Dr. Arvind Kumar*
This accord may be our final opportunity to stop the degradation of nature. As businesses and governments destroy our forests and prairies and warm the planet with greenhouse gases, ecosystems and the services they provide, like pollination for food crops, are disappearing. Currently, one million species are in danger of going extinct, and over the past 50 years, the average size of many wildlife populations has decreased by about 70%. The statistics are terrifying because nearly half of our woods and coral reefs have disappeared.
The unprecedented feat achieved at the Convention on Biological Diversity COP15 which concluded at Montreal Canada this early December was bringing international attention on the interconnectedness and interdependence of climate change and biodiversity. Restoring nature is crucial for adapting to climate change. It was commendable that climate commitments included calling for nature-based solutions that foster positive impacts of climate action on biodiversity.
The accord that was adopted there consisted of 23 goals that nations must accomplish within a ten-year period and replaced the failed 2010 Aichi Biodiversity Targets that were intended to guide conservation through 2020. They include reducing subsidies for businesses that hurt the environment, including industrial fishing, and conserving at least 30% of all land and water on Earth by 2030 – the greatest land and ocean conservation commitment in history. The final commitment included the target of “30×30”, an ambition to conserve 30% of the world’s land and 30% of the ocean by 2030. A second “30×30” goal also made it into the final package, with developed countries agreeing to mobilize $30bn for developing countries by 2030. The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework agreement also binds wealthy nations to spend $30 billion annually to underdeveloped countries by 2030 for conservation. That is about a treble of current aid.
Despite the fact that more than 100 nations had previously endorsed 30 by 30 before travelling to Montreal, it was still a contentious issue at COP15. One was that it wasn’t entirely obvious what would constitute “conserved” land. Some indigenous communities were also concerned that the expansion of protected areas may jeopardize their access to their territory. However, in its final form, the agreement specifies that a few distinct types of land, such as officially protected areas (like national parks) and, in some situations, Indigenous territory, can count toward the 30% target. The final agreement also makes it clear that nations must uphold Indigenous peoples’ rights while they work to save additional land.
This accord may be our final opportunity to stop the degradation of nature. As businesses and governments destroy our forests and prairies and warm the planet with greenhouse gases, ecosystems and the services they provide, like pollination for food crops, are disappearing. Currently, one million species are in danger of going extinct, and over the past 50 years, the average size of many wildlife populations has decreased by about 70%. The statistics are terrifying because nearly half of our woods and coral reefs have disappeared.
The focus now shifts to the issue of whether or not countries will truly be able to accomplish all 23 targets by the allotted eight-year deadline, as well as what would happen if they don’t. The new biodiversity framework is not enforceable, unlike the Paris Agreement. The nations have to be committed to urge large corporations to report their environmental consequences and how dependent on ecosystems their revenues are. For instance, a sizable cacao-selling company would be required to disclose how its farms influence forests and how the reduction of pollinators affects its chocolate supply.
Digital sequence information (DSI), which few people truly understood, was the contentious hot potato prior to Cop15. Digitalized genetic information (DSI), which we obtain from nature and is widely utilized to create novel medications, vaccines, and foods, is referred to as DSI. These digital representations of biodiversity come from coral reefs, peat lands, rainforests, and other diverse ecosystems, but it is hard to determine where they originated because many developing nations now demand payment for the use of their resources. An agreement was reached in Montreal to create a DSI finance mechanism in the coming time, which has been hailed as a historic win for African states that demanded its establishment before the summit.
The new contract also includes a few more notable targets. In contrast to Target 10, which asks nations to ensure that farming, fisheries, and other productive areas are managed sustainably, Target 2 requires nations to restore at least 30% of degraded land and water, such as prairie that was originally farmland. Two of the goals are also in favour of “nature-based solutions,” which is a catchphrase that refers to activities that enhance human well-being while assisting in the restoration or preservation of ecosystems. (An excellent example is regrowing coral reefs to reduce coastal flooding during hurricanes.)
The discussion-killing query was, “Who pays for conservation?”
At COP15, $700 billion was a figure that was frequently spoken in the conference rooms and hallways. A widely respected analysis released in 2020 puts the total funding need for biodiversity conservation around the world at roughly that much. According to the analysis, the global average cost of saving nature would be $844 billion year by 2030, yet just a small portion of that will be spent globally now. Making agriculture more sustainable, establishing and managing protected areas, and other tasks cost money.
Discussions about bridging the funding gap took up a lot of space during COP15. However, a deadlock with wealthy countries and negotiations reached a breaking point. Addressing the stocktaking plenary at CBD COP15, Union Minister of Environment Forest and Climate Change of Government of India Sh. Bhupender Yadav said “our agriculture, as for other developing countries, is the source of life, livelihoods and culture for hundreds of millions. Their food and nutrition security must be ensured, while supporting the modernisation of their activity, essential support to vulnerable sectors cannot be called subsidies and targeted for elimination.” He further highlighted “the successful implementation of a post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework will depend on the ways and means we put in place for an equally ambitious ‘Resource Mobilization Mechanism’. There is a need to create a new and dedicated mechanism for the provision of financial resources to developing-country parties. Such a fund should be operationalized at the earliest to ensure effective implementation of the post-2020 GBF by all countries”. India rejected the concept of area-based targets for biodiversity conservation and stated that the one-size-fits-all approach is unacceptable.
Under the new framework, the pledge was made to devote $200 billion annually to conservation by the end of the decade, including public, corporate, and charitable support. By 2025, wealthy nations will also contribute $20 billion in annual aid to developing nations, which are home to the majority of the world’s remaining biodiversity. By 2030, the amount rises to $30 billion annually. The framework tries to divert government monies away from activities that affect the environment while also channeling money toward conservation. According to a 2022 study, countries pay up to $1.8 trillion on subsidies that harm ecosystems, including those for fossil fuels. Countries agreed to identify harmful subsidies by 2025 and then reduce them by at least $500 billion annually by 2030 as part of one of the framework’s goals. However, there should be more wholesale shift in the economy towards business activities that benefit nature.
Will anything change?
Developing nations with access to forests need greater aid, and that aid must be simple to obtain. Since the agreement isn’t enforceable, there is a question of accountability and it lacks a defined procedure for periodically “ratcheting up” or increasing the ambition of aims. Working by consensus among many countries means that these agreements are the lowest common denominator of what the global community thinks must be done to tackle the climate and nature crises. This is not where you get cutting-edge policy or innovation. And this is why it’s noteworthy when Cops finish with an agreement that represents some sort of progress. Finally, we have a north-star target for biodiversity that can provide that same level of focus as the temperature targets do for climate. Although the framework falls short in many ways and fails to prompt the vital transformation of sectors that are driving biodiversity’s rapid decline it nonetheless draws a line in the sand and a starting point from which to build on. Of course, none of this will mean anything unless it’s implemented – and that requires governments to urgently develop clear plans to achieve these goals. After all, the survival of humanity and all other life on Earth depends on it.
*President, India Water Foundation
