal or objective;• Objective – a goal that is striven for;• Goal – a result that one is attempting to achieve.

Much is made in CBD literature, especially that ofthe GSPC, of the targets being ‘outcome-oriented’.Using outcome as the key word, it is proposed thatthe best definition for target in the context of thebiodiversity-related conventions would be: an outcomethat one is striving to achieve. Goal can be seen assynonymous with this definition of target. Objective isperhaps best avoided as simply adding a word thatdoes not help clarity in the discussion. Whicheverterm (target, goal or objective) is used, this definitioncan stand for each, and would help to deliver consis-tency across conventions.

The element of ‘striving to achieve’ seems to beimportant, and should obviate the need for settingtargets that are in excess of what may be possible, orhaving to be apologetic should the target not bereached. It is also clear that the terms goal andobjective are typically preferred as the terms todescribe the desired states. However, target hasa more robust and communicative feel about it,which suggests better connection to a wider group ofpeople.

SOME HISTORY

In environmental policy setting and evaluation,targets of various kinds and forms have been usedsince environmental policy came into being in theearly 1970s. For example, the Stockholm Conferenceon Environment in 1972 [United Nations Conferenceon the Human Environment (UNHCE), 1972]included discussions on Environmental AssessmentManagement, with a focus on evaluation and review,goal setting and planning, backed by research andmonitoring. However, the term target was not specifi-cally used.

Twenty years later, the World Conference on Envi-ronment and Development (WCED) in Rio de Janeiroagain had targets, expressed through the Agenda 21Document that was produced as a key output fromthe meeting and is still well used today. This docu-ment was quite detailed, but, inter alia, contained thefollowing [United Nations Division of SustainableDevelopment (UNDSD), 2009]:

• Develop new or strengthen existing strategies,plans or programmes of action for the conservationof biodiversity and the sustainable use of biologicalresources;

• Integrate strategies for the conservation of biodi-versity and the sustainable use of biological andgenetic resources.

Although the term target was unused, the intent toprovide strategies focused on clear outcomes wasevident in the text, although the intention for moni-toring remains elusive.

At the next world meeting in Johannesburg in 2002– the World Summit on Sustainable Development(WSSD) – the Joint Plan of Implementation [WorldSummit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), 2005]included:

• . . . the necessity to implement strategies whichshould include targets adopted at thenational and, where appropriate, regionallevels to protect ecosystems and to achieve inte-grated management of land, water and livingresources, while strengthening regional, nationaland local capacities.

Such targets included the:

• encouragement by 2010 of the application of theEcosystem Approach;

• establishment of marine protected areas consistentwith international law and based on scientificinformation including representative networks by2012 and time/area closures for the protection ofnursery grounds and periods, proper coastal landuse and watershed planning and the integration ofmarine and coastal areas management into keysectors; and

• 2010 target to reduce the overall rate of biodiver-sity loss by 2010.

The UN General Assembly (UNGA) in 2000 adoptedthe Millennium Development Goals [MillenniumDevelopment Goals (MDG), 2010], eight in number,and all focusing on the reduction in global poverty.These goals included one on environmental sustain-ability which, in 2006, was expanded to include theCBD and WSSD 2010 Biodiversity Target. Thesegoals are very wide, and somewhat eclectic in theirapproach, but they are the lead from the UNGA. Notethat as goals, they encompass targets – addingfurther to the web of confusion!

From its 2007 meeting, the G8 group of nationsadded biodiversity issues to the agenda. In the ‘Cartadi Siracusa’ on biodiversity (G8, 2007), issued by theG8 Ministers of the Environment, reference is madeto the 2010 target:

Notwithstanding the efforts and commitments to achieve the2010 target, direct and indirect drivers of biodiversity loss,aggravated by climate change, still continue. Furthermore, theworld has been changing rapidly since the adoption of the 2010target. All of these drivers of biodiversity loss, causing mid andlong-term threats to biodiversity and identified on the basis ofscientific research, should be considered in the development ofthe post-2010 framework.

WHAT MAKES A GOOD TARGET? 241


DEVELOPING GOOD TARGETS

Targets and target setting have their origins in theworld of business where, in recent decades, the needto have focus in managerial activities, and objectiveways to measure the effectiveness of that focus, hasbecome pre-eminent. Many management texts dealwith this, but Senge et al. (1994) had perhaps the bestperspective. Good targets need several elementswithin them. Targets for business are typicallyfocused on being ‘SMART’, i.e. seeking an outcomebut being:

• Specific: What is the task to be done?• Measurable: What evidence could be used to show

if and how well the task has been done?• Achievable: Is the task possible?• Relevant: Why is this target important?• Time-bound: By when should the task be

completed?

Although this makes sense for industry-focusedapplications, it is not easily transferable to systemslooking at environmental management and outcomes.Therefore, it is preferable to seek names for policytarget elements which reflect the kind of indicatorsthat could be used, and have something to say aboutthe destiny of the target.

This paper therefore proposes that, althoughtargets should indeed be SMART, perhaps it is betterif they are described as ‘CUTE’, i.e.

• Comprehensive: Does this target cover all definedareas of concern? Is it related to the overall issue?Does it bring together all aspects of the issue thatthe target seeks to address (an integrating aspect)?

• Understandable: Can this target be understoodby all?

• Time-bound: How long should the target last?• Enabling Does this target help decide appropriate

actions, including do-nothing options?

Looking in more detail at the comprehensive targetelement, percentage ranges are frequently used intargets. These give a comfortable feel of being quan-titative, but are they really and do they contribute toa better understanding of the process underway? Forexample, expressing a target in terms of percentage ofareas covered by protection may seem useful, but it isthe quality of overall management of such areas thatis the valuable measure, the real test of effectiveness.This theme is expanded in CBD SBSTTA DecisionXIV/9, footnote 13, page 8 [Convention on BiologicalDiversity (CBD), 2010a] and Agardy et al. (2003).Developing such percentage-based targets can lead toconservatism to ensure that the target is ‘met’ or,alternatively, to a wildly optimistic target which isused in some way to force participants to reach it,often without success.

A good example of this is the 2003–05 global imple-mentation target for the designation of Wetlands ofInternational Importance (Ramsar Sites) establishedby the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands in 2002 –Designation of a further 55 million ha and 250 Ramsarsites, as progress towards global targets of 2500 sitesand 250 million ha by 2010 (Ramsar, 2002). Of course,when the range of area occupied by existing Ramsarsites was 0.33–6 million hectares, using an arbitraryfigure of 55 million hectares was a nonsense, and so itproved to be. The 2008 meeting of the Ramsar Confer-ence of the Parties (COP) re-determined this target(called a goal) as: At least 2500 Ramsar sites desig-nated worldwide, covering at least 250 million hectaresby 2015. In other words, the 2002 target was retainedin 2008, but the target date was extended by 5 years,again with no real indication of how the effectiveness ofsuch additions to global wetland conservation has beenor might be. At the time of writing (January 2011), thetotal number of sites stands at 1911, covering 186.95million hectares.

A press release from the Worldwide Fund forNature [World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), 1999]urged existing Parties to the Convention to increasethe overall area of protected wetlands. WWF has amuch later press release of 26 May 2009, which inpart had the following text:

‘The WWF and Ramsar Convention global vision – for 250million hectares of new protected wetlands by 2010 – is stillsome way off, with parties to the convention deciding last yearon 2015 as a target date for its achievement.’ The press releaseincluded the statement that: ‘the declaration of the high Andes– home to two of the three species of Andean flamingos – marksWWF’s delivery of a “crazy, unrealistic pledge” to deliver 100million hectares of new protected wetlands in a decade’ [WorldWide Fund for Nature (WWF), 2009].

The adoption by the Ramsar Convention COP ofthis target was in part influenced by WWF and othernongovernmental organizations, presumably in thehope of securing better conservation. Despite refer-ence to site management, there is little clear andmeasurable evidence that a growing set of specialsites has stemmed the tide of wetland loss andchange, regarded by the Millennium EcosystemAssessment [Millennium Ecosystem Assessment(MA), 2005] and reinforced by the third Global Biodi-versity Outlook (Global Biodiversity Outlook, 2010) asthe ecosystem which has declined most quickly glo-bally, a situation which continues. This suggests thatthe value of seemingly quantitative targets, withoutthem being comprehensive and integrative (and alsoenabling), will not help to achieve the overall pro-gramme of which the targets are part, and underlinesthe important role targets have by striving to beachieved, thus helping to manage a programme.

242 P. BRIDGEWATER


A lack of defined indicators established at the sametime as the targets contributes further to the system-atic failure of the target setting system. Good targetsneed to be capable of being measured to test theextent to which the outcome has been achieved, andwhat there is left to do (Senge et al., 1994). Hence aset of indicators derived and settled alongside thetargets is essential – despite this the 10th Meeting ofthe CBD COP in October 2010 established newtargets, but left indicators to be settled later.

TARGETS IN THE CONVENTIONS RELATEDTO BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY

CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY

The CBD, at its meeting in 2002, agreed the 2010target for achieving a rate of reduction in the loss ofglobal biodiversity, and this was taken up later thatyear by the WSSD (see above). This target, as it cameto be known, was actually described in Decision VI/26[Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), 2002a] asthe Mission of the Strategic Plan of the Convention.This was expressed as follows:

‘Parties commit themselves to a more effective and coherentimplementation of the three objectives of the Convention, toachieve by 2010 a significant reduction of the current rate ofbiodiversity loss at the global, regional and national level as acontribution to poverty alleviation and to the benefit of all lifeon earth.’

Decision VII/30 [Convention on Biological Diversity(CBD), 2004] took this further as:

Decides to develop a framework to enhance the evaluation ofachievements and progress in the implementation of the Stra-tegic Plan and, in particular, its mission, to achieve a signifi-cant reduction in the current rate of biodiversity loss at global,regional and national levels.

The framework included a number of focal areas,and also noted that (italics mine):

‘Goals and sub-targets will be established, and indicatorsidentified, for each of the focal areas. The goals and sub-targets will complement the existing goals of the StrategicPlan.’

Decision VIII/15 [Convention on Biological Diver-sity (CBD), 2006] extended this elaboration as theCOP noting (italics mine):

‘. . . that the framework for monitoring implementation of theConvention and achievement of the 2010 target is comprisedof the following five components:(a) The four goals and 19 objectives of the Strategic Planadopted by the Conference of the Parties in Decision VI/26;(b) A limited number of indicators to measure progress in theimplementation of the Strategic Plan, to be developed on thebasis of the proposed indicators in annex I below;

(c) The provisional framework for goals and targets, consist-ing of seven focal areas, 11 goals and 21 targets, adopted inDecision VII/30;(d) Outcome-oriented indicators to measure progress towardsthe 2010 target (as adopted by Decision VII/30 with amend-ments recommended by SBSTTA in recommendation X/5, assummarized in annex II below); and(e) Reporting mechanisms, including the Global BiodiversityOutlook and national reports.’

Thus, from 2002 to 2006, a mission, also describedas a target, had become a target, including within itgoals, objectives, indicators and also targets – not toforget the grouping of targets into focal areas! AtCOP6 in 2002, the GSPC was also agreed as DecisionVI/9, and became the first decision of the CBD whichhad clear (outcome-oriented) targets associated withit [Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), 2002b].This decision had a set of objectives, an overall frame-work and a set of targets, described as outcome-oriented. The GSPC is dealt with in more detail later.

TARGETS AND THE CBD, OCTOBER 2010

As a contribution to discussions at the 10th COP tothe CBD, held in Nagoya, 2010, the third meeting ofthe Working Group on Implementation of the Con-vention of the CBD (WGRI) had concluded in May2010 draft revised targets for 2020, building on theknown and agreed failure of the 2010 target. Variousexpectations had been set for this process, but, in theend, the WGRI agreed a redesigned 2010 target.

The CBD COP10 meeting agreed a new StrategicPlan for the Convention [Convention on BiologicalDiversity (CBD), 2010b], containing, inter alia, ‘aVision, a Mission and 20 headline targets for 2015 or2020 (the Aichi Biodiversity Targets), organized underfive strategic goals’ (italics mine). Thus, again wehave ambiguity in the use of the terms goal andtarget. The indicators will not be discussed by theCBD COP until 2012.

OTHER BIODIVERSITY-RELATED CONVENTIONS

The Ramsar Convention developed a Strategic Plan in2008 (Ramsar, 2008), which revised an earlier oneadopted in 2002. In the 2008 version, there is amission:

Conservation and wise use of all wetlands through local andnational actions and international cooperation, as a contribu-tion towards achieving sustainable development throughoutthe world.

Subservient to the mission are eight goals,described as being ‘what we want to achieve’. Each



goal has an associated outcome and a set of strategies,or measures to achieve the goal, with associated keyresults (indicators).

The Convention on Migratory Species (Bonn Con-vention) adopted its current Strategic Plan in 2005[Convention on Migratory Species (CMS), 2005]. Ithas within it the following:

A vision expressed as: A world which understands,respects and sustains the phenomenon of animalmigration as a unique part of our shared naturalheritage;

A goal: To ensure the favourable conservation statusof migratory species, thereby contributing to globalsustainability; and

Four objectives, each of which has what aredescribed as ‘internal’ targets, with associated mile-stones or indicators, displayed in a classical log-frameformat.

The Convention on International Trade in Endan-gered Species of wild flora and fauna (CITES), at its14th meeting, decided a strategic vision for the Con-vention.

This had, as a chapeau, a CITES vision statement:

Conserve biodiversity and contribute to its sustainable use byensuring that no species of wild fauna or flora becomes orremains subject to unsustainable exploitation through interna-tional trade, thereby contributing to the significant reduction ofthe rate of biodiversity loss.

Further, it developed three goals, each with avarying number of objectives, totalling 16 in all. Indi-cators were to be developed later by the technicalsubsidiary bodies of the Convention [Convention onInternational Trade in Endangered Species (CITES),2007].

The Convention Concerning the Protection of theWorld Cultural and Natural Heritage (World HeritageConvention) operates in a somewhat different way, butwith respect to its sites it follows a code of practiceembodied in Operational Guidelines [United NationsEducational, Scientific and Cultural Organization-World Heritage Committee (UNESCO-WHC), 2008].Text in these guidelines contains the following:

‘In order to facilitate the implementation of the Convention,the Committee develops Strategic Objectives; they are peri-odically reviewed and revised to define the goals and objec-tives of the Committee to ensure that new threats placed onWorld Heritage are addressed effectively.

The Convention identifies five current StrategicObjectives:

1. Strengthen the Credibility of the World HeritageList;

2. Ensure the effective Conservation of World Heri-tage Properties;

3. Promote the development of effective Capacitybuilding in States Parties;

4. Increase public awareness, involvement andsupport for World Heritage through Communica-tion; and

5. Enhance the role of Communities in the imple-mentation of the World Heritage Convention.’

These Strategic Objectives are subject to monitor-ing through a process termed the periodic review.

Through such a review, ‘States Parties are requestedto submit reports to the UNESCO General Conferencethrough the World Heritage Committee on the legisla-tive and administrative provisions they have adoptedand other actions which they have taken for the appli-cation of the Convention, including the state of con-servation of the World Heritage properties located ontheir territories.’

The Operational Guidelines also note that periodicreporting serves four main purposes, namely to:

1. provide an assessment of the application of theWorld Heritage Convention by the State Party;

2. provide an assessment as to whether the outstand-ing universal value of the properties inscribed onthe World Heritage List is being maintained overtime;

3. provide updated information about the World Heri-tage Properties to record the changing circum-stances and state of conservation of the properties;

4. provide a mechanism for regional co-operation andexchange of information and experiences betweenStates Parties concerning the implementation ofthe Convention and World Heritage conservation.

Thus, although there are no specific indicators assuch, the approach being rather more narrative, thereis a clear link between the definition of the objectivesand a process of monitoring their achievement.

That CITES and CBD decided to develop indicatorssubsequent to the determination of a main set oftargets/objectives suggests that decision-makingbodies find it easier to decide a set of global targetsthan to understand how they can be monitored, thusresulting in a lack of focus on the management of theconvention and its processes. The ‘Tower of Babel’approach to targets, goals, objectives and strategieshas thus been especially elaborated in this suite ofconventions, and the rationalization of terms andapproaches is long overdue. A mechanism to achievebetter clarity of terms used in different conventionscould be developed through the Biodiversity LiaisonGroup [Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD),2011] or the United Nations Environment Manage-ment Group [United Nations Environment Manage-ment Group (UNEMG), 2011], which has a widerremit.

244 P. BRIDGEWATER


WORK BY THE EUROPEAN PLATFORM FOR

BIODIVERSITY RESEARCH STRATEGY (EPBRS)

The EPBRS established an electronic conference on‘Targets for Biodiversity Beyond 2010’ in autumn2009 (Grant et al., 2009). That conference attemptedto answer three questions:

1. How can we use the experience of the existing2010 biodiversity target and its goals, sub-targetsand indicators to set updated (or new) relevant,rigorous, balanced and legitimate target(s) andindicator(s) post 2010?

2. What research do we need to set and monitorbiodiversity targets for the future, and the subse-quent management of biodiversity? (Note: theresearch needs here are more about those whichare needed to develop and implement policy, not toadvance pure science.)

3. Are there specific conflicts between existing orpotential goals, sub-targets and targets or theirassociated indicators for biodiversity change?

Key conclusions from contributors include thefollowing:

• there was a lack of a unifying currency againstwhich progress towards the 2010 biodiversitytarget could be measured;

• there was a failure of the target in reflecting impor-tant emerging issues such as the dimension ofecosystem services;

• a biodiversity target and indicators regime shouldbe rolled forward in an appropriate way thatfosters long-term political continuity on the conser-vation of biodiversity;

• there should be modifications of the target tosharpen the policy-response relevance of the‘stories’ told about the meaning of indicator results;

• as biodiversity was inextricably linked to all otheractivities which we, humanity, have done and aredoing to modify this planet, it consequently was notpossible to set targets or manage biodiversity byconsidering it as a separate, somehow untouched,entity;

• in order to stand any chance of success, targetsneeded to be broken down into sub-targets, beclearly reflected in law and have a clear legaloperationalization;

• there was a need to improve biodiversity gover-nance at all levels, especially internationally;

• too much emphasis of the 2010 target had beenplaced on indicators and too little research hadbeen carried out on whether or not targets were aneffective approach to achieving policy goals;

• due to the focus on indicators the role of people inboth driving biodiversity loss and in taking actionto address it had been ignored;

• research should be carried out on public attitudesand behaviour in response to communication andimplementation of policy, including targets; and,finally,

• there should be a three step approach to creating anew biodiversity target:1. to define the goal of a new target;2. to identify the actors the target aims to deal

with;3. to classify the mechanisms by which to discuss

and decide on the target.

Respondents considered that this suggested three-step approach was more important for the success ofa new target than inputting biodiversity sciences intoindicators. There was also a view that, in selectingnew targets, it must be recognized that there need tobe four key features which together they cover,namely:

• Status and trends of biodiversity;• Indicators, monitoring and baselines of biodiversity

at time zero of the target period;• Drivers resulting in biodiversity change;• Scenario building for biodiversity futures (see, for

example, the Global Biodiversity Outlook, 2010);

and that all targets reflect or link to policy-relevantpriorities.

Recognizing that there may be conflicts betweentargets, the e-conference suggested a clear need tobetter understand the:

• impact measurable targets beyond 2010 wouldhave on biodiversity conservation and sustainableuse;

• conflicts between the preservation (sic) of biodiver-sity and sustainable development;

• conflicts between strategies to protect humanhealth and the preservation (sic) of biodiversityand ecosystem functioning;

• the way strategies reduce impact on Europeanbiodiversity but consequently affect biodiversity inother regions of the world;

• benefits and risks of alternative sources of renew-able energy on biodiversity (biofuels, siting of struc-tures for solar, wind, tidal and hydro generation)

• need to further develop strategies to adjust net-works of protected areas with respect to the effectsof climate change, ensuring thus that the reservesystems have flexibility to cope with change;

• implementation of policy instruments is coherentwith the private/public character of goods to bedelivered and understand if they effectively andefficiently contribute to the achievement of thepolicy goal; and



• barriers to implementation of policy for land, waterand marine managers and for all levels ofgovernment.

Finally, the e-conference came to a view on sugges-tions for new targets, which included the following:

• Targets need to incorporate a clear legal operation-alism;

• Incorporate explicitly all other needs of society inany new target;

• Determine and acknowledge the impact any EUbiodiversity target will have on developing coun-tries;

• Be holistic (N.B. similarity with the suggestion forcomprehensive and integrative targets under theCUTE rubric);

• Develop a protocol for biodiversity similar to theKyoto protocol; and

• Focus on research into biodiversity per se, and lesson biodiversity for human services.

Looking at the sum of the contributions to thise-conference, clearly the biodiversity community atlarge:

✓ Is fascinated by the problems around targetsetting;

✓ Understands the need to promote better links tosocial sciences;

✓ Understands the need for integrative research; and✓ Understands the need to take messages to decision

makers.

Despite this understanding and fascination, thecommunity still does not seem able to come to gripswith just what is needed to effect change, to tellgovernments and the wider public what to do and howto do it and to measure the impact of what is done.

THE 2010 BIODIVERSITY INDICATORS PARTNERSHIP

The CBD Secretariat and United Nations Environ-ment Programme’s World Conservation MonitoringCentre (UNEP-WCMC), with the UK Government,held an International Expert Workshop on the 2010Biodiversity Indicators and Post-2010 IndicatorDevelopment in July 2009 [United Nations Environ-ment Programme’s World Conservation MonitoringCentre (UNEP-WCMC), 2010a]. The workshop builton the work of the biodiversity indicators partner-ship [United Nations Environment Programme’sWorld Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC), 2010b], and the workshop report notedthat ‘In 2010, Parties to the Convention on Biologi-cal Diversity (CBD) will review the extent to whichprogress has been made in meeting the global biodi-versity target, and to develop a new, post-2010 stra-

tegic plan and associated target/s. Progress towardsthe 2010 target is being tracked using a frameworkof indicators, and the extent to which policy-makersand society will be able to assess their achieve-ments, and identify suitable responses, is largelydependent upon the information provided by suchindicators.’

The workshop identified recommendations that par-ticipants felt were the most important, namely to:

• Develop a small set of broad headline indicators;• Modify and simplify the current global indicators

into four focal areas:✓ threats to biodiversity;✓ state of biodiversity;✓ ecosystem services; and✓ policy responses;

• Develop a more complete and flexible set of indi-cators and link actions and biodiversity outcomesto benefits for people;

• Further develop national capacity to create and useindicators;

• Develop a communication strategy on the natureand role of indicators; and

• Maintain a flexible and inclusive approach to thedesign and implementation of indicators.

THE 2020 TARGETS OF THE GSPC

A major reason for this volume arose from the desireby the Royal Society, the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew,and Botanic Gardens Conservation International tofocus on the GSPC, as it is set to enter a seconddecade. In its original format, the GSPC was theearliest decision of the CBD work to incorporateoutcome-oriented targets, while being developed con-temporaneously with the 2010 target.

The GSPC is viewed as being successful in harness-ing targets in this way. Some argue that the GSPC is‘successful’ just because it is, and that it is nit-pickingto argue about terms and their definition. However, alack of clarity in what a target is, obfuscation withobjectives and goals, and, especially, a lack of easilyvisible indicators by which the degree to whichtargets are achieved and can be reviewed are crucialto determining what level of success there has beenand will be.

Some of the original elements and the elegant sim-plicity of the GSPC were lost in its recent revision.This revision, developed at the CBD SBSTTA in May2010, was discussed and adopted at the CBD COP inOctober 2010 [Convention on Biological Diversity(CBD), 2010c]. The ‘new’ GSPC, as adopted in October2010, does have a vision and mission, 16 targets,arranged in five strategic goals. The vision is ratherprolix and reads like a mission, whereas the mission

246 P. BRIDGEWATER


reads like a description. Getting these elements rightis critical to the success of subsequent target devel-opment using a CUTE process.

A more effective vision for the GSPC might be:

A world where plant genetic and species diversity is valued bypeople, its loss reduced, and vegetation restoration accepted aspart of land and water management.

From that vision, the mission might be:

The GSPC will reduce the rate of loss of plant diversity at allgeographic scales, through promoting conservation, sustain-able use, and benefit sharing of plant life on earth, while alsopromoting strong outreach on the values of plant diversity.

The 16 targets should then support this mission,but they could be aggregated into five ‘target groups’,obviating the need to use the term objective, andremoving much of the terminological confusion. Asdiscussed earlier, a problem is that all this lacks anyclear development of indicators, scheduled only tohappen by the succeeding COP in 2012. As notedearlier, the adoption of targets without indicators onlyserves to delay effective implementation, and shouldbe discouraged.

Five of the new draft targets are analysed below[using their allocated numbers in Convention on Bio-logical Diversity (CBD), 2010c] against the CUTEcriteria described above, bearing in mind, especially,the kinds of indicators that could be developed to helpmeasure the success of implementation of the seconddecade of the GSPC.

1. An online flora of all known plants.

This target renews the original Target 1, which wasexpressed as ‘a working list of all known plantspecies’. Looking at the comprehensive/integrativeaspect, it would seem to be comprehensive, but withan unclear purpose in the full analysis of the GSPC.And the need to achieve a flora, as opposed to achecklist, has changed the dynamic of the target – aworking list can aid conservation of plant life,whereas a flora adds a layer of complexity that maynot so aid conservation. Indeed, waiting for a floracould inhibit understanding and achievement of thetarget. Critical issues unaddressed include the time-line: will it be necessary to wait until 2020 until it isfinalized? In which case, it becomes not very useful,and unlikely to enable achievement of the GSPC. Asthis target is expressed, only complete success can beseen as achievement. This ‘all or nothing’ approach isnot necessarily helpful to fulfilment of the strategy.

5. At least 75% of the most important areas for plant diversi-ty . . . protected with effective management in place for conserv-ing plants and their genetic diversity.

This target develops the previous fifth target, whichwas expressed as ‘50% of the most important areas forplant diversity. . . . protected with effective . . .’, etc.This target is one of several that use a percentage, thelimitations of which have been described earlier. Keyquestions are on feasibility of achievement. What isthe starting point? Was the previous target achieved?How does this relate to the other conservationtargets?

In a time of rapid global change, a key question isthe relationship of the target to issues of globalchange. The percentage is ameliorated somewhat bythe integration of the need for effective managementplans to be in place, although it is not clear whetheran area protected with an ideal but unfunded planwould be seen as achieving the target.

None-the-less, the linkage of the percentage with aneed for a management plan is a major step forward,which provides the sense of integration that suchtargets should have. What this target does not haveare clear and explicit linkages to the 2020 globalbiodiversity targets, and their Target 11, which pro-poses by 2020 at least 17 per cent of terrestrial andinland water areas, and 10 per cent of coastal andmarine areas, especially areas of particular impor-tance for biodiversity and ecosystem services, are con-served through effectively and equitably managed,ecologically representative and well-connected systemsof protected areas and other effective area-based con-servation measures, and integrated into the widerlandscapes and seascapes. To ensure consistencyacross all CBD targets, there should be explicit linksto the 2020 Target 11.

7. At least 75% of threatened plant species conserved in situ.

This target was expressed previously in 2002 as‘60% of threatened species conserved in situ’, and sothe same questions arise as for Target 5. What hasbeen the change in the last decade? In terms of beingcomprehensive, the relationship to the other conser-vation targets is an important element that ismissing. The target is understandable, but as thenumber of threatened species can change according towork undertaken by the IUCN, the number of speciesagainst which a percentage can be set will changeover the decade. Thus, the impression of being quan-titative falls when contrasted with reality, and thisalso brings the time element into question.

10. Effective management plans in place to prevent new bio-logical invasions and to manage important areas for plantdiversity that are invaded.

This was previously expressed as ‘Managementplans in place for at least 100 major alien species thatthreaten plants.’ It is not clear for the replacementtarget whether the version set for 2010 was achieved,



or what is the base. To have management plans inplace preventing new biological invasions soundscomprehensive and integrative, but it is difficult tosee how this can be achieved. Invasive alien speciesoften have an element of surprise, in that they are notknown as being invasive until they become so; forexample, in the Australian Weed Management Guidefor Mimosa pigra L. (Fabaceae), we find ‘Mimosa wasfirst brought into the Northern Territory to theDarwin Botanic Gardens around 1891. Its spreadaround Darwin over the next 60 years was not par-ticularly conspicuous, until a large infestation wasdiscovered in 1952 at Adelaide River, 100 km south ofDarwin (CRC Weed Management, 2003). This istherefore an unsound target from that viewpoint.

Planning is also possible without any identificationof the availability of resources needed for implemen-tation, and so plans may be available but, if notresourced, they will not be effective. Similarly, thereseems to be no link to issues of global change, andthis is a further weakness of the target.

14. The importance of plant diversity and the need for itsconservation incorporated into CEPA programmes.

This target was previously expressed as ‘educationand awareness about plant diversity promoted’. Inmaking the change, and attempting to be more com-prehensive and integrative, an important unansweredquestion is into whose programmes the importance ofplant diversity should be integrated? The target isalso not really understandable, as it talks only aboutplant diversity. The time element could also be quiteflexible during the life of the target, but instead it ispresented in a monolithic way. In terms of enabling, akey question that remains is: What does it help us doto help us implement the GSPC?

All of the targets lacked clear indications of theprocesses or changes in global plant conservation theywill enable, and this is something that should beaddressed as they are considered further, and cer-tainly as and if they become implemented. This briefsample of proposed new targets for the next decade ofthe GSPC suggests that, although these targets mightbe SMART (although not especially evaluated assuch), they are not fully CUTE, and thus lack thepower targets should have in helping to implement,measure and modify the overall strategy.

CONCLUSIONS

In industrial enterprises, targets, their associatedindicators and their use in monitoring progress are allpart of developing a ‘Learning Organization’ (Sengeet al., 1994). This aspect of target setting, monitoringand changing has not been fully embraced by theinternational bodies discussed in this paper. This

valuable aspect should be included during the comingdecade to give full value to the establishment and useof targets.

It is also clear that more attention is needed tosimplify and unify concepts. As discussed earlier, theterms target, objective and goal should be consideredas synonyms, with the definition that they all repre-sent ‘a result that one is striving to achieve’. Forintergovernmental organizations dealing with envi-ronmental issues, a CUTE approach, rather than theindustry-focused SMART approach to target setting,may be preferable.

Over time, this approach might be extended to awider range of CBD themes and cross-cutting initia-tives, and those from related biodiversity-focused con-ventions. Not only would this obviate the confusionfrom the proliferation of so many synonymous terms,but it would also promote wider public understandingof targets and how they can be used, not just asresults that are striven for, but how they can help inthe implementation, monitoring and changing direc-tion of the main elements of strategies.

REFERENCES

Many of the references are URLs as the source mate-rial is from documentation produced by MultilateralEnvironmental Agreements, which now use a web-based approach to information dissemination. AllURLs were accessed on 14 January 2011.

Agardy, T., Bridgewater, P., Crosby, M., P., Day, J.,Dayton, P.K., Kenchington, R., Laffoley, D., McCon-ney, P., Murray, P.A., Parks, J.E., Peaul, L. 2003. Dan-gerous targets? Unresolved issues and ideological clashesaround marine protected areas. Aquatic Conservation:Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 13: 1–15.

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). 2002a. COP 6Decision VI/26. Available at http://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=7200

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). 2002b. COP 6Decision VI/9. Available at http://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=7183

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). 2004. COP 7Decision VII/30. Available at http://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=7767

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). 2006. COP 8Decision VIII/15. Available at http://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=11029

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). 2010a.SBSTTA Decision 14.9. Available at http://www.cbd.int/sp/sp2010p/key-documents.shtml

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). 2010b. COP10 Decision X/2. Available at http://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=12268

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). 2010c. COP

248 P. BRIDGEWATER


10 Decision X/17. Available at http://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=12283

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). 2011.Liaison Group of Biodiversity-related conventions. Avail-able at http://www.cbd.int/cooperation/related-conventions/blg.shtml

Convention on International Trade in EndangeredSpecies (CITES). 2007. CITES Strategic Vision: 2008–2013. Available at http://www.cites.org/eng/res/14/14-02.shtml

Convention on Migratory Species (CMS). 2005. CMSStrategic Plan 2006–2011. Available at http://www.cms.int/bodies/COP/cop8/documents/proceedings/html/en/cop8_res_rec_en.htm

CRC Weed Management. 2003. Weed management guide.Mimosa – Mimosa pigra. Canberra: Department of Environ-ment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. Available athttp://www.weeds.gov.au/publications/guidelines/wons/pubs/m-pigra.pdf

G8. 2007. ‘Carta di Siracusa’ on biodiversity: Outcome of theG8+ Environment Ministers. Available at http://www.biodiv.be/news/carta-di-siracusa-biodiversity-outcome-g8

Global Biodiversity Outlook. 2010. Global BiodiversityOutlook 3. Available at http://gbo3.cbd.int/

Grant F, Young J, Bridgewater P, Watt AD, eds. 2009.Targets for biodiversity beyond 2010: research supportingpolicy. Report of an e-conference. Accessible at http://www.epbrs.org/news/show/12

Millennium Development Goal (MDG). 2010. Eightgoals for 2015. Available at http://www.undp.org/mdg/basics.shtml.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA). 2005. Ecosys-tems and human well-being: synthesis. Washington D.C.W.R.I: Island Press.

Ramsar. 2002. Resolutions of the 8th meeting of the Con-ference of the Contracting Parties. Available at http://www.ramsar.org/cda/en/ramsar-documents-resol-resolutions-of-8th/main/ramsar/1-31-107%5E21367_4000_0

Ramsar. 2008. Resolutions of the 10th Meeting of the Con-ference of the Contracting Parties. Available at http://www.ramsar.org/cda/en/ramsar-documents-resol-resolutions-of-10th/main/ramsar/1-31-107%5E21247_4000_0

Senge PM, Charlotte R, Ross RB, Smith Bryan J,

Kleiner A. 1994. The fifth discipline: the art and practice ofthe learning organisation. London: Nicholas Brearley.

Soanes C, Stevenson A. 2008. Concise Oxford dictionary,11th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

United Nations Conference on the Human Environment(UNHCE). 1972. Declaration of the United Nations Con-ference on the Human Environment. (accessed via UNEPweb site). Available at http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?documentid=97&articleid=1503

United Nations Division of Sustainable Development(UNDSD). 2009. Agenda 21. Available at http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/res_agenda21_15.shtml#4

United Nations Educational, Scientific and CulturalOrganization-World Heritage Committee (UNESCO-WHC). 2008. The Operational Guidelines for the Implemen-tation of the World Heritage Convention. Available at http://whc.unesco.org/en/guidelines

United Nations Environment Management Group(UNEMG). 2011. Description of UNEMG activities. Avail-able at http://www.unemg.org/Home/tabid/1120/Default.aspx

United Nations Environment Programme’s World Con-servation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC). 2010a.Expert Workshop on the 2010 Biodiversity Indicators andPost-2010 Indicator Development. Available at http://www.cbd.int/doc/?meeting=EMIND-02

United Nations Environment Programme’s World Con-servation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC). 2010b.Biodiversity Indicators Partnership. Available at http://www.twentyten.net/about/2010biodiversityindicatorspartnership

Wiktionary. 2010. The online dictionary. Available at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Main_Page

World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD).2005. Johannesburg Plan of Implementation. Availableat http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/WSSD_POI_PD/English/POIToc.htm

World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). 1999. WWF for moreRamsar wetlands. Available at http://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/press_releases/?1946/WWF-for-more-Ramsar-wetlands

World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). 2009. WWF deliverson 100 million hectares of wetlands pledge. Available athttp://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/successes/?165361/WWF-delivers-on-100-million-hectares-of-wetlands-pledge



SMART or CUTE – what makes a good target?

Documents

Transcript of SMART or CUTE – what makes a good target?