Dr. Arvind Kumar*
Participants in the WG meetings also discussed potential global benefit-sharing systems for the use of digital sequence information (DSI) on genetic resources. An informal advisory group contributed by developing policy alternatives that covered the entire gamut from bilateral to multilateral approaches. To the astonishment of many, the difficult and contentious subject of DSI led to fruitful conversations and advanced very swiftly. This was most likely influenced by the fact that representatives from developing nations consistently stated that they thought benefit-sharing from the implementation of DSI was an essential component of any GBF. These changes were reflected at the COP, when DSI debates advanced more quickly than GBF discussions.
The Conference of the Parties (COP) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) adopted the hard-won, thoughtfully-considered Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework during its 15th conference, which was all about compromise. The GBF itself offers the background: the global rate of species extinction is at least tens to hundreds of times higher than during the preceding 10 million years, and 25% of species in examined animal and plant groupings are threatened. In addition to providing food and fibre, biodiversity improves people’s quality of life by creating chances for employment and recreational activities. Changes in land and marine usage, direct exploitation of organisms, climate change, pollution, and invasive alien species are the main causes of the extraordinary loss of biodiversity.
Given how difficult it is to reverse the loss of biodiversity, only major overhaul will be able to do it. The entire society must engage in transformative thinking, and all economic endeavours must be reevaluated through the prism of biodiversity. The 2022 UN Biodiversity Conference’s main objective was to facilitate this transformative process, and it succeeded in doing so by adopting a number of measures that fall within the Convention and its Protocols. The civic society had high hopes for the caucus. Throughout the two-week conference, delegates heard the message, “The world is watching you.” Parties submitted the anticipated updated roadmap to 2030 with the GBF, marking an important step toward the goal of achieving ecological harmony by the year 2050.
On process for transformative potential
The Aichi Biodiversity Targets, the previous CBD framework to “take effective and prompt action to halt the loss of biodiversity,” were adopted by the parties for the ten-year period of 2011–2020. In Kunming, China, the new GBF was scheduled to be adopted as its replacement in late 2020, but the COVID-19 epidemic postponed both events. Since there was a longer than expected two-year wait for a physical COP, certain preliminary sessions of subsidiary bodies, working groups, and advisory organizations had to be convened virtually. It became evident during the discussion at this COP on the examination of the effectiveness of processes that many people found virtual meetings to be difficult. Technical shortcomings, time zone disparities, and difficulties with unofficial consultations contributed to a less than ideal situation to lay the groundwork for a new biodiversity framework.
Five sessions of the Working Group (WG) on the GBF were called by delegates, including one just before COP 15. As the negotiation text expanded and shrank at various points, the participants were reminded of an accordion. The “zero draft” submitted by the WG Co-Chairs later evolved into a first draft after the addition of the parties’ suggestions. An unofficial group had simplified the initial text before the last WG meeting; a few days before the COP, it was once more loaded with party insertions. This procedure may have seemed ineffective, but it did make sure that delegates and other participants understood the diverse perspectives and interests at stake.
Participants in the WG meetings also discussed potential global benefit-sharing systems for the use of digital sequence information (DSI) on genetic resources. An informal advisory group contributed by developing policy alternatives that covered the entire gamut from bilateral to multilateral approaches. To the astonishment of many, the difficult and contentious subject of DSI led to fruitful conversations and advanced very swiftly. This was most likely influenced by the fact that representatives from developing nations consistently stated that they thought benefit-sharing from the implementation of DSI was an essential component of any GBF. These changes were reflected at the COP, when DSI debates advanced more quickly than GBF discussions.
Up to the last days of COP 15, the interrelationships between so many things proved to be one of the major obstacles preventing progress. Many delegates were unable to commit to the high goals outlined in the draft GBF if there was no commitment to effective resource mobilisation, and vice versa, creating a “chicken and egg” problem. However, the inherent interdependence of the components made it clear that a package needed to be presented to the plenary for comprehensive assessment. The GBF, its monitoring framework, resource mobilisation, DSI, capacity building, planning, monitoring, reporting, and review were the six main components that made up the final package.
Shift to a new level of consciousness
In addition, the hastily gaveled passage of the package in the early hours of Monday, December 19, just hours before the COP was scheduled to end, against the declared protest of one party, may have had a negative impact on this COP. Later that afternoon, however, there was a brief moment of reconciliation that served to correct the situation, and resistance was reduced to a reservation in the meeting report. Consequently, the COP came to a joyful conclusion with new GBF as more inclusive, comprehensive, and SMART (as in more specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound) than the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, however much complex.
Targets 1 through 8 are intended to mitigate threats to biodiversity, with two targets standing out for having higher ambitions than the previous targets: to effectively conserve 30% of terrestrial, inland water, coastal, and marine areas through protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures by 2030 (from 17% for terrestrial and inland water and 10% for coastal and marine areas by 2020); and to make sure that at least 30% of degraded terrestrial, inland water, and marine areas are restored by 2030 (from 10% for coastal and marine areas by 2020 Targets that are more particular than the prior targets are added in addition to these core targets. They deal with spatial planning, preventing the extinction of high biodiversity areas, stopping human-caused extinctions, collecting wild species sustainably, and mitigating the effects of invasive alien species, reducing risks from incessant use of pesticides (at least by half) and minimizing the overall impact from climate change.
Targets 9 to 13 focus on addressing people’s needs through shared benefits and sustainable use. The main issues are how to manage wild species and regions of primary industry in a sustainable way, how to maintain ecosystem services and functions, and how to make sure that everyone benefits from the utilization of genetic resources. Unlike the Aichi Targets, Target 12 intends to increase biodiversity’s interconnectedness through green and blue spaces in metropolitan areas.
The tools and solutions for implementation and mainstreaming are addressed in targets 14 to 23. Most crucially, in contrast to the ambiguity of the relevant Aichi Target, the resource mobilisation targets have been quantified. The objective of Target 19 is to significantly increase the level of financial resources from all sources to at least USD 200 billion annually by 2030, including by increasing transfers from developed to developing countries to at least USD 20 billion annually by 2025 and at least USD 30 billion annually by 2030. The USD 200 billion target lists the resources needed for domestic execution but leaves unspecified the total amount that domestic, international, public, and private resources are expected to contribute. Furthermore, the parties made a bold commitment to modify any subsidies or other incentives that endanger biodiversity and cut them by at least USD 500 billion annually by 2030. Parties are obligated under Target 15 to take action to encourage and facilitate the private sector’s disclosure of and response to adverse impacts on biodiversity.
The GBF is a more extensive and all-encompassing system than its predecessor according to Section C on “considerations for the implementation of the framework.” First, it reaffirms the crucial functions and contributions of indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs) as keepers of biodiversity and collaborators in conservation, as well as their rights under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and other international agreements. It alludes to several belief systems, such as the idea of coexisting peacefully with Mother Earth, which was crucial during the negotiations. Additionally, it subjects the GBF to a whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach that emphasizes intergenerational parity, gender equality, a human rights-based perspective, and connections between biodiversity and health. Additionally, it recognizes that each party will make contributions in accordance with national circumstances, priorities, and capabilities.
On Implementation
“We can now destroy or we can cherish, the choice is ours.” – Sir David Attenborough
The GBF, a new guide to coexisting with nature, intends to support, enable, and finance the essential action to combat biodiversity loss. By updating national biodiversity strategies and action plans, it is anticipated to strengthen biodiversity policies at all levels in the public and commercial sectors (NBSAPs). The indicators chosen by this COP will also make it easier to measure, report on, evaluate, and review policy action, which is expected to facilitate implementation. Simultaneously, the more comprehensive GBF will aid in dismantling silos, enabling the mainstreaming of biodiversity in other policy fields like agriculture and health. But it is doubtful whether it will be successful in tackling the direct and indirect causes of biodiversity loss, especially those connected to unsustainable growth and rising inequities.
India’s stance at COP-15
While the Global Biodiversity Framework was attempting to address various assessments, India, one of the Convention’s Parties and a member of the High Ambition Coalition (HAC), strongly pushed for consideration of Digital Sequence Information (DSI) under the CBD’s access and benefit sharing mechanism, among other things. India also rejected the idea of area-based biodiversity conservation targets and stated that the one-size-fits-all approach is unacceptable. Minister of Environment, Forestry, and Climate Change Bhupender Yadav as the head of the Indian delegation said “Hundreds of millions of people depend on agriculture for their survival, means of subsistence, and cultural identity. Therefore, necessary assistance to disadvantaged sectors cannot be referred to as subsidies and should not be targeted for elimination. Their security in food and nutrition must be assured while promoting modernization. The viability of a post-2020 global biodiversity framework, he continued, “will depend on the mechanisms we establish for an equally ambitious Resource Mobilization Mechanism”. The provision of financial resources to parties from poor countries requires the development of a fresh, special procedure. To ensure the successful execution of the post-2020 GBF, such a fund should be operationalized as soon as possible.
Lessons learned and moving forward
The evaluation of the largely unmet Aichi Biodiversity Targets warns that the GBF will only be as good as its implementation. The ability of the CBD parties to meet the GBF targets will depend on the prompt allocation and transfer of the required funding. Building capacity, transferring technology, and collaborating in science will all be crucial. The GBF will not be successful without more sustainable consumption choices being made by everyone, in addition to economic development.
While acknowledging that the COP mostly met its objectives, certain delegations singled out specific GBF provisions as unrealized potential. They emphasised that there should have been more financial obligations to developing nations, a time-bound trajectory for stopping species extinction, and an objective for the sustainable management of productive regions that extends beyond basic sectors. Some people also brought up the fact that this COP failed to take substantial action on significant concerns outside of the GBF package, such as biodiversity mainstreaming and climate change. This was primarily brought on by divergent views on whether the Convention was capable of implementing the principle of common but differentiated obligations as well as underlying socioeconomic concerns by some parties. Stripping these decisions of most of their content prevented the harvesting of the fruit of four years’ collective work, some observed.
This COP was a success overall because the rigorous GBF package was adopted. The GBF was accepted as a fair compromise that moved society one step closer to coexisting with nature. The GBF is a brand-new strategy that is inclusive, thorough, moderately SMART, and fairly ambitious. Only time will tell if it has the power to revolutionize biodiversity governance, prevent and reverse current patterns of biodiversity loss, and foster human peace with nature.
*President, India Water Foundation
