The agreements from the COP15 biodiversity summit are voluntary and non-binding, but the setting of goals and how to monitor progress will create more accountability
Opinion: All bar two countries in the world signed up to the United Nations' historic Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework this week. Its overarching goal is for humanity to begin reversing its destruction of nature by 2030, with protection for 30 percent of the planet’s land and sea by then as its main driver of change.
The bold outcome was even more remarkable given the 13-day summit in Montreal had gone badly in its first week. Many critical targets in the draft text were deleted; negotiators from 60 developing nations temporarily walked out to protest against the intransigence of developed countries on some issues; and heads of half the governments in the world were not coming for the final political push for an agreement.
Fears mounted that the summit, COP15, could end up being as big a disaster for biodiversity as the UN’s 2009 Copenhagen summit was for climate.
Yet in the second week of negotiations, the political tide began to turn. More common ground was found, enabling the draft agreement to be strengthened in some areas. Like the Paris Agreement, it is voluntary and non-binding for countries. But the setting of goals and mechanisms to monitor and report on them will create more accountability than in the past.
READ MORE: * NZ is on climate glide time * NZ absent on COP27 agriculture day * NZ needs to show same leadership in biodiversity as climate crisis
“Now you can have a report card,” said Basile van Havre, the Canadian who co-chaired the negotiations. “Money, monitoring and targets” would make the difference this time, he said.
The UN’s previous 10-year biodiversity framework, the Aichi Targets, failed to meet any of its 20 goals in its decade to 2020. It only managed a bit of progress on six.
"It is truly a moment that will mark history as Paris did for climate," Steven Guilbeault, Environment Minister of Canada, told reporters on Monday. Not everyone was convinced. Lawyers for the environmental law charity ClientEarth said the final agreement was "noteworthy" but stopped short of a Paris moment.
Dr Abigail Entwistle of Fauna & Flora International likewise noted its weakness but still offered a Paris metaphor. “Now more than ever we're circling the Paris ring road. We need to give the framework a chance, hoping it is enough to pull everyone – governments, businesses and citizens – in the same direction to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030."
The countries that failed to sign the agreement were the US and the Holy See. Neither were eligible to do so because they are the only two nations that are not signatories to the UN’s Convention on Biological Diversity.
In the US case, Republican members of Congress have long resisted the US signing international treaties. President Joe Biden has signed an executive order that would similarly protect 30 percent of United States land and waters. But any legislative efforts to support that goal will face strong opposition when Republicans take control of the House of Representatives in January.
‘The framework recognises the essential contribution of Māori and other indigenous peoples as kaitiaki, to the sustainable management and conservation of nature. It is now up to us, individually and in partnership with others, to play our part’ – Minister of Conservation Poto Williams
In contrast, China played a leading role as president of COP15. It began its term by hosting the preliminary negotiations in Kunming, China, late last year. But China’s strict Covid controls earlier this year forced a decision to move the final negotiations to Montreal.
In Montreal, China’s Minister of Ecology and Environment, Huang Runqiu, proved to be an effective conference president. However, he caused some controversy by bringing down the official gavel despite the Democratic Republic of the Congo refusing to support it. The DRC, endowed with rainforests, protested and called the final pact illegal and against the rules of the negotiations, though the UN dismissed the complaint.
Li Shuo, global policy advisor for Greenpeace China, said China lent significant weight to the negotiations and bridged the divide between richer and poorer nations.
"Today's outcome demonstrates that position can forge global progress," he said. "It is a landmark deal that should propel China to embrace a bigger role in championing nature on the international stage."
The New Zealand government strongly supported the deal, said Minister of Conservation Poto Williams, who led our delegation in Montreal.
"Importantly, the framework also reflects an understanding that climate change and biodiversity loss are inextricably linked and must be addressed together.
"New Zealand has been an early adopter, with commitments in our first Emissions Reduction Plan and National Adaptation Plan to ensure climate action enhances biodiversity and prioritises nature-based solutions wherever possible.
"We recently committed $1.3 billion in international climate finance. At least half will support Pacific Island countries and includes a focus on nature-based solutions and the protection of biodiversity."
Williams also emphasised the agreement’s strong language in support of indigenous people.
"The framework recognises the essential contribution of Māori and other indigenous peoples as kaitiaki, to the sustainable management and conservation of nature. It is now up to us, individually and in partnership with others, to play our part. In Aotearoa, we will implement our commitments through Te Mana o te Taiao, our national biodiversity strategy."
Jennifer Corpuz, a representative of the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity and managing director of policy at Nia Tero, a US-based NGO, said inclusion of language about indigenous rights in the agreement was ground-breaking.
Target 15 says policymakers will “encourage and enable” businesses to assess, monitor and disclose their impacts on biodiversity, but the absence of the word “mandatory” weakens the target
The new global framework lays out 23 environmental targets, led by the overall goal of protecting 30 percent of the planet’s land and sea by 2030, known as 30 x 30. That will be an immense challenge for almost every country. Globally, only 17 percent of the planet’s land and 8 percent of its oceans are protected currently, with restrictions on activities such as fishing, farming and mining.
Countries also agreed to manage the remaining 70 percent of the planet to avoid losing areas of high importance to biodiversity.
Among other key goals, Target 19 was one of the most fiercely contested. It calls for financial resources from all sources to reach US$200 billion a year to help tackle the global biodiversity crisis. But the language seems to assume much of it would come from countries’ domestic spending on protecting nature. That’s a very broad description that might include money for national parks, agriculture and other activities and funds from philanthropy, private capital and other sources.
Developing countries pushed for US$100b a year to flow from wealthy countries to poorer nations. But the text mentions only that US$30b a year comes from developed countries by 2030.
Another highly contentious issue was whether a new fund should be established specifically for biodiversity. Developing countries such as the DRC, Brazil and Malaysia expressed disappointment that a new, separate fund was not agreed.
Target 18 aims to reform harmful environmental subsidies that run to an estimated US$1.8 trillion a year. The final text says harmful subsidies should be reduced by at least US$500b a year by the end of this decade. Though it doesn’t specify whether they should be eliminated, phased out or reformed, it is still one of the strongest parts of the pact.
Target 15 says policymakers will “encourage and enable” businesses to assess, monitor and disclose their impacts on biodiversity, but the absence of the word “mandatory” weakens the target.
In other targets, risks from pesticides and highly hazardous chemicals would be reduced by at least half. However, the text does not address cutting their overall use. Again, this is a weakness. Ecosystems would benefit from less use of pesticides rather than simply reducing the risk they cause.
Likewise, the language on plastic pollution has also been weakened. The final text says countries should be “working towards eliminating plastic pollution. But it does not call for quantifiable targets.
Moreover, the phrase “nature positive” was removed from the draft of the Montreal agreement, even though it is the biodiversity equivalent of “net zero” in the Paris Agreement.
As important as the breakthroughs of the framework are it will take, like the Paris Agreement, some years of intensive negotiation and action by civil society, businesses and politicians to generate real momentum for change.
