On 19th December 2022, world leaders adopted the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. This, arguably historic, outcome contains goals and targets to protect and restore nature.[1] Will they make a difference to the catastrophic declines in biodiversity - species abundance and diversity and quality of the habitats they require – that many have been calling for?

The 15th Conference of the Parties to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD COP15) in Montreal was the biggest of its kind in a decade.[2] In the run-up to the seasonal festivities, it was easy to ignore the work undertaken prior to and at the gathering in Canada (‘the most important summit you’ve never heard of’[3]), itself delayed and a postponed ‘second-half’ following a Covid-delayed on-line gathering hosted in Kunming, China, in 2021. Many concerned eyes had earlier watched with some unsurprised disappointment at October’s COP27 Climate Change summit in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, and the failure of national leaders to commit to drastically reducing greenhouse gas emissions required to prevent global temperatures from rising above 1.5°C. And this had at least caught the attention of the media.

The UK Prime Minister didn’t attend the Montreal summit; nevertheless, the government called “on the world to unite and agree a deal that delivers for nature and ends species extinction.”[1]  Indeed, the UK delegation at COP15, led by Thérèse Coffey, DEFRA and agency staff, accompanied by a range of NGOs – including the Wildlife Trusts and WWF – made a strong push for meaningful progress, and all with a keen eye on the red lines that shouldn’t be crossed.

Given that everything had to be agreed by all 193 countries (the signatories of the CBD), there was always a danger that consensus would result in lowest common denominators. Major concerns were the dilution of key targets, and about funding the required measures, especially the balance between richer countries primarily causing extinctions and damage to biodiversity and those poorer countries affected by nature’s loss. 

Towards the end of the summit, in an “extraordinary plenary” that lasted for more than seven hours, countries wrangled over the wording of the final draft agreement. At the point when signatures were expected the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) objected; the COP President, Huang Runqiu, withdrew all six reports to be signed, and then returned with China’s environment minister, signalling that the agreement was finished and agreed, despite objections from the DRC (with support from Cameroon and Uganda) the rest of the hall applauded.[2]

‘A real historic moment for nature’ (Craig Bennett, CEO, The Wildlife Trusts)

The Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) has four long-term goals for 2050 related to the 2050 Vision for Biodiversity and 23 action-oriented global targets for urgent action over the decade to 2030. These include:

• Restore 30% degraded ecosystems globally (on land and sea) by 2030
• Conserve and manage 30% areas (terrestrial, inland water, and coastal and marine) by 2030
• Stop the extinction of known species, and by 2050 reduce tenfold the extinction risk and rate of all species (including unknown)
• Reduce risk from pesticides by at least 50% by 2030
• Reduce nutrients lost to the environment by at least 50% by 2030
• Reduce pollution risks and negative impacts of pollution from all sources by 2030 to levels that are not harmful to biodiversity and ecosystem functions
• Reduce global footprint of consumption by 2030, including through significantly reducing overconsumption and waste generation and halving food waste
• Sustainably manage areas under agriculture, aquaculture, fisheries, and forestry and substantially increase agroecology and other biodiversity-friendly practices
• Tackle climate change through nature-based solutions
• Reduce the rate of introduction and establishment of invasive non-native species by at least 50% by 2030
• Secure the safe, legal and sustainable use and trade of wild species by 2030
• Green up urban spaces.

Critically the Framework also recognises the roles and rights of indigenous peoples in contributing to these targets, placing a moral weight in their role in the sustainable management of natural resources.

In addition, and arguably the third ‘win’ from COP15, is money.  The Kunming-Montreal agreement will significantly increase the mobilisation of finance for biodiversity from all sources, domestic, international – both public and private - mobilising at least US$ 200 billion per year by 2030. It will create incentives for domestic and international sources, including from business investment. It also addresses subsidies harmful to biodiversity (e.g. those for agriculture, industry and fisheries), with the commitment to identify by 2025 and eliminate by 2030 a total of at least US$500 billion per year.  The UK Government played a strong role in securing these financial measures.[1]

What’s to worry about?

Governments have never met a target they have set for themselves on nature’s recovery in previous decades (e.g. the Aichi targets set in 2010); this Montreal-Kunming agreement has been the subject of a major push to change the years of failure, apathy and continued assaults on biodiversity.

Despite some really encouraging targets in the new GBF, some aspects are very high level, with many specific details missing, for example no date set for halting human-induced extinctions, or a precise target in terms of reducing the risks to biodiversity loss from human consumption.  Business reporting on biodiversity nature-related risks, whilst strong, are not mandatory.  In addition, the term ‘Nature Positive’, was not included – a loss that many believe will limit the impact of the GBF. An agreement committing the world to Nature Positive actions would have required that we halt all current biodiversity loss, but also, critically, that we start restoring what has already been lost. The removal of this from the final GBF significantly weakens the targets.  

What does it mean for the UK?

The embedding of 30x30 (to protect 30% of land and sea by 2030) is an impressive target, and mirrors that of the pledge made by the UK Government in 2020.

However, this pledge was based on a false baseline, the 26% of land ‘protected’ under existing designations, such as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and National Parks – these latter two are landscape designations, and often the biodiversity quality within these is poor. A more accurate assessment is that about 4% of the country is in good ecological shape, which will require a profound step up to achieve the 30% target in the next seven years. 

Cutting pesticides use risk (rather than quantity per se, as concentrations are critical) will be a major challenge, as will be the pledge to half nutrient pollution into waters by 2030. Agricultural run-off is the major cause of pollution in our rivers and waterbodies, and the Government’s nutrient neutrality requirement for new development will no longer be adequate.

Before the next COP in 2024, all signatory countries have to prepare updated National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans as well as National Biodiversity Finance Strategies. The UK Biodiversity Strategy is woefully outdated (published in 2011) and the Government’s recently announced but underwhelming biodiversity indicators (published on 14th December) will require reassessing (which the Government has already recognised). 

The GBF calls for non-state actors (e.g. businesses, NGOs) to play their role in meeting the targets, and The Wildlife Trusts, amongst others, will be holding the Government to account now that the GBF has been signed.

And for London?

Whilst the case for greening cities was made at COP15, many of the GBF commitments align with the current trajectory of policies and practices for making London richer in nature.  Not only in the ambitions but also some of the challenges and flaws.

However, the Mayor of London announced £3.8m of funding to boost green spaces and plant trees as negotiations took place in Montreal.  The money will come from the second round of the Green & Resilient Spaces Fund with £3m available to create or improve green spaces and £800,000 for tree-planting schemes, to help the city adapt to climate change.  

The Mayor’s London Rewilding Taskforce will shortly report on the opportunities to bring about larger and more connected wild spaces in and around the capital.  Not only will these contribute to habitat improvement and creation targets in the London Environment Strategy and borough Biodiversity Action Plans, but they will also help to form key foci for a Nature Recovery Network in London.[1] This will be identified through a London Nature Recovery Strategy to be developed by the Greater London Authority, London borough councils, London Wildlife Trust, Natural England and others.

Global conventions may appear abstract and lead to little meaningful action on the ground, but arguably the CBD signing in 1992 did result in some significant conservation activity in London from the mid-1990s through the Biodiversity Action Plan process, giving leverage to some key successes such as river restoration, dead wood conservation (for stag beetle, etc), green roofs, and heathland restoration.  The key now is to translate the new Global Biodiversity Framework into delivering nature’s recovery in London.

[1] www.gov.uk/government/news/new-deal-to-protect-nature-agreed-at-cop15

[2] The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is an international treaty signed at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 and entered into force in December 1993. The UK is one of the 193 signatory countries, only four aren’t: Andorra, South Sudan, United States of America and the Vatican.

[3] The New Statesman, 5^th December 2022

[4] www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-government-urges-countries-to-agree-a-deal-for-nature-as-un-convention-of-biological-diversity-gets-underway

[5] It is not without precedent that such actions are taken; despite an appeal by the DRC, the UN legal advisers ruled that their objections had not been raised in the appropriate manner, allowing the COP President to proceed.

[6] www.gov.uk/government/news/breakthrough-for-nature-recovery-as-billions-of-finance-committed-by-donors

[7] www.gov.uk/government/news/pm-commits-to-protect-30-of-uk-land-in-boost-for-biodiversity

[8] Quantities can be reduced, but concentrations increased to achieve the same result; this GBF target is to reduce the risks to biodiversity, which requires reductions in both.

[9] www.wildlifetrusts.org/news/environment-act-targets-defy-public

[10] www.gov.uk/government/publications/nature-recovery-network/nature-recovery-network