Two weeks of talks meant to prepare for an international agreement on reversing the destruction biodiversity have only resulted in minor steps forward.
Observers have called for the same level of political leadership as was seen in the Paris climate accord run-up, to bring urgency to the negotiations.
“This could be a really significant moment in many ways that have been waiting for a long while,” Marco Lambertini (director general of WWF International), told DW from Geneva.
Lambertini stated, “In the last 2 weeks, I believe we made significant progress on some very important elements in the 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 has been 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 ready for final negotiations at COP15 in Kunming, 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, said to DW that while the text was certainly messy, it was an important part of the process that was a sign of progress.
He stated between sessions, “On the positive side there are all of these elements that different parties would love to see in the goals and targets.”
He said, “Of course there have been times during the discussions when there have been difficulties.” “And we need to recognize that countries will have their own interests, even though all of them share the same interest in addressing the biodiversity crisis. I believe that countries have been very constructive in trying reconcile their differences.
2030: A win for nature
Lambertini claimed that one of the most important wins of the conference was the inclusion in the draft framework of a 2030 target.
“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. That 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 added that it was “disappointing” to see that it remained complicated until the end and that little progress had been made.
To her relief, the messy text still contains promising language on some of the critical issues Greenpeace considers important, 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 major obstacles to the agreement, including how funding will be provided and how goals will 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. It is also difficult to remove national subsidies for nature-destroying activity.
Monitoring and data are critical to the success or failure of the agreement. Many of the ambitious 2010 Aichi targets were criticized for their poor monitoring.
Other roadblocks come directly from the countries themselves. Brazil and Argentina are widely accused of conspiring to hinder progress.
The European Union has been accused of being second-rate in 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 say that one component is key to the entire deal. Although it had been reached through late-night negotiations, it still faced unusual Bolivian resistance despite being approved.
A deal is vital
Scientists and environmentalists agree that Kunming must be negotiated effectively despite these obstacles.
Scientists believe that the loss of biodiversity is as dangerous as climate change. Earth is already facing 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 turn the tide on biodiversity loss.
Thonicke stated that the longer we wait and the longer we delay making decisions, the worse it gets. “Then we need to make more stringent decisions and implement policies that can destabilize societies or put societies under stress. We cannot afford to lose time. We are at the point that we cannot afford to fail. We need to reach an agreement.