The December 2015 Paris Climate Agreement is better than no agreement. This is perhaps the best that can be said about it. The scientific evidence on global warming is alarming, and the likelihood depressingly small that the world can stay below a 2 C-even less a 1.5 C warming-over pre-industrial times. The Paris Agreement does not provide a blueprint for achieving these stabilization objectives. But it is ultimately the hope, however small, that a fundamental and rapid energy transition is achievable that must inform social and political behavior and activism in the coming years. In this sense, the Paris outcome is an aspirational global accord that will trigger and legitimize more climate action around the world. The question is whether this will happen quickly enough and at a sufficient scale to avoid disastrous warming of the planet. What is certain is that it will not occur without determined and far-reaching government intervention in energy markets in the next few years, particularly in the largest polluting countries.

For more than a decade, the Global Environment Facility (GEF) has provided critical support to developing countries for fighting global environmental problems such as climate change and the loss of biodiversity. But recent developments do not bode well for the ability of the GEF to continue playing its pivotal role in support of implementing multilateral environmental agreements. Its already modest resource base has been declining in real terms, and a December 2005 deadline for the conclusion of the fourth replenishment of the GEF (GEF4) passed without a compromise between major donors. The adoption of a resource allocation framework in September 2005 is likely to complicate how the GEF can program its resources in the future, even if replenishment negotiations can be completed by June 2006. Current events reinforce the need for a close look at what the future role of the GEF should be and how resources for addressing global environmental problems in developing countries should be raised. 1

From June 20 to 22, 2012, 45,000 participants from governments, the private sector, nongovernmental organizations, and major groups met in Rio De Janeiro for the "Rio+20" United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development. The outcome document titled "The Future We Want" alludes to a grand vision for addressing global challenges in the framework of sustainable development: economic, social, and environmental. But the 53-page long document only reiterates promises made elsewhere. It fails to lay out a coherent roadmap forward, much less to define binding targets with specific deadlines. The declaration, however, does reflect a changing political reality in international negotiations. Developing countries are playing a much more assertive role in pushing poverty eradication as the overarching priority than at any time before. Rio+20 furthermore presents a snapshot of the divers interests and voices that shape the discourse on sustainable development, 20 years after the original 1992 Rio Conference launched the debate.

Non-technical summary Global biodiversity is in dramatic decline. The general public appears to equate sustainable development with biodiversity conservation and environmental protection, whereas the international policy discourse treats sustainable development as little more than traditional economic development. This gap between public perception of what sustainable development entails and its translation into formal policy goals is an important barrier to mobilizing the public and critical financial support for meeting global biodiversity conservation objectives. This contribution argues that the goal of nature and biodiversity conservation must be much more clearly distinguished from the 2015 UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) than is currently the case. Technical summary The term ‘sustainable development’ has become widely used since it was popularized through the 1992 Rio UN Conference on Environment and Development. The UN SDGs adopted in 2015 further reinforce the normative centrality of the concept. Yet, the extent to which sustainable development covers nature and biodiversity conservation depends on how it is defined. A better understanding of how the public in different countries assesses the value of local and global biodiversity is crucial for building support for financing the vision to live ‘in harmony with nature by 2050’ currently under negotiation in the Convention on Biodiversity. This review essay discusses four distinct definitions of sustainable development, and considers how these different conceptualizations are used by political actors to serve particular interests. It then describes how this discourse has unfolded in international agreements related to sustainable development and biodiversity. The analysis shows that the prevalent economic cost–benefit approach used to value ecosystem services to make a case for conservation cannot resolve trade-off decisions between short-term economic and long-term societal interests. What is needed is a broad discourse about the ethical and cultural dimensions of biodiversity as a global heritage at the highest political level. Social media abstract The goal of global biodiversity conservation must be more clearly distinguished from the 2015 SDGs economic objectives.

No abstract