The global biodiversity framework needs a robust action agenda

Chan, Sander; Bauer, Steffen; Betsill, Michele M.; Biermann, Frank; Boran, Idil; Bridgewater, Peter; Bulkeley, Harriet; Bustamente, Mercedes M. C.; Deprez, Alexandra; Dodds, Felix; Hoffmann, Michael; Hornidge, Anna‐Katharina; Hughes, Alice C.; Imbach, Pablo; Ivanova, Maria; Köberle, Alexandre C.; Kok, Marcel; Lwasa, Shuaib; Morrison, Tiffany H.; Pörtner, Hans‐Otto; VanDeveer, Stacy D.; Vollmer, Derek; Widerberg, Oscar; Pettorelli, Nathalie

doi:10.1038/s41559-022-01953-2

Cited by 19 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As the final gavel fell to agree on the KM-GBF, DR-Congo (DRC) objected, not agreeing to all elements of the framework, but too late to reject the treaty; however, with coordinated work from Brazil and Indonesia (the three are part of a partnership dubbed the Opec for Biodiversity), DRC acknowledged it had been accepted, though support will be needed to act upon it (Greenfield, 2022a(Greenfield, , 2022b. Working collaboratively to provide financially viable approaches to maintain biodiversity will be crucial if we are to see success in biodiversity hotspots around the world (Chan et al, 2022).…”

Section: Challenges Ahead?mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Post‐2020 Global Biodiversity Framework: How did we get here, and where do we go next?

Hughes

2023

Integrative Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

December 2022 finally saw the historic agreement of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KM-GBF), a landmark framework that sets to halt and reverse global biodiversity loss by remedying the multifaceted drivers behind biodiversity declines around the planet. The KM-GBF follows on from the Aichi targets, which aimed to prevent further biodiversity loss through a concerted effort between 2010 and 2020, but which were not successfully achieved. The KM-GBF builds on the drivers of biodiversity losses rather than their outcomes and sets a suite of targeted and measurable actions to reconcile losses. Developing the framework faced considerable challenges, especially in the face of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, and issues were often resolved at the very last moment. Consequently, compromises had to be made, useful elements were left out, or removed from the KM-GBF to achieve consensus, and some will need to be reflected in other ways, or incorporated into indicators. The final agreed KM-GBF includes 4 goals and 23 targets in addition to a package of annexes including a monitoring framework to set targets and benchmark progress. Particularly challenging issues included the flagship target of '30 × 30' of protecting 30% of land, freshwater, coastal, and high-sea in a representative way by 2030, which will require both new mechanisms and funding streams to enact effectively. Digital sequence information and funding mechanisms also presented major hurdles in the agreement of the KM-GBF. Ultimately, the success of the new GBF depends on implementation and mainstreaming. New targets can only be achieved through the inclusion of all sectors, clear communication, and effective funding mechanisms to guide change and provide the means to implement it. Furthermore, while common but differentiated responsibility is crucial to implementation, impacts of inaction are disproportionate in developing economies, and more resources and support are needed to enable them to develop sustainably and meet targets. This highlights the urgent need for action if we are to achieve the new targets and secure a future for all life on earth.

show abstract

Section: Challenges Ahead?mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Post‐2020 Global Biodiversity Framework: How did we get here, and where do we go next?

Hughes

2023

Integrative Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For instance, there have been over 300 international initiatives gathering thousands of state and non-state actors engaging in governance for biodiversity conservation (Negacz et al, 2020). The post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, which was adopted in December 2022 27 , could provide a platform to further showcase such initiatives and spur more commitments through the Sharm El-Sheikh to Kunming Action Agenda for Nature and People (Pattberg et al, 2019;Chan et al, 2022). However, the possibility of working outside the state realm will depend on the domestic policies imposed by Russia regulating interactions with the West, which were already tight even prior to the invasion (Newell and Henry, 2017;Matejova et al, 2018).…”

Section: Actionable Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implications of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine for the governance of biodiversity conservation

Gallo-Cajiao

Dolšak

Prakash

et al. 2023

Front. Conserv. Sci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Maintaining peace and conserving biodiversity hinge on an international system of cooperation codified in institutions, but Russia’s invasion of Ukraine brings recent progress to a crossroads. Against this backdrop, we address some implications of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine for the governance of biodiversity conservation both within and beyond Russia. The Russian invasion of Ukraine threatens the governance system for biodiversity conservation, as it pertains to Russia and beyond, due to three interacting factors: (i) isolation of Russia from the international system, (ii) halt and delay of international cooperation, and (iii) changes in international and domestic policy priorities. We recommend making the existing international system of governance for conserving biodiversity more resilient and adaptable, while aligning security agendas with biodiversity conservation goals.

show abstract

“…Global policy frameworks aimed at mitigating negative effects on biodiversity (e.g., the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework) should be based on sound scientific knowledge to understand the value of human-altered ecosystems. This understanding will help address the new challenges in sustaining the health of biodiversity and ecosystem functions (Chan et al, 2023;Leadley et al, 2022;Leclère et al, 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Human‐modified landscapes driving the global primate extinction crisis

Torres‐Romero

Nijman

Fernández

et al. 2023

Global Change Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The world's primates have been severely impacted in diverse and profound ways by anthropogenic pressures. Here, we evaluate the impact of various infrastructures and human‐modified landscapes on spatial patterns of primate species richness, at both global and regional scales. We overlaid the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) range maps of 520 primate species and applied a global 100 km2 grid. We used structural equation modeling and simultaneous autoregressive models to evaluate direct and indirect effects of six human‐altered landscapes variables (i.e., human footprint [HFP], croplands [CROP], road density [ROAD], pasture lands [PAST], protected areas [PAs], and Indigenous Peoples' lands [IPLs]) on global primate species richness, threatened and non‐threatened species, as well as on species with decreasing and non‐decreasing populations. Two‐thirds of all primate species are classified as threatened (i.e., Critically Endangered, Endangered, and Vulnerable), with ~86% experiencing population declines, and ~84% impacted by domestic or international trade. We found that the expansion of PAST, HFP, CROP, and road infrastructure had the most direct negative effects on primate richness. In contrast, forested habitat within IPLs and PAs was positively associated in safeguarding primate species diversity globally, with an even stronger effect at the regional level. Our results show that IPLs and PAs play a critical role in primate species conservation, helping to prevent their extinction; in contrast, HFP growth and expansion has a dramatically negative effect on primate species worldwide. Our findings support predictions that the continued negative impact of anthropogenic pressures on natural habitats may lead to a significant decline in global primate species richness, and likely, species extirpations. We advocate for stronger national and international policy frameworks promoting alternative/sustainable livelihoods and reducing persistent anthropogenic pressures to help mitigate the extinction risk of the world's primate species.

show abstract

The global biodiversity framework needs a robust action agenda

Cited by 19 publications

References 6 publications

The Post‐2020 Global Biodiversity Framework: How did we get here, and where do we go next?

The Post‐2020 Global Biodiversity Framework: How did we get here, and where do we go next?

Implications of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine for the governance of biodiversity conservation

Human‐modified landscapes driving the global primate extinction crisis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About