Did COP15 outline a clear pathway to mitigate global biodiversity loss?

There were 23 targets on the negotiation table, everything from noise pollution, biodiversity loss, to the use of pesticides and corporate discourses around the use of natural capital. The goal of the conference was to have a ‘Paris Agreement’ equivalent for biodiversity loss, which would include measurable goals and impact pathways.

After more than four years of negotiations, nearly 200 countries (excluding the US and the Vatican), signed an agreement to halt the destruction of the Earth’s ecosystems. In the early hours of Sunday 18^th November, the negotiations ended, and the news broke that an agreement had been signed.

The new deal sets a target to protect 30 per cent of the planet and 30 per cent of degraded ecosystems by 2030. This is significantly more than the existing 17% of terrestrial land and 10% of marine areas protected. 30 by 30, as the summit headline has become known, echoes the messages conveyed at COP27 just weeks earlier. However, this goal comes at the price of $500 billion (£410bn). Currently, only $133 billion is invested in nature-based solutions, meaning we need to source and allocate nearly 4x the current amount to restore 30% of the planet’s degraded terrestrial, inland water, coastal and marine ecosystems.

If implemented globally, there could be major changes to farming practices, supply chains, food production and the role of indigenous communities in conservation methods. These efforts are an attempt to mitigate the effects that we are causing to start the Earth’s sixth mass extinction, the largest loss of life since the pre-historic ages. In the final agreement, countries decided to create a new fund that sits within the UN’s main existing biodiversity fund – The Global Environment Facility. By the end of the decade, rich countries have committed to donating $30bn of aid to support conservation measures, a substantial increase from current funds.

However, the final text lacked any mention of the term ‘nature positive’, which scientists argue is the biodiversity equivalent of net zero. Instead, the text reads “take urgent action to halt and reverse biodiversity loss” by 2030. Some critics suggest that the lack of empirical measures means that countries are not held accountable on a short term-basis to track progress before 2030. These concerns were raised by scientists and researchers, yet country delegates seem less concerned with the lack of comprehensive tracking and more concerned that it is “taking us in the right direction”.

Despite this, a positive outcome of the event is the inclusion of indigenous people and their rights to the land within the targets and framework. For years, discussions have rotated around the notion of ‘fortress conservation’, which is the idea that people who have been stewards of their communities and environments have had their rights removed by a Western ideology that views the land as wild and not owned by indigenous people. Given these concerns, the wording in the main agreement was chosen with care. It emphasises the rights of indigenous people and ensures they have a voice in conservation and land management going forward.