biodiversity

Nations adopt Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework

After multiple delays due to COVID-19, nearly 200 countries at the UN Biodiversity Conference (COP15) in Montreal sealed a landmark deal to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030.카지노사이트
The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), with four goals and 23 action-oriented targets, comes after two weeks of intense negotiations at COP15, in Montreal, Canada. This agreement replaces the Aichi Biodiversity Targets set in 2010.
Among the 2030 goals, countries pledged to protect at least 30% of terrestrial and marine areas, while also recognizing Indigenous and traditional territories.
Concerns have been raised about the ambitions of the framework, with many criticizing the agreement for its corporate influence, vague language and watered-down targets, many of which are not quantitative.
COP15, MONTREAL, Canada — After marathon negotiations and a clutch of protests (including a “die-in” by global youth, and a walk-out by developing countries over a funding stalemate) nearly 200 nations struck a historic deal to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by the end of the decade, at the UN Biodiversity Conference (COP15) in Montreal, Canada.

The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), with four goals and 23 action-oriented targets, was adopted early Monday morning at the Fifteenth meeting of the Conference of Parties on the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD) or COP15, chaired by China and hosted by Canada from December 7 to December 19.

The agreement preserves the headline goal to “ensure and enable that by 2030 at least 30 percent of terrestrial, inland water, and coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services, are effectively conserved and managed,” while recognizing “indigenous and traditional territories, where applicable.”

Currently, 17% and 10% of the world’s terrestrial and marine area respectively is under protection.

Importantly, the agreement includes a commitment to mobilize at least $200 billion per year by 2030 in financial flows from “all sources” including the public and private sectors, to “progressively” close the biodiversity finance gap of $700 billion per year, and aligning financial flows with the Framework and the 2050 Vision for Biodiversity.

“It will be very interesting to see how the results from this framework will be influencing other processes. We have benefitted a lot from decisions taken by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, United Nations Environment Assembly and World Trade Organization. It is our turn to see how we can influence them and eventually there will be a convergence between the various instruments,” said Basile van Havre, co-chair of the Open-Ended Working Group on the GBF, at CBD, at a press briefing following the adoption.

The GBF text comes as part of a package including decisions on a monitoring framework, Digital Sequence Information on genetic resources (DSI), resource mobilization, mechanisms for planning, monitoring, reporting and review, and capacity-building and development, and technical and scientific cooperation.바카라사이트

Hits and misses
While the COP15 agreement reflects successes in paving the way for resource mobilization and monitoring frameworks, it has drawn criticism for its watered-down ambitions and weak language and stagnation in critical areas such as reducing extinction of plants and animals, protection of intact ecosystems, and tackling unsustainable production and consumption.

“The agreement’s mission to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030 has the right level of ambition, but if we add up the goals and targets they alone aren’t enough to achieve this. For example, it lacks a numerical target to reduce the unsustainable footprint of production and consumption. This is disappointing and will require governments to take action at the national level,” said Lin Li, senior director of global policy and advocacy at WWF International.

Guido Broekhoven, global head of policy research & development at WWF International dubbed the agreement “unfortunate,” noting that the reference to overshooting planetary boundaries “was removed at the last minute from the text.”

“It remains vague on the outcomes we need to achieve by 2030 — with a focus on 2050 deadlines for key conservation goals on ecosystems and species. That will be far too late for us to halt and reverse biodiversity loss and address related challenges such as climate change,” said Alfred DeGemmis, associate director of international policy for the Wildlife Conservation Society.

In a landmark report in 2019, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), an independent science and policy group, estimated that one million animal and plant species are threatened with extinction. The report identified the five direct drivers of change in nature with the largest relative global impacts: changes in land and sea use; direct exploitation of organisms; climate change; pollution and invasive alien species.

Argentine ecologist Sandra Diaz, co-chair of the 2019 IPBES report, one of the crucial scientific assessments that underpins the science-based targets of the framework, commended the effort to adopt the framework, especially “after so many days of negotiations that did not look particularly promising,” but lamented the lack of more ambition throughout the framework.

She acknowledged the “very good progress” in areas such as the space given in the final document to Indigenous peoples and local communities and gender equality. “The major facets of biodiversity — species, ecosystems, genetic diversity, nature’s contributions to people — have retained their identity, and each has aspirations. I am glad that the genetic diversity of domesticated species, so crucial for food sovereignty and the food security of the whole of humanity, has survived in the text.”

“But unfortunately, not all of these targets have quantitative targets,” Diaz said. “More quantitative commitments, both in targets and in financial investment [are needed]. There are specific targets for the drivers of nature’s decline, but I think that the language of some of them, particularly those related with pesticides, the control of the business sector and the change in consumption patterns, have been seriously watered down.”

“It remains to be seen whether these targets indeed bring about the transformative change we were all hoping for, and which is essential for a better future for all life on Earth,” Diaz told Mongabay-India.

The GBF replaces the UN Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020, which included the Aichi Targets, which was adopted in Nagoya, Japan in 2010 — none of which, according to a 2020 CBD report were fully met, largely due to failure to monitor and report the implementation of goals.

After multiple postponements due to COVID-19, the Montreal summit, pegged as the “last chance” to agree to a deal to protect nature, began with sticking points on measurable targets and implementation, DSI, and resource mobilization — all of which almost stalled talks midway.온라인카지노

Similar Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.