Two of the three Rio Conventions that emerged from the 1992 Earth Summit – the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (UNCBD) and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) – are long-running multilateral processes that have so far failed to deliver sufficient action. However, they have successfully maintained a level of multilateral engagement that could facilitate global alignment of efforts to halt and reverse climate change and biodiversity loss. Global net anthropogenic GHG emissions are the highest on record and have almost tripled since 1990 alone (increasing from 21 Gt CO₂ equivalent to 59 Gt CO₂e in 2019). Biodiversity loss continues, with current levels of losses unprecedented since the fifth mass extinction event 65 million years ago. Time is running out on both fronts. Hence, the decade ahead is highly anticipated to be a ‘make or break’ one for biodiversity and climate change.
The post-2020 global biodiversity framework
During the 2010s, efforts to protect biodiversity on land under the UNCBD were guided by the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020, which contained a comprehensive set of strategic goals and targets, known as the Aichi biodiversity targets. Despite most countries under the UNCBD – barring the only non-signatory, the US – submitting at least one national biodiversity strategy and action plan (NBSAP), implementation was weak and only six of the Aichi biodiversity targets were partially achieved – none were fully met. After almost 30 years of CBD negotiations and limited progress on halting biodiversity loss, the upcoming 15th Conference of the Parties (COP15) is hugely significant because parties are expected to adopt a new global biodiversity framework (GBF), with a long-term vision including four goals for 2050, 10 milestones for 2030, and 21 ‘action targets’ to also be achieved by 2030. Many of the flaws of the Aichi biodiversity targets need to be addressed – including an increased emphasis on resource mobilization and a better ‘line of sight’ on global and country performance, enabled by explicit targets and supporting indicators. The GBF will establish a new structure and theory of change for the biodiversity regime, and direct countries’ efforts to ensure integrated spatial planning, restoration of degraded land and effective conservation of biodiversity. The system is supported by a monitoring framework and a suite of headline indicators against which progress can be tracked. This will be critical to improve on the incoherent reporting of parties under the previous framework.
Although early drafts of the GBF signal stronger international ambition and renewed momentum for biodiversity protection, it is unlikely to become an equivalent of the ‘Paris Agreement’ for biodiversity. Global action on biodiversity loss is still immature and faces several barriers that are likely to stifle implementation. Firstly, the socio-economic impacts of biodiversity loss and benefits of biodiversity protection are not fully understood, especially by key decision-makers and influencers. Recent landmark reports and the growth of natural capital accounting, disclosures and targets are useful developments for some aspects of biodiversity protection, but efforts to account for the external costs of biodiversity loss lag far behind what is needed. This is despite more than half of global annual GDP being moderately or highly dependent on nature and its functions. Secondly, domestic approaches to biodiversity loss have often been poorly resourced and delegated to executive arms with minimal powers over the key drivers of biodiversity loss, such as agriculture, trade relations, and patterns of resource production and consumption. As such, biodiversity protection has been constrained to end-of-pipe solutions that are unable to reverse the devastating biodiversity trends caused by unsustainable food systems, excessive resource use, pollution, invasive species and climate change. Finally, dominant narratives of biodiversity as a local, rather than global, common good have inhibited strong international cooperation. As a result, high-income nations have been reluctant to finance global natural commons, and biodiversity-rich nations have resisted ceding sovereignty to international treaties.
Investments in nature-based solutions are a critical flow of biodiversity finance, which needs to grow substantially if climate change, biodiversity and land degradation targets are to be met, and confidence between nations strengthened. Currently, annual global investments in nature-based solutions amount to $133 billion, with over 98 per cent of this finance consisting of domestic government spending or private capital, rather than official development assistance (ODA). For international land, nature and climate targets to be met, overall funding should reach $536 billion per annum by 2050 – which means if funding remains at current levels there will be a cumulative gap of $4.1 trillion by mid-century. Financial flows from higher-income to lower-income countries are an issue to be resolved in the GBF text at COP15, with potential figures ranging from $10 billion to $100 billion a year until 2030. So far, countries have broadly agreed on the need to increase financial support to lower-income, biodiversity-rich countries – although the amounts and delivery mechanisms are yet to be decided. In addition to continued disagreements around financing, most of the 21 GBF action targets – including area-based targets, the elimination of harmful subsidies, and the reduction of fertilizer and pesticide use – are still to be agreed, with the final text expected to be adopted at COP15. So far, text for only one action target (12) and one sub-target (19.2) has been agreed by all parties to the convention.
Investments in nature-based solutions are a critical flow of biodiversity finance, which needs to grow substantially if climate change, biodiversity and land degradation targets are to be met, and confidence between nations strengthened.
G7 2030 Nature Compact
Leading up to the COP15 summit, a growing number of high-level international alliances have called for more attention to be paid to the protection and restoration of biodiversity in the new GBF. Announced at the 2021 G7 summit, under the UK’s presidency, the G7 2030 Nature Compact committed these developed countries to the global mission of halting and reversing biodiversity loss by 2030 – and specifically to take bold action to protect nature at the 2021 UNFCCC COP26 and the 2022 UNCBD COP15. G7 countries have committed to ‘tackle these interdependent and mutually reinforcing crises in an integrated manner, thereby contributing to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals and a green, inclusive and resilient recovery from COVID-19’.
Nature positive and 30 by 30
In the G7 2030 Nature Compact, leaders announced that ‘our world must not only become net zero, but also nature positive’. The term ‘nature positive’, which has recently gained significant momentum, encompasses several elements including halting and reversing biodiversity loss by 2030 from a baseline of 2020 levels, as well as creating an upward growth trajectory towards robust ecosystems by 2050. Within this broader goal is the 30 by 30 target, which aims to conserve at least 30 per cent of global land and oceans by 2030, as proposed by the High Ambition Coalition for Nature and People, and based on the Global Deal for Nature. The 30 by 30 target is included in the G7 2030 Nature Compact, and looks likely to be adopted into the new GBF as a higher-ambition replacement for Aichi target 11, which aimed to protect at least 17 per cent of terrestrial and inland water, and 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas, by 2020.
As indicated in Figure 1, increasing land protection to 30 per cent from current levels requires major changes. At the global level, the protected area must increase by 17 million km2, which is equivalent of almost twice the land area of the US.
