COP15 on Biodiversity: A Historic Agreement, but Vague and Non-Binding

While the world’s attention was focused on the World Cup, a different kind of “match” was taking place in Montreal: COP15, or the 15th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. On Monday, December 19, the 196 parties adopted a new strategic plan to guide international action through 2030: the “Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.” This agreement is historic, but its non-binding nature—as well as the sometimes problematic vagueness of several of the stated goals—is regrettable. Carbone 4 offers an in-depth analysis.

COPs for Biodiversity?

Shortly after the conclusion of COP27 in Sharm el-Sheikh, COP15 opened on December 7 in Montreal. Although they receive far less media attention than their climate counterparts, the COPs on biodiversity also stem from a a multilateral treaty adopted at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio: the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). This agreement has three main objectives:

• Biodiversity conservation;
• The sustainable use of its components;
• The fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources.

Every two years, the 196 parties to the CBD meet at a “Conference of the Parties” (COP) to review progress, set priorities, and decide on work plans.

And there’s plenty of work to be done. In its 2019 report on biodiversity and ecosystem services, IPBES^[1] estimates that 75% of terrestrial habitats and 66% of marine habitats are “severely altered” by human activities. The total number of animal and plant species threatened with extinction in the coming decades is estimated at 1 million^[2]. In less than half a century, the populations of more than 20,000 species of mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, and fish have declined by two-thirds^[3]. “ Nature is declining globally at a rate unprecedented in human history—and the rate of species extinction is accelerating, already causing serious effects on human populations around the world "warns IPBES in its report. The figures speak for themselves: We must take urgent action to halt the collapse of the natural world.

A Long-Awaited but Delayed COP

Against the backdrop of growing awareness of planetary boundaries—including the biodiversity threshold, which has already been exceeded—COP15 was long overdue. Originally scheduled to take place in Kunming, China, in October 2020, it was postponed several times due to the health crisis. The first part of the conference finally took place in October 2021, mostly online, and resulted in the Kunming Declaration: a set of 17 overarching objectives to guide the negotiations. After several postponements, the second part of the COP was finally rescheduled for Montreal, from December 7 to 19, 2022.

Leading up to the conference, this COP was billed as the most important of the decade. Often compared to the COP21 climate conference, many stakeholders shared the hope of reaching a “Paris Agreement” on biodiversity. Its main goal? To finalize and adopt thePost-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework^[4]. This was intended to replace the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020, a framework adopted by the parties at COP10 in Nagoya that expired in 2020. None of the targets (known as the “Aichi” targets) in that previous plan had been met by the set deadlines. It was therefore against this rather bleak backdrop that COP15 was tasked with turning things around in order to establish a new framework for action for the coming decade.

The negotiations to draft the agreement did not start from scratch: a working group had already been drafting proposals since 2021. However, despite four preliminary working sessions, just a few days before the event began, many passages of the text remained “in brackets,” meaning they were still the subject of disagreement among the parties. A fifth preparatory session was held just before the start of the COP in an attempt to resolve these issues.

This COP therefore faced a major challenge: to establish a path for international action commensurate with the urgency of the situation ; and this comes after two years of delays, significant disagreements among countries, and a notable failure during the previous period. However, unlike at COP27 on climate change, no heads of state were present at the event, raising concerns about a lack of political commitment to the issue of biodiversity.

An agreement signed at the last minute

The negotiations were particularly difficult in the early days, with the parties struggling to reach an agreement on many points, and tensions particularly running high over the issue of financing. After two weeks of intense negotiations and China’s proposal of a new draft text, The bill was finally passed on the night of December 18–19, just before the event ended.

Some countries have denounced a forceful move for the adoption of the agreement. While, in principle, any decision must be made by consensus among the 196 parties, Some countries (including the Congo) were still in disagreement at the time of the final adoption, particularly regarding the proposed subsidies for countries in the Global South. Cameroon and Uganda then denounced the COP presidency’s high-handed approach.

Thus, after raising the possibility that no agreement would be reached, the parties finally managed to reach consensus on a new strategic plan for the period 2022–2030, through the adoption of the "Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework," the official text of which is available here.

The overall objective is to halt and reverse the decline in biodiversity, in order to contribute to the “2050 vision of living in harmony with nature.” To this end, the framework sets out:

• 4 Major Objectives long-term (2050)
• 23 Action Targets for 2030, presented in the following section
• Some planning, monitoring, and review mechanisms, which indicators to use, etc., in joint documents

The 2030 Goals of the “Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework”

The flagship goal of the Kunming-Montreal Framework is to achieve 30% of areas (marine, coastal, terrestrial, and freshwater) protected globally by 2030 (Target 3). Two other key targets round out this point: reduce the loss of areas of high biodiversity importance "close to zero" by 2030(Target 1), and restore "at least 30%" of degraded areas by 2030(Target 2).

On the economic front, the framework provides for a a reduction in subsidies harmful to biodiversity by $500 billion per year by 2030 (Target 18). This point largely concerns subsidies provided to conventional agriculture. In addition, mobilizing $200 billion per year for biodiversity ...by 2030 has also been announced, of which at least $25 billion per year by 2025 and $30 billion per year by 2030 will be allocated to countries in the Global South(Target 19). These funds encompass all financing dedicated to biodiversity, whether public or private. They will be managed by the Global Environment Facility (GEF).

For agriculture, The framework sets a target of reducing pesticide-related risks by at least 50% by 2030 (Target 7). It also calls for a "sustainable management" in the agriculture, aquaculture, fisheries, and forestry sectors (Target 10).

The text also discusses the role that businesses and financial institutions can play, and these being "encouraged" to evaluate and make public their risks, dependencies, and impacts on biodiversity (Target 15).

Another well-defined target is a a 50% reduction in the rate at which invasive species are introduced is targeted for 2030 (Target 6). The issue of the equitable sharing of benefits related to genetic resources is also mentioned in the framework (Target 13), but the definition of the specific details has been deferred to COP16, which will take place in Turkey. A notable step forward, The Rights and Significance of Indigenous Peoples are duly acknowledged in various parts of the text.

A welcome agreement, but one that is nonbinding and often vague

The adoption of the Kunming-Montreal Framework represents a significant step forward, first because it establishes a an international benchmark for action on behalf of living things, but also because some of the goals it sets out are ambitious. But Several points remain unclear, and leave plenty of room for interpretation. Furthermore, as with the Paris Agreement, it is regrettable that this agreement is not not binding.

Protected Areas and Restoration

The goal of achieving 30% protected areas is sometimes presented as the equivalent of a “1.5°C target” for biodiversity, but it is far from being as comprehensive or as ambitious. First, reversing biodiversity loss cannot be achieved through this target alone. Furthermore, the text does not require no criteria regarding the quality of protection (or restoration for Target 1), which leaves a great deal of room for interpretation. Without further clarification, these “emblematic” targets are, in a sense, empty shells. For example, in France, although marine protected areas account for more than 30% of the country’s maritime territory, less than 2% of them are actually under strict protection; in the remaining 28%, industrial fishing and extractive activities are permitted, continuing to destroy ecosystems there^[5].

Finally, although this 30% target is ambitious (currently, only 17% of land and 8% of the oceans are protected), some scientists estimate that about 50% of the Earth’s surface would need to be protected to halt the loss of biodiversity^[6].

Funding

In terms of funding, while the target amounts represent a doubling from current levels^[7], they remain well below the $500–700 billion per year deemed necessary by some observers (for example, Julien Rochette of IDDRI^[8]) for implementing the framework. Similarly, the amount allocated to countries in the Global South, although significantly higher, is considered insufficient by many of them, who had called for $100 billion in support per year. Furthermore, beyond the amounts set, the source of the funding has not been specified, and therefore the release of these funds remains uncertain. This is especially true given that, contrary to what was advocated by several countries and NGOs, there will be no specific fund dedicated to biodiversity.

Agriculture and Pesticides

Regarding pesticides, it should be noted that Target 7 (the “-50%” target), which has faced significant opposition, does not directly address a reduction in pesticide use but only the associated “risks.” As with protected areas, this wording leaves considerable room for interpretation. However, as ecologist Paul Leadley points out, it may be more effective to target risks rather than the volumes applied, given the varying toxicity of the products used^[9].

With regard to the requirement for a "sustainable management" in the agriculture, aquaculture, fisheries, and forestry sectors, the text mentions solutions (such as “agroecology,” but also “sustainable intensification” or “other innovative approaches”) without providing specific criteria.

Several notable absences

The frame does not no mention of industrial fishing, even though it is the leading cause of destruction of marine ecosystems. Similarly, there is no no mention of livestock farming or meat-based diets, even as crops grown for animal feed are significantly increasing the demand for agricultural land, and their expansion generally comes at the expense of natural habitats^[10]. Although the need to reduce consumption of animal-based products is a finding shared by both the IPCC and IPBES, no target explicitly addresses this issue^[11].

Furthermore, the text does not propose any regulations for businesses, and does not mention no goals for reducing the ecological footprint of production systems.

A text that is often vague and never binding

Finally, some points remain very abstract, with no figures or deadlines: for example, the text calls for urgent action to halt species extinctions linked to human activities without providing further details (Target 6), and several passages refer to educating and raising awareness among decision-makers and civil society, but without ever setting out any obligations or quantified targets.

Several observers have pointed out the agreement’s many gray areas, as well as its non-binding nature—a characteristic typical of global agreements reached by consensus among nations. Throughout the event, numerous protests denounced the conferences as “hypocritical,” arguing that they would only serve to maintain the status quo.

The introduction of a monitoring mechanism

To avoid repeating the mistakes of the previous global framework, the adopted agreement introduces a mechanism to monitor the framework’s implementation—a mechanism that was absent from the Aichi Targets. The framework thus provides for a analysis of theNational Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAP) at each COP, accompanied by a comprehensive progress report for COP17 (2026) and COP19 (2030)^[12]. Given the urgency of the situation, it was necessary to establish a monitoring process that was more frequent than the usual ten-year intervals.

It is therefore now up to the member states to draft or update their national strategies before COP 16 (2024), and then to implement the appropriate regulations. In France, the revision of the National Biodiversity Strategy (SNB) is scheduled for early 2023.

Good news for living things?

Most of the people involved on the ground and the media outlets covering the event agree that to describe this agreement as historic.

In many respects, the framework adopted signals a substantial progress compared to previous international negotiations, which was all the more highly praised given the tedious first few days of negotiations and the overall context (lack of high-level commitment in political circles, lack of media coverage, the war in Ukraine, the World Cup, etc.). In particular, the the proposed increase in ambitions regarding international action, the framework’s fairly broad scope, and the establishment of a short-term monitoring mechanism, were praised.

It should be noted, however, several omissions or key points left out of the texts, and a few very vague objectives that are not quantified and/or do not have specific deadlines. In particular, because it requires consensus, the COP decision-making process often results in texts that are not very concrete and are nonbinding, leaving states with broad leeway for interpretation.

In particular, the symbolic target of 30% protected areas is quite characteristic of the agreement as a whole: a significant increase in ambition compared to past agreements, but also fundamental shortcomings in the actual implementation (What are the criteria for protection?) that leave the door open to many possible scenarios, including the most cynical ones (areas with “protected” status but where activities harmful to living organisms can still take place).

While, overall, this agreement sends a clear (and historic) signal calling for international action to protect biodiversity—notably by highlighting the problems and suggesting some solutions—nothing is certain at this stage. The most important part is still to come: The impact of this agreement will depend entirely on the effective implementation of the stated objectives, and therefore the way in which Governments and businesses will adopt them and translate them into laws, measures, and action plans. The national strategies that signatory states are expected to propose in the coming months will provide an initial glimpse of what’s to come, starting with France’s National Biodiversity Strategy, which is scheduled to be revised in early 2023.

Resources / Further Reading

• The draft of the official text

Other related documents:

• planning, monitoring, reporting, and review mechanisms ;
• the indicators in the monitoring framework ;
• information on the genetic sequencing of genetic resources ;
• resource mobilization ;
• capacity building, development, and scientific and technical cooperation.

• Paloma Moritz's Video Blast: "Saving the Climate Won't Be Enough to Save Humanity"? : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnVEnLm9aWA