Is it a good start to the week for biodiversity? - CoP15 and its conclusion

Has it been a good start to the week for biodiversity from an international perspective with the new Global Framework for the protection of Biodiversity finally being agreed in the early hours of the morning on the closing day of CoP 15 (Biodiversity Convention)?

Aside from the cheers and self-congratulations amongst the host member states -  what does the Global Framework really mean for biodiversity and what is CoP 15 and the Convention on Biodiversity.

CoP 15 was held from 7 to 19 December in Montreal, Canada, where a 196 member states (countries) attended. Alexandra Antonelli of Kew Gardens told the New Statesman “That it may be one of the most important meetings humanity has ever had."  But considering that it truly was an important meeting in terms of the future of our planet, it was disappointingly underreported with the New Statesman entitling an article on CoP15 as “The Most Important Conference You Have Never Heard Of."  It was unfortunate that CoP15 did not receive the same level of media attention as CoP 27 Climate Change conference which in comparison was highly reported.  It is not in dispute that loss of biodiversity runs hand in hand and is extrinsically linked to climate change. It cannot be a coincidence that both the Convention on Biodiversity and the Convention on Climate Change were opened at the same time for signature at Rio during the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED).

The Convention on Biodiversity is an important convention for the health of our planet. It was the first international treaty to explicitly address all aspects of biodiversity ranging from conservation of biodiversity and sustainable use of biodiversity sources to access to biotechnology and the safety of activities related to modified living organisms.  The Preamble to the Convention and its provisions address combating deforestation and desertification, planning and management of land resources, managing fragile ecosystems on land and at sea and promoting sustainable utilisation of all living resources.

In essence the Convention provides a comprehensive global approach to the protection of our planet’s biodiversity that prior to 1992 was seriously lacking in international law.

The 15th meeting of the parties (CoP15) was hailed as being a particularly important meeting as its purpose was to adopt a new Global Biodiversity Framework which includes a new set of goals for nature over the next decade. This is against a backdrop of a warning from scientists that the planet is in the midst of the 6th mass extinction, one million plants and species at risk of extinction, the largest loss of life on our planet since the dinosaurs, fragmented and land use changes driven by agriculture, and urban sprawl driving 80% of biodiversity loss in many areas. The previous Global Framework agreed at CoP10 to address biodiversity loss known  as the '20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets by 2020', which provided for implementation of plans to half natural habitat loss for sustainable consumption and production, has also only been partly implemented.

As billions of people benefit daily from nature and the benefits it provides including food, energy, materials, medicine, recreation and many other vital contributions to human well-being, it was viewed by many as crucial for both plants and animals and humans that a strong global framework be adopted at the conference.

So will the new Global Framework Treaty known officially as the “Kunming-Montreal Global Framework” deliver both for people who rely on nature for so many benefits and for the plants and animals at risk of extinction?

According to the Chinese Environment Minister, Huang Runqiu, it will. He stated “We have in our hands a package which I think can guide us as we all work together to halt and reverse biodiversity loss and put biodiversity on the path to recovery for the benefit of people in the world” and “We can be truly proud."

The overarching aim of the agreement is to improve the integrity connectivity and resilience of all ecosystems and increase the overall size of these ecosystems by 2050 to halt and reduce “human-induced extinction of known threatened species” by tenfold.

The 30 by 30 pledge is central to the agreement with member states agreeing to protect 30% of land and water by 2030.

Other worthy main points in the agreement include: -

• Maintaining enhancing and restoring ecosystems, including halting species extinctions, and maintaining genetic diversity.
• “Sustainable use” of biodiversity- ensuring that species and habitats can provide the services they provide for humanity such as food and clean water.
• Ensuring that the benefits of resources from nature are shared equally and fairly and indigenous people’s rights are protected.
• Reduce the risk from pesticides by at least 50% by 2030.
• Green up urban spaces.
• Tackle climate change through nature-based solutions;
• Stop the extinction of known species and by 2050 reduce tenfold the extinction risk and rate of all species (including unknown);
• Secure the safe and legal and sustainable use and trade of wild species by 2030;
• Reduce global footprint of consumption by 2030 including through significantly reducing over-consumption and waste generation and halving food waste;
• Paying for and putting resources into biodiversity and ensuring money and conservation efforts get to where they are needed;

The final point (as referred to above) was the subject of criticism from developing countries and proved to be one of the most difficult points in the agreement.  The Paulson Institute estimated that the global finance gap for reversing biodiversity loss by 2030, stands at a minimum of $598bn per year - but international financial flows for biodiversity are far below that amount.

The Democratic Republic of Congo was critical of the financial targets and wanted a new dedicated funding pool to be established as part of the agreement with developing countries being the ones to take ownership of financing and implementing new targets.  It called the final agreement illegal and against the rules of negotiation.

There were also calls for China and Brazil to contribute more financially.

More general criticisms or what could be described as luke-warm responses to the contents of the final agreement were Client Earth who commented that it was noteworthy but stopped short of a “Paris moment". Dr Abigail Entwistle of Fauna and Flora International stated “I don’t believe we’ve had a Paris moment but now more than ever we are circling the Paris ring road."

There was a clear need at CoP15 for the new Framework to halt and reverse biodiversity loss with targets in the framework to be measurable and underpinned by science with explicit outcomes.  It also needed clear targets for addressing overexploitation, pollution fragmentation and unsustainable agricultural practices and safeguards for rights of indigenous peoples which recognised their contributions as stewards of nature.  On the face of it, despite some criticism it appears that the Kunming-Montreal Global Framework will be good for nature.

However the big question is will member states comply with the agreement reached or will it be a repeat performance of the Aichi Targets with hardly any being implemented.

The Convention on Biodiversity is strongly reliant on national implementation of its Framework Agreements and the Treaty provisions itself and does not contain a non-compliance procedure of the kind found in the likes of the Montreal Protocol to the 1985 Ozone Convention or the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change. This may explain the emphasis and reliance within the Convention upon national implementation. Article 6 of the Convention described as ‘one of the most far reaching articles in the Convention’ places emphasis on such national action and priority setting by member states.  Article 6 emphasises that each contracting party shall

• ‘Develop national strategies, plans or programmes for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity or adapt for this purpose existing strategies, plans or programmes which shall reflect the measures set out in this convention ………’
• “Integrate, as far as possible and as appropriate the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity into relevant sectoral or cross-sectoral plans, programmes and policies”

It is worth mentioning that although the Convention does not provide for an institutional body charged with formal oversight of implementation or compliance issues, there is a Working Group on Review and Implementation - although its meetings have been infrequent in the past. In addition, Article 26 does oblige member states to report on measures it has taken for the implementation of provisions within the Convention and these reports are submitted directly to the CoP so there is some scrutiny, and no doubt political pressure can be brought to bear on repeated failures of member states in relation to implementation.   

However as with the majority of international treaties, particularly in relation to nature and wildlife, it really is ultimately a matter of political will.

In conclusion, with it being reported that member states were working hard to ensure that the  Kunming-Montreal Global Framework will end the years of failure and apathy and environmental destruction the quote from Frans Timmermans Executive Vice President for the European Green Deal is worthy of note “the agreement reached at CoP 15 is a landmark deal to protect nature, restore ecosystems and keep our planet liveable……” and could be an indication that this time the political will is there.