Three ways the upcoming UN biodiversity summit could make a difference

When negotiations at Cop15 – the UN’s biodiversity conference – ended in December 2022, many delegates breathed a sigh of relief.

Threatening snowstorms outside the convention centre in Montreal, Canada seemed to lift just as the political weather changed and the long-awaited Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework was agreed. It’s mission: to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030 in order to achieve the ultimate goal of a society living in harmony with nature by 2050.

Fast forward two years and governments, businesses, representatives of Indigenous people and local communities, experts from environmental groups such as the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and scientists will gather for the follow-up Cop16 meeting in Cali, Colombia, from October 21. Many due to attend, including myself, wonder whether the promise made to “halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030” is achievable.

Initial signs are not promising. For starters, no international targets for biodiversity have ever been met.

Only a handful of countries, including China, Canada and France, have submitted new national biodiversity plans demonstrating how they will implement the promises made two years ago. Most countries, including the UK, (that’s more than 80% in total) haven’t submitted their full plans.

Countries can also submit updates for the 23 targets listed in the framework. The UK and others have submitted targets such as promising to reduce the impact of pollution on nature and ensuring that 30% of land is effectively protected in line with the framework.

But crucial questions remain about how those goals will be reached. To make Cop16 effective, three things need to happen.

1. Decide on a plan

When delegates gather in Cali, questions of implementation will be front and centre of the negotiations. The first challenge is that the approach for monitoring progress on all 23 targets – including issues such as improving access to nature in cities, reducing harmful subsidies and restoring 30% of degraded ecosystems – is yet to be agreed.

For some, the approach that has been developed so far lacks ambition in crucial areas. Indicators suggested for monitoring progress on reducing the impacts of consumption on nature remain very weak for example. For others, it may prove too challenging.

For example, countries with limited access to data might not be able to track alien species or assess how critical services provided by nature to make societies more resilient might be affected by climate change. Getting agreement at the Cop16 negotiations will be vital in order to hold countries to account as the 2030 deadline set to achieve all of the targets approaches.

2. Find the funds

Another crucial issue is funding: who will pay for the action required? The global biodiversity framework fund (GBFF) was established in 2023 to provide financial support.

Yet so far, it has only attracted contributions of around US$230 billion (£176 billion) from a small group of countries including Canada, the UK, Germany, Japan and Spain. Leaders gathering in Cali, and especially those from developing countries, are calling for more funding and for greater control over how it is allocated.

3. Make biodiversity matter

A third debate will decide how best to ensure that biodiversity action is mainstreamed across governments, businesses and communities.

In Montreal, countries agreed to make sure that the impacts on nature were considered across different policy areas (such as building new roads or developing new energy sources) and in economic sectors, from fishing to agriculture and mining to tech.

They agreed that groups most likely to be affected by the loss of nature, including Indigenous people and local communities, women and youth, should help make key decisions. While targets such as protecting 30% of the land and sea for nature are crucial, progress will only happen if nature is put on everyone’s bottom line.

Delivering real change

The urgent need for action is not lost on delegates gathering in Cali. There is a real risk that the promise countries made in Montreal to deliver “transformative action by governments, and regional and local authorities, with the involvement of all of society” won’t be met.

But there are some hopeful signs of transformative change to conserve and restore nature and ensure its sustainable use.

Take, for example, the Tree Equity Partnership in Detroit, US. This partnership between the city, US-based charity American Forests and the local non-profit charity Greening of Detroit aims to plant 75,000 trees. This will create places of beauty, biodiversity and climate resilience in underserved neighbourhoods and generate 300 new jobs in the city.

In Pakistan, the Living Indus initiative is an umbrella organisation that has identified 25 projects involving local and regional governments, businesses and communities working together to restore the ecological health of the Indus river.

Businesses are also calling for real change. More than 170 investors have signed a pledge developed by a coalition of financial institutions called the Finance for Biodiversity Foundation to take action for nature across their portfolios.

New science-based standards are being developed to drive the mainstreaming of biodiversity action through their companies and associated supply chains. Cop16 is expected to see increased interest from the private sector and a focus on tackling climate change and biodiversity together.

These projects are successfully tackling the root causes of global biodiversity loss. They integrate solutions and deal with social and environmental issues – poverty and exploitation, climate risks and land use change. Tackling these problems is just as vital as the need for sustainable production and consumption plus investment that works for, not against, nature.

Projects such as these are the ones that give scientists and conservationists like me – and organisations like WWF that I work with – hope. We want to see more projects that take action on nature, climate and social justice together. If Cop16 can make even a small step in this direction, the world will be travelling towards making real progress by the end of this decade.

Find out more

• This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
• Read more about Professor Harriet Bulkeley, in our Department of Geography, and Deputy Executive Dean, Research, in the Faculty of Social Sciences and Health.

• Our Department of Geography is ranked 16th in the QS World University Rankings by Subject 2024.  

  Visit our Geography webpages for more information on our undergraduate and postgraduate programmes.