The second phase of the Conference of Parties (CoP) to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) has finally delivered a new global
biodiversity framework that will guide global action on biodiversity conservation. Spread across four overarching goals and 23 targets, the ‘Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework’ (GBF) is finalised by 188 government representatives. The ambitious framework urges countries to conserve 30 percent of biodiversity on land and underwater by 2030. It has also set forth a financial mobilisation target for the developed world.
Achieving these targets will require strong leadership from key countries and mechanisms to ensure that countries adhere to the commitments. While China tried hard to leave its impression on the framework, India
refrained from subscribing to the area-based targets. India instead urged the world to tackle biodiversity issues from a holistic ‘ecosystems-based’ approach. This stance requires a closer evaluation of the global experience on biodiversity conservation and an insight into China’s ‘green’ ambition.
China’s lost opportunity
The pandemic was a damper on China's ambitions to project its soft power in environmental conservation. The CoP15 was initially slated to take place in October 2020. The secretariat deferred it before convening for a first virtual installment hosted in Kunming, China, in October 2021. The pandemic forced the CBD Secretariat to
announce the hosting of the second phase of CoP in Montreal, Canada. China was allowed to retain the presidency privileges such as chairing the meetings, presidency logo, and theme (‘Ecological Civilisation’). At the same time, Canada continues to host the secretariat. With the United States not being the party to the CBD, China used the opportunity to demonstrate its green commitment to the world.
The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) latest report highlights that the ecosystem services and associated diversity is declining due to a significant thrust on policies promoting short-term economic gains.
For two
decades, the world has repeatedly missed the decadal targets for biodiversity and natural resource conservation. The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) latest
report highlights that the ecosystem services and associated diversity is declining due to a significant thrust on policies promoting short-term economic gains. It warns that these gains might not eventually remain consequential if the ecosystem services that underpin them continue to deteriorate.
The fifth report of the Global Biodiversity Outlook (GBO-5), a flagship publication of the CBD, reports that none of the 20 targets (Aichi Targets) was fully achieved, and seven have been partially achieved by their deadline. Notably, the world failed to meet the target of conserving 17 percent of terrestrial and aquatic areas harbouring biodiversity. It only managed to preserve 15 percent. More concerning is that these conserved areas are mainly devoid of resilient corridors and other ecosystem networks engendering the fragmented habitats.
Sluggish progress on biodiversity goals
Global action on biodiversity and ecosystem conservation is vital for achieving Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the Paris Agreement, and overall human well-being. Then why did the world fail to achieve the Aichi Targets? Some critical lessons that need to be learned and avoided.
The Aichi Targets largely lacked a measurable call for action. Unlike the Paris Agreement that calls for halting the average temperature rise to 2
0 C or below by the end of this century, Aichi Targets contained intangible elements against which progress couldn’t be quantified. Most targets didn't provide concrete goals except for target 11, which mandated conserving 17 percent of terrestrial and inland biodiversity and 10 percent of coastal and marine biodiversity. Therefore, some countries at least partially achieved the targets containing some form of a quantifiable element, like in the case of Targets 9 or 11. Countries such as
China and
India have conserved around 20 percent of their biodiversity, while their overall progress on other targets needs to be improved.
Most targets didn't provide concrete goals except for target 11, which mandated conserving 17 percent of terrestrial and inland biodiversity and 10 percent of coastal and marine biodiversity.
The second important lesson pertains to the need for a formally agreed framework for transparency and consistency in reporting progress. Delays in a global agreement on the 'rulebook' for the execution of the Paris Agreement have exposed decision-making challenges. Therefore, trusted mechanisms such as the
UN System of Environmental-Economic Accounting to report and reflect upon the progress on sustainability indicators could leverage the post-2020 framework.
Lastly, the ecosystems and biodiversity get externalised in economic decision-making mainly because the approaches to quantify and integrate their values are far too technical and lack national frameworks to mainstream them. The IPBES report on values and valuations of nature can guide countries in minimising and eliminating such externalities. However, adopting such methods will need sustained and result-oriented action from national and sub-national stakeholders, businesses, communities, and civil society.
The GBF tries to improve some of those mistakes. It calls upon countries to protect 30 percent of biological diversity in terms of area and integrity. The proposed theory of change envisions this framework as the stepping stone for the world as it progresses towards the goal of 'Living in harmony with nature by 2050’. Notably, most targets and sub-elements contain tangible and clear directions against which progress can be quantified. Key examples include Target 2, which asks to conserve at least 30 percent of degraded freshwater, marine, and terrestrial ecosystems, and Target 3, which calls for conserving at least 30 percent of biodiversity etc.
Interestingly, for the first time, there are financial mobilisation targets for parties. Target 19 calls for increasing financial flows to at least US$ 200 billion annually by 2030. Although, it would be premature to rejoice about the inclusion of this target in GBF. While finalising the Paris Agreement (under another UN convention), developed countries assured the Global South to provide US$ 100 billion by 2020 to secure their commitments to emission reduction. It must be recalled that Paris Agreement, unlike the GBF, is premised upon the principle of ‘Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capacities’ (CBDR-RC). Despite this assurance, the actual financial mobilisation of climate finance under the Paris Agreement is not fully achieved three years past the target date. It would be interesting to see if the GBF, without a moral compass of the CBDR-RC, can uphold and fulfil the target of financial mobilisation by 2030. This is where countries like China and India can offer leadership and rally their compatriots.
India has 8 percent of global biodiversity, four cross-border global biodiversity hotspots, a high degree of endemism, strong credentials in preventing illegal wildlife trade, and unique systemic ways of biodiversity conservation.
But is China able to get the world to deliver on the post-2020 framework? China has quickly captured the power vacuum under this convention to project its strong commitment to sustainability. However, the past few years have done anything but embolden it. A growing domestic discontent, rampant pandemic, and declining economy have eroded much of its true power. Provinces like
Sichuan and
Guangxi are forced to ‘hand-pollinate’ the orchards as the bees have disappeared due to rampant pesticide usage.
India’s opportunity
China’s missed opportunity presents India with an opportunity to offer global leadership. India has 8 percent of global biodiversity, four cross-border global biodiversity hotspots, a high degree of endemism, strong credentials in preventing illegal wildlife trade, and unique systemic ways of biodiversity conservation. India's Forest Rights Act has presented a unique way of striking a balance between mainstreaming of indigenous communities and biodiversity conservation. Its traditional practices and community-conserved biodiversity areas offer successful examples of participatory biodiversity conservation even for the countries in the Global North.
An ecosystem-based approach to biodiversity conservation that India is advocating for is well embedded in the CBD. The
CoP5 held in Nairobi, Kenya, in May 2000,
agreed to use an ecosystems-based approach to conservation. Given the interconnectedness of climate and environmental challenges, India’s call for including CBDR-RC-like principles under CBD is fair. For now, using GBF, India needs to provide the world with ways of replicating holistic conservation measures that can also deliver on environmental conservation, equitable use, climate justice, livelihood protection, food security, and mainstreaming indigenous communities.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
PREV
