Following the Aichi failures, how will the world meet its biodiversity targets?
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is a multilateral treaty created to protect global biodiversity. It is widely acknowledged as the universal framework for action on biodiversity, and a global foundation for sustainable development.
Following the failure to meet a single target set in 2010, the CBD parties are developing a “post-2020 global biodiversity framework”. This framework will replace the targets set in Aichi in 2010, and will serve as the guiding document for implementing the Convention’s goals. The Convention requires that parties prepare national biodiversity strategy and action plans (NBSAPs) in line with the Framework, and ensure that this strategy is included in planning and management for activities in all sectors where biodiversity may be impacted.
In July, a first draft of a new post-2020 framework was agreed upon by the 196 parties to the CBD, which can be read here. Between the 22nd of August and the 3rd of September, New Zealand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) will participate in a post-2020 working group to refine the draft text.
As a non-binding agreement, commitments to the targets are voluntary and non-compulsory, meaning states retain sovereignty over biodiversity within their borders. The question of how to effectively translate the targets into national legislation remains largely discretionary-- it is a “flexible framework”, rather than a concrete set of instructions.
This flexibility is necessary, and there exists no universal approach that will work for every party. However, this makes it even more important that the goals of the framework are made explicitly clear; the targets are measurable and achievable; and the language used reflects a crisis of urgent priority.
At present, the post-2020 framework draft adopts a keenly diplomatic tone throughout. Words like “necessary” and “appropriate” and “recommended” are used to describe many of the ambitions. While this type of language reflects the inevitable complexity of negotiating non-binding targets, they also allow states a worrying amount of wiggle-room in terms of implementation. As we saw in Aichi, ambiguous suggestions can create troubling loopholes for states to undershoot their obligations.
To avoid another Aichi “implementation gap”, every word of this framework matters. In ELI’s view, as articulated in our submission to MFAT, the language surrounding implementation must be strengthened to appropriately reflect the scale and urgency of the crisis we’re facing.
The truth is that states no longer have the luxury of simply “considering” biodiversity conservation in their planning strategies -- they must actively prioritise biodiversity across all sectors. This includes the prioritisation of indigenous perspectives in decision-making, priority-setting, and sustainable management at a local and national level. Vague language, like “appropriate recognition” and “biodiversity values” will not suffice.
Sparing you the grave statistics, of which there are many, we are facing a crisis of untold suffering for both human and non-human life on earth. Biodiversity underpins all the fundamental pillars of human wellbeing: food security; access to clean water; breathable air; human health. The cost of inaction is much greater than the cost of implementation. And if we fail on the latter, we’ll all pay the price.
As global leaders reckon with the most recent IPCC report, and the world continues its trajectory into “the sixth mass extinction,” the stakes involved in the revised framework could not be higher.
Any global action on biodiversity must start with the explicit recognition of these urgencies with strong, clear, and measurable targets and language.
Parties to the CBD intend to meet virtually between 23rd of August and the 3rd of September to exchange initial views on draft goals and targets.
