Two weeks of talks meant to prepare for an international agreement on reversing the destruction biodiversity have only resulted in minor steps forward.
Observers are calling for the same leadership that was shown in the lead-up to the Paris climate agreement to give urgency to the Geneva talks.
“This could potentially be a really historic moment, in many ways, that we’ve waited for for a while,” Marco Lambertini from WWF International told DW.
Lambertini stated that “In the past two weeks, we made a significant progress on a number very important elements of our biodiversity framework.” “But there is still much to be done.”
“As we move ahead, political leadership will be crucial to resolve some stickiest issues and to drive consensus. We are asking heads of states, prime ministers, and ministers of the environment to lead that leadership,” Lambertini stated. Greenpeace also supported Lambertini’s call.
Another pre-Kunming session is announced
The talks were meant to help consolidate the draft text for a new global biodiversity framework, under the auspices UN Convention on Biological Diversity. The text must be available for final negotiations at the COP15 in Kunming in China later in the year.
After another round of delayed talks, however, the document is still a mess of so-called bracketed text. Multiple options for paragraphs are presented, sometimes with completely different meanings. This will be settled at a later date. It is still messy enough that another round has been announced for Nairobi by pre-Kunming to get the text in shape for the final round.
David Cooper, the CBD’s deputy executive secretary, stated to DW that although the text was messy, it was a crucial part of the process. He also said that this was a sign that there was progress.
He said that “on the positive side, there are all the elements that the various parties would like to have in these goals and targets,” between sessions.
He said, “Of course there have been times during the discussions when there have been difficulties.” “And we must acknowledge that countries will have differing interests, even though they all share a common interest in addressing biodiversity crisis.” I believe countries have been constructive in trying to resolve their differences.
2030 is a win for Nature
Lambertini claimed that one of the most important wins of this conference came from the inclusion of a 2030 goal in the draft framework.
“The most impressive thing and the most exciting thing … is we now have in the draft agreement: a ‘Mission 2030,'” he said. “Some countries asked for a Vision 2050’ only. It was, frankly, a joke, given the urgency.
“So we pushed very hard,” he said, “and, finally, we got the agreement on a ‘Mission 2030’ that actually embraces a really ambitious global goal for nature.”
“Not much progress”
An Lambrechts, Greenpeace biodiversity specialist, stated that the talks in Geneva were disappointing.
She said, “We had anticipated it to be complicated.” She said that it was disappointing to see it remain complex until the end, and that there has been little progress.
To her relief, the messy text still contains promising words on some of Greenpeace’s critical issues, including Indigenous peoples rights and community rights. The possibility of a Kunming-based agreement is possible if some of the less ambitious bracketed texts are kept in place.
Financing and monitoring are hampered by major obstacles
There are still significant hurdles to overcome in the agreement. These include how funding will be allocated and how goals will ultimately be measured.
Although countries are aware that more money will be needed to address the loss of biodiversity, which is estimated at $100-150 trillion extra per year, there is still much disagreement about where these funds should come. The issue of removing national subsidies for nature-destroying activities is also a difficult one.
Monitoring and data are crucial to the success of the agreement. Poor monitoring was the reason for many of the ambitious 2010 Aichi targets being missed.
Other roadblocks can be caused by countries themselves. Argentina and Brazil are often accused of conspiring to impede progress.
The European Union was also accused of being a spectator at the talks. And, critically, the Chinese presidency has been accused of not showing the leadership required of a host country, in contrast to the steering provided by the United Kingdom at climate talks in Glasgow in 2021.
Scientists believe that the open sharing of genetic sequence data was a key component of the deal. Despite being agreed upon, it still faced unusual Bolivian opposition.
A deal is vital
These obstacles aside, scientists and environmentalists believe that Kunming needs to be secured in a positive way.
Scientists say that biodiversity loss is a dangerous force that threatens humanity as well as climate change. The Earth is already in the throes for its sixth mass extinction.
Kirsten Thonicke is a researcher at Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. She is also the speaker for Leibniz Research Network Biodiversity. The world has just a decade to reverse the decline in biodiversity.
Thonicke stated, “The longer that we wait, and the longer that we delay decisions the worse it will get,” “And then, we must make stricter decisions and implement more policies. This could lead to societies being destabilized or under stress. We cannot afford to lose time. We are at a point where we can’t afford failure. We need some kind of agreement.”
