Historic. Ambitious. A win for the planet.
Those were the words used in 2022 to describe the freshly-inked Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, a sprawling pact to protect and restore the natural world.
Some 14 months later, countries are in a race against the clock to implement the accord, which comes with the Earth on the cusp of the biggest mass extinction since the time of the dinosaurs.
“This is our last chance to get on top of the crisis facing nature,” says Neville Ash, Director of the United Nations Environment Programme- World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC). “We only have a few years to ensure we can sustain life on Earth as we know it.”
Later this month, delegates are gathering in Kenya for the sixth session of the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA-6), the world’s top decision-making body on the environment. Among the issues they are expected to discuss is how to translate the Global Biodiversity Framework’s ambitions into action on the ground.
Ahead of those talks, we spoke with Ash about the importance of the accord and whether countries are positioned to deliver on its promise.
Why does the world need to act quickly to implement the Global Biodiversity Framework?
Neville Ash (NA): Right now, humanity is pushing 1 million species towards extinction. We’re facing the world’s sixth mass extinction; the fifth was that of the dinosaurs.
This nature crisis is undermining food security, our wellbeing and the supply of vital commodities such as timber. We are seeing growth in pests and disease from unbalanced ecosystems, alongside incalculable cultural losses.
These changes to the natural world are happening faster than at any other time in human history. Their consequences reach to the heart of our societies and our economies.
This is not the first time the countries of the world have vowed to protect nature. A previous accord, the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, ended with “limited progress.” What makes this new framework different?
NA: This time there is much more focus on action across government and society, and a greater emphasis on transparency of progress. Unlike past accords, there are several common indicators, which all countries have agreed to report on. These indicators cover everything from the state of biodiversity to the resources being allocated for its conservation and sustainable use. This will give a more consistent understanding of international progress based on actions taken at the national level.
Some of the framework’s most ambitious targets come due in 2030. Those include protecting 30 per cent of the Earth, restoring 30 per cent of degraded ecosystems and generating US$200 billion annually in nature-friendly financing. Is all that doable in six short years?
NA: Yes. But we need action now if there is any hope of achieving these targets. In most countries, the framework’s targets span many ministries, so engagement across the whole of government is critically important.
Governments alone cannot deliver on the ambitions of the Global Biodiversity Framework. The private sector, civil society groups and Indigenous Peoples all have key contributions to make, too. That process of buy-in takes time. Stepping up to protect 30 per cent of the planet can’t be done on New Year’s Eve 2029.
Is there a danger in countries rushing through their national biodiversity plans?
NA: Yes. Whilst we must recognize the urgency to respond to the biodiversity crisis, it is important not to trade robustness for speed. If countries develop really ambitious national targets but do not engage across government and with broader society, they will have no hope of delivering on their ambitions.
About a half dozen countries have released national plans outlining how they will meet the framework’s targets. The deadline for plans is October. Are we seeing any tangible results yet?
NA: Many of the national plans are still in their early stages. But countries were not sitting around waiting for the Global Biodiversity Framework to be adopted. In the last few years, we have seen the expansion of protected areas, the reform of environmentally harmful subsidies and changes to agricultural policies. When national plans are adopted, we will see an even greater uplift in action.
What do robust national biodiversity plans look like?
NA: They bring together a whole-of-government approach for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. They recognize the key dependencies of our economies and societies on nature. And they target actions to address the drivers of biodiversity loss and to ensure all people benefit from nature.
For example, as agriculture is the main driver of biodiversity loss in most parts of the world, plans should support more sustainable food systems. These plans should also recognize the rights and stewardship of biodiversity by Indigenous Peoples. Finally, robust biodiversity plans require national finance plans and national monitoring systems.
There has been pushback against the framework. Some have claimed its targets—especially around protecting 30 per cent of the Earth—will stymie economic growth by restricting logging, mining and other employment-heavy industries. What do you think about that argument?
NA: The argument is not taking into account the fact that our economies depend on nature, our supply chains depend on nature, our health depends on nature. All of the world’s gross domestic product ultimately depends on nature. We need to look at biodiversity as an investment, not a cost.
Are you optimistic about the future of the natural world?
NA: Yes. There has been a huge amount of momentum generated by the Global Biodiversity Framework. I am particularly encouraged by champions in the public sector, and by the private sector’s engagement and action. But we need to speed up action at scale if we are going to be successful in meeting the global ambitions for nature.
This blog was originally published by UNEP. Read the original interview here; https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/world-making-good-landmark-pact-protect-nature
