In the last post I explained what COP15 is: About finding consensus on the plan and path forward when it comes to our global efforts to remedy the biodiversity crisis we are without a shade of doubt heading towards.
Back in 2010 the signatories to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) defined the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Subsequently the convention’s Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 was published. Needless to say, that all the Aichi targets were missed – very much akin to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) (the predecessor of the Sustainable Development Targets, SDGs) back in 2015.
But as global Convention Politics go, rather than admitting to the failure, reflecting and genuinely trying to do better, a new plan is immediately drawn up to follow on from the just expired one.
And this is precisely what COP15 fundamentally is about: Its main purpose is to adopt the post-2020 global biodiversity framework, the first draft of which is publicly available for review (more on the process and preparations: here).
Similar to the Paris Climate Agreement, this framework draft outlines the currently discussed agreement version of an envisioned recovery route as per 2030.
Courtesy of the Royal Society.
Which hence evidently requires us to ask the following questions1:
- What exactly is the framework agreement (or, as it were, the draft version thereof)?
- What does it cover and encompass?
- Does it offer similar KPIs such as the SDG indicators?
- Are there enforcement mechanisms? If not why not? If yes, which ones?
- Assuming for a moment, that it will be adopted: what would, or could, that tangibly mean going forward?
Side note: Need a definition? Find out what Biodiversity is, and why it is important. And also how we measure it in more accessible terms.
2020 global biodiversity framework: What is it?
The official version of this sounds as follows:
The Framework builds on the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 (eds: mentioned and linked above). It sets out a plan to implement broad-based action to bring about a transformation in society’s relationship with biodiversity, ensuring that by 2050 the shared vision of ‘living in harmony with nature’ is fulfilled. (Source)
In less political wording:
The framework picks up what is left from the 2020 roadmap, and adds extra goals on top to stay in line with the insights gained through the global assessment report by IPBES (the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services) and the resulting recommendations.
Side note: the IPBES is for COP15 and the CBD the equivalent of what the IPCC is for the Paris Agreement and the currently ongoing COP26 in Glasgow.
2020 global biodiversity framework: Purpose, goals, deliverables?
Page 3 of the draft formulates the purpose of the framework as follows (Source):
- The framework aims to galvanize urgent and transformative action by Governments and all of society, including indigenous peoples and local communities, civil society, and businesses, to achieve the outcomes it sets out in its vision, mission, goals and targets, and thereby to contribute to the objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity, its Protocols, and other biodiversity related multilateral agreements, processes and instruments.
- The framework aims to facilitate implementation, which will be primarily through activities at the national level, with supporting action at the subnational, regional and global levels. Specifically, it provides a global, outcome-oriented framework for the development of national, and as appropriate, regional, goals and targets and, as necessary, the updating of national biodiversity strategies and action plans to achieve these, and to facilitate regular monitoring and review of progress at the global level. It also aims to promote synergies and coordination between the Convention on Biological Diversity and its Protocols, and other relevant processes.
In less political wording this means:
It is an document that intents to outline actions by the global society – albeit without singling out individual players and their responsibilities. It includes specific actions on national levels, as well a targets (read: deliverables / goals). It further goes as far as to suggest supporting action on regional level. The conceptual idea is one of ‘measure to manage’, which is why monitoring is featured so prominently.
2020 global biodiversity framework: Targets, Deliverables, KPIs, Enforcement
The framework functions on a dual timeline: A 2050 long-term goal timeline (page 4 to 6 of the draft framework), and a 2030 action target timeline (page 6 to 8 of the draft framework).
The 2030 timeline is built from 21 action-oriented targets as follows:
- Targets 1 to 8: Actions to ‘Reduce threads to biodiversity’
- Targets 9 to 13: Actions to ‘Meet people’s needs through sustainable use and benefit-sharing’
- Targets 14 to 21: Actions related to ;Tools and solutions for implementation and mainstreaming’
Targets in the first group (No.1 to 8) come with a measurable KPI indication.
Example taken from Target 2: Ensure that at least 20 per cent of degraded freshwater, marine and terrestrial ecosystems are under restoration, ensuring connectivity among them and focusing on priority ecosystems.
Targets in the second and third group are formulated a lot softer, and will therefore be much harder to encourage concrete action and implementation.
More than anything, the framework does – similar to the Paris Agreement – require individual nations to set their own targets, which shall be inlined with the overall global required deliverable target.
And this is exactly where the biggest hurdle is: there is – like with climate targets – no saying that indeed any one nation will not only a) declare scientifically sound targets but also b) swing into sift action to actually achieve them.
Given the realities we are faced with in the Climate Goal context, it is a bit early to get our hopes overly high.
Enforcement therefore will once more only come from the pressure in the streets: from us individual citizens campaigning to be heard by our politicians, and in that way force them to commit and follow through on promises.
2020 global biodiversity framework: What is its weight?
Similar to the Paris Agreement the framework is a multi-laterally negotiated document – and therewith a voluntary undertaking. It relies on such voluntary action being taken by national governments in the shape of policies and laws or similar initiatives.
Similar to the Paris Agreement: if country cannot be a$$$$’ed to do the necessary, there is very little than indeed can be done. And those measures that do exist (in today’s terms things such as: trade barriers, carbon taxes) are highly unlikely to be applied in reality.
2020 global biodiversity framework: Will it create change?
The answer hereto is a clear: Yes. And also ‘No’.
Yes, because:
In order to create such a framework, an awful lot of science and scientifically sound measurement and assessment methods had and have to be used. This is very good news.
The parallel to the climate change conversation: if the IPCC and all related scientific efforts such as climate modelling etc had not become ever more accurate, not delivered ever more certain evidence that the human civilisation is indeed driving global temperature rises, COP26-like discussion forays would be entirely impossible.
Such scientific insights further are also applied in non-geo-political contexts: the finance industry in order to de-risk their assets; or manufacturing to look at new production locations or the decommissioning of old ones.
Hence, what the IPBES gives us as assessment, methodologies and insights, is finding its way already into real-life applications. One of those is for example the Task Force for Nature-related Finacnial Disclosure (TNFD), the equivalent of the Task Force for Climate-related Financial Disclose (TCFD).
No, because:
The flip-side is, which became rather quite apparent in the recent Kunming meetings: we’re a far way off for Biodiversity to be felt as urgent an issue as Climate Change. As a consequence, there is realistically speaking not a single politician that will kick into action any time soon with reliable commitments and follow throughs.
Unless that is, we citizens do what we should have done a long time ago: Namely lean rather quite heavily on our own country’s politicians; be vocal in the public and demand commitments and action.
We learned as children: It is the squeaky wheel that gets the grease.
It is ‘high-noon’ to take that lesson to heart and use it for the good of the generations that hopefully will still follow us onto and across this planet.
1 Based on the draft version dated 5 July 2021, available online here.
