Governments, civil society, scientists, youth, academia, artists, and media professionals gathered under the theme of 'Taking Action for Nature' at COP17 Armenia to bring about collective action on biodiversity protection and nature restoration.
Reviewing targets and protocols
COP17 Armenia conducted the first global review of the collective implementation progress of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF). The KMGBF is set on 23 global biodiversity targets which are to be completed by 2030 in line with the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS).
Targets two and three, restoring 30% of all degraded ecosystems and conserving and effectively managing 30% of land, waters, and seas, respectively, took precedence in the KMGBF discussions. There has also been significant discourse on how KMGBF can be financed, how actors and stakeholders responsible for it can be accountable, and how its credibility can be ensured.
Strengthening biosafety by monitoring living modified organisms (LMO), reduction of invasive alien species, compliance and accountability, monitoring and evaluation, and ensuring gender equality and gender-responsive approach for biodiversity action were also discussed.
There was little difference in technical opinion on biodiversity protection, but there is hesitation in resource mobilization and funding implementation.
These conversations generated three critical questions:
- Who will finance restoration and conservation, and if so, how much should be allocated?
- How can we ensure continued implementation and accountability of the funding and action?
- How can global decisions be transferred to national and local levels in a measurable way?
The commitment to address these grand questions is there, but the scale, strength, and pace of the decisions are not enough.
One reason is the slow implementation of the National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAP) adopted by countries around the world. Another reason is the current economic and geopolitical trend. Their connection to biodiversity damage is not talked about enough.
The current global biodiversity funding gap stands at $700 billion. The GEF-9 Replenishment was announced, where new countries pledged close to $4.4bn. This barely scratches the surface of the gap. The CALI Fund adopted in COP16 Cali, Colombia garnered a lot of attention. It was initially created to collect private-sector contributions from industries that rely on genetic data in nature, for example big pharma, biotech companies, cosmetics giants, etc.
However, voluntary contributions have been measly. No major corporation contributed to the CALI Fund. Participants mainly talked about ensuring fair and equitable commercialisation and benefit-sharing of genetic data.
The polarity of financing perspectives is a recurring challenge that raises questions. Developing countries seek international finance to do the work. Developed countries, on the other hand, urged diversification of funding sources.
But how can we generate financial mechanisms that ensure direct access to local communities? How can we combine grants, loans, and other financial instruments to develop these mechanisms? How can we achieve more transparency in these processes?
The rights of nature and people
Target 18 of the KMGBF, which is reducing incentives and subsidies harmful for biodiversity by at least $500bn (for example phasing out pesticides) and introducing positive incentives without affecting biodiversity was up for debate and requires great political will.
This also applies to biodiversity-protected areas. There are calls to ensure improved and practical ecosystem development, biodiversity protection coordinated with livelihoods, community rights, and equitable governance.
One way is to acknowledge the legal rights of nature. Advocates explained how ecosystems and species have legal rights just like humans. This puts nature as a living entity at equal legal footing with humans, not as their property, such as Panama's Rights of Nature Law adopted in 2023.
Corporations harming these rights would be violating law. Such perspectives and laws can better support conservation and biodiversity protection, but inclusive implementation with women, youth, and indigenous communities is important here.
Aligning actions around the Rio Conventions
Integrating climate action and biodiversity action without duplicating mandates is fundamental if we are to address all three Rio Conventions -- climate change, desertification, and biodiversity.There was no structured discourse on Rio synergy in the conference.
There were talks about carbon trading and how local communities can participate and benefit from carbon trading marketplaces. If their ownership, stake, and decision-making remain, they can manage natural resources best without overexploitation. It will allow countries to maintain the carbon credit trade and reduce emissions sustainably.
For Bangladesh to make use of this market, mangrove restoration and wetland conservation are great areas to start.
The use of technology and AI in developing biodiversity information systems was met with optimism. Armenia and Colombia jointly committed to finance endangered species conservation through private sector engagement. There is hope to achieve all 23 targets by 2030, but things still do not look too good.
From a Global South perspective, we raised concerns about how biodiversity conservation should complement livelihoods, respect community experiences, and engage people of faith.
We must consider the Rio synergies, and we must ensure multi-stakeholder governance and multilateral cooperation. We urged governments and experts to create a structured method to measure impact on ecosystem recovery, species conservation status, livelihood resilience outcomes, and equitable benefit sharing.
Science should be able to influence policy-making and economics and create tripartite solutions. We have committed to nature, to the world, and to the people with the KMGBF. Without its implementation, we are failing ourselves.
Will the global review lead to stronger, measurable action before 2030? Will biodiversity finance and governance genuinely empower local communities?
The world does not need another declaration of concern about biodiversity loss. While we saw great progress in technical aspects, the success of that progress truly depends on political consensus.
If governments together can adopt these technical perspectives and put them into proper funding pathways, policy, and practice, there is hope for the future of biodiversity.
Kazi Amdadul Hoque is the Senior Director, Strategic Planning & Head of Climate Action at Friendship.