Biodiversity: After COP 16 – time to deliver

At the end of February, countries party to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity gathered in Rome. On the agenda was how the 2022 global rescue plan for nature would be financed and monitored.

These were not new issues. Decisions should have been made already last fall at COP 16 in Colombia. But positions were deadlocked, and negotiations had to continue in Italy.

When the gavel finally fell, many felt relief. At a time when global cooperation is  shaky, the world’s nations still managed to reach an agreement.

“It is absolutely crucial for the continuation of the process that a compromise was reached in Rome. We now have a toolbox with indicators that make it possible to assess and follow up on progress globally,” says Torbjörn Ebenhard, Research director at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences’ Centre for Biological Diversity.

Over the past 30 years, he has participated as an expert and negotiator in the work with the UN Convention on Biological Diversity. When the Global Biodiversity Framework – often referred to as a rescue plan for nature – was developed, he represented the EU at the negotiation table.

A lot at stake

The global framework contains four overarching long-term goals for 2050. In addition, there are 23 specific targets to be met within five years. Together, they aim to halt the rapid extinction of animals, plants, and habitats.

“Some reduce biodiversity to a conservation issue – how to protect certain animal species. But it’s much broader. It’s about human sustenance and safeguarding future generations. No one on earth can live without what nature provides,” says Torbjörn Ebenhard.

A Trust Gap Between North and South

The key issue in the negotiations was money. It wasn’t primarily about amounts, but about how the funds should be channeled to countries that cannot afford to protect their nature. Developing countries pushed for a new fund in hopes of gaining more influence and reducing bureaucracy. Donor countries, on the other hand, insisted that an independent body must monitor how the money is used. They wanted to continue using the Global Environment Facility (GEF) – already part of the UN system.

Beneath the surface lies a trust gap between the global North and South. Wealthy countries can afford to protect their nature – and thus have greater capacity to report progress. At the same time, they can continue to benefit from ecosystem services in poorer countries if those countries lack the resources to protect biodiversity on equal terms.

To reach a decision on monitoring and evaluation, the funding deadlock first had to be resolved. In the end, this was achieved through a shared roadmap forward.

Unsustainable Subsidies Must Be Redirected

“It was agreed that the Convention needs a financial mechanism that works better than today – and that the exact structure of that mechanism will be decided in 2028,” says Ebenhard.

Two years later, $200 billion per year is to be mobilized from sources ranging from corporations to governments.

“Funds must be mobilized from all who use nature’s resources. The decision is more like a smorgasbord of proposals to work from, than strict commitments,” says Ebenhard.

However, wealthy countries have previously pledged to contribute $20 billion annually until 2030, increasing to $30 billion per year thereafter.

Altogether, it is estimated that $700 billion per year will be needed to finance the commitments in the rescue plan. The largest share – $500 billion – consists of subsidies for the unsustainable use of nature that must now be redirected. It is up to each country to identify, address, and report how they are doing this.

Important Follow-Up

In less than a year, countries must report on their progress toward meeting the targets. These responses will be compiled into a global progressreport ahead of COP 17, scheduled for autumn 2026.

“If it turns out we’re not on the right track, new decisions will have to be made,” says Ebenhard.

Sweden Must Catch Up

Sweden is already behind  schedule. Ahead of COP 16 last fall, all countries were to submit a national biodiversity strategy and action plan – known as an NBSAP – outlining how they plan to meet the goals by 2030.

The Swedish government missed the deadline, citing the ongoing work of a parliamentary committee, tasked with reviewing how Sweden fulfills its international biodiversity commitments. The committee presented its proposals in February, but Ebenhard found the report lacking in concrete interim targets, policy instruments, and measures.

“The government now has eleven months to both develop an NBSAP and report on results,” he says.

Why is it important for countries to submit their NBSAPs?

Because it allows for early identification of whether national goals align with global ones and whether enough resources have been allocated, Ebenhard explains.

Ecosystem restoration is a key

One of the most talked-about targets in the global framework is that 30 percent of the Earth’s surface – on land and at sea – should be protected by 2030. But this won’t be meaningful unless nature is also restored, Ebenhard stresses.

He sees Sweden’s engagement with the EU’s new Nature restoration regulation as a key tool for implementing the global framework. Nearly half of the targets overlap, and the regulation is legally binding across the EU.

“The restoration regulation takes us a step forward – and if we don’t comply, we can ultimately face fines.”

Still on Track

The challenges are significant, time is short – and many countries are behind. Nevertheless, Ebenhard emphasizes the importance of the process.

“With the decisions made at COP 16, we’re still on track. The fact that some countries are lagging behind is not the Convention’s fault. Without the work being done under its framework, it would be difficult to even get a picture of the global state of biodiversity,” says Torbjörn Ebenhard.