Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework

Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework
Name	Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework
Adopted	2022
Signed at	Kunming
Administered by	Convention on Biological Diversity
Related	Aichi Biodiversity Targets, Sustainable Development Goals, United Nations

Contents

Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework The Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework is an international agreement adopted to guide United Nations-led biodiversity action after the Aichi Biodiversity Targets period, negotiated under the auspices of the Convention on Biological Diversity and agreed at meetings influenced by delegations from China, Costa Rica, Brazil, South Africa and regional blocs such as the European Union. It seeks to align biodiversity priorities with the Paris Agreement, the Sustainable Development Goals, and instruments negotiated through fora including the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Trade Organization.

Background and Development

The framework emerged from decades of multilateral diplomacy following reviews of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets at meetings of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity and preparatory sessions involving negotiators from India, United States, Japan, Canada, Australia and members of the African Union. Key inputs included assessments by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, submissions from civil society organizations such as World Wide Fund for Nature, Conservation International, and The Nature Conservancy, and scientific guidance from institutions like the International Union for Conservation of Nature, Smithsonian Institution, and Natural History Museum, London. Negotiations were shaped by outcomes from global summits including the Convention on Biological Diversity COP15 and consultations with indigenous groups represented by bodies such as the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity and regional groups like Small Island Developing States delegations.

The Framework sets headline goals to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by mid-century and includes specific targets modeled after previous commitments like the Aichi Biodiversity Targets and aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals. Targets cover protected and conserved area expansion akin to initiatives championed by Convention on Biological Diversity COP15 proponents, measures to reduce pollution emphasized by World Health Organization briefings, safeguards for genetic resources linked to discussions in the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, and obligations related to sustainable use debated in contexts such as the World Bank and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development policy dialogues. The Framework also includes targets addressing invasive alien species discussed at meetings hosted by the International Maritime Organization and Food and Agriculture Organization, and targets on financing echoing agendas advanced by the Global Environment Facility and the Green Climate Fund.

Implementation is structured through national biodiversity strategies submitted to the Convention on Biological Diversity Secretariat, with oversight mechanisms inspired by processes used by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and International Union for Conservation of Nature governance. Capacity-building and technical support are to be delivered via partnerships with multilateral development banks like the World Bank and regional institutions such as the African Development Bank and Asian Development Bank, and through collaboration with non-state actors including World Wide Fund for Nature, BirdLife International, and Wetlands International. Compliance and dispute resolution draw on precedents from treaties such as the Nagoya Protocol and institutional arrangements similar to those in the Basel Convention.

Monitoring and reporting rely on national reports coordinated by the Convention on Biological Diversity Secretariat and global assessments synthesized by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, with methodological inputs from standards bodies such as the International Organization for Standardization and data platforms like the Global Biodiversity Information Facility and the Group on Earth Observations. Review cycles mirror mechanisms used in the Paris Agreement’s global stocktake and draw on scientific networks including the Global Biodiversity Outlook, researchers from universities like University of Oxford, Stanford University and institutes such as the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Remote sensing contributions are expected from agencies including European Space Agency and National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

Finance provisions invoke commitments from developed parties aligned with principles discussed at United Nations Conference on Trade and Development forums and through instruments managed by the Global Environment Facility, Green Climate Fund, and multilateral development banks including the World Bank. Private finance engagement draws on models from investors convened by the United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative and philanthropic funders like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Bloomberg Philanthropies. Mechanisms for biodiversity-positive finance reference standards advanced by the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures and initiatives such as Nature-based Solutions programs supported by the European Investment Bank.

Critics from civil society organizations including Friends of the Earth and researchers affiliated with University of Cambridge argue the Framework’s targets risk being undercut by weak national implementation and inadequate finance, echoing prior critiques of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets and contested positions voiced by industry groups such as the International Chamber of Commerce. Debates around indigenous rights invoked representatives from the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity and legal scholars citing jurisprudence from tribunals like the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Controversies have arisen over target definitions influenced by stakeholders including World Economic Forum participants and extractive sector states such as Saudi Arabia and Russia, and over perceived conflicts with trade policies debated within the World Trade Organization.