Meeting global conservation targets will require a rapid acceleration of projects. Investment in existent grassroots projects should be central to achieving them.
On 25 – 27 February, world leaders convened in Rome for COP16.2 to discuss protecting earth’s biodiversity. The key aim of these COPs is to achieve the 30×30 target. This is known formally as the Kunming-Montreal Biodiversity Framework (KMBF) 2022 agreement. Here, parties committed to protecting 30% of land and marine areas for nature by 2030.
It is known as COP16.2 as COP16 was originally held in Cali, Colombia. However, this summit failed to reach an agreement and so a secondary summit was announced.
The main sticking point for Cali concerned the funding for biodiversity projects. The current fund, the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund (GBFF), is an interim measure due to expire in 2030. Agreeing what happens after that caused the impasse. Generally, developing countries wanted a new fund to be created whilst developed countries wanted to continue with the GBFF. Ultimately, delegates ran out of time and had to leave without reaching an agreement to catch flights. This is indicative of world leaders’ attitude towards biodiversity and the climate crisis. It is hard to imagine delegates leaving a security conference without an agreement simply because they had flights to catch…
Why biodiversity matters
Biodiversity is essential for sustaining a liveable planet and for our physical and mental wellbeing. Pollinators such as birds and bees allow us to produce crops. Invertebrates and microbes in soil keep it healthy which allows plants to grow for us to receive those nutrients in our diet. Marine life also provides a crucial food source, acting as many people’s primary source of protein.
Trees, bushes, wetlands and wild grasslands slow the flow of water. This allows soil to absorb rainfall, reducing the risks of floods. All plants, from trees to grass, remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and release the oxygen we breathe. Coral reefs and mangrove forests protect coastlines from waves and storms.
Many of our everyday goods come from plants such as Latex and rubber. Spending time in nature and green spaces in cities has been shown to improve people’s physical and mental health.
I recently visited the Sepilok Sun Bear Conservation Centre in Malaysian Borneo. The island’s rainforests are home to approximately 6% of the world’s biodiversity. Displayed at the centre is a striking reminder of the impact global warming has on nature and, by extension, humans.
It detailed how rising temperatures lead to more lightning strikes, themselves a source of nitrogen oxides which are greenhouse gases. These destroy taller, more mature trees which are the planet’s greatest carbon storage systems. Lightning strikes also make wildfires more common, which release more greenhouse gases. Intensifying rainstorms make wildfires more likely as soil cannot absorb water in these quantities, so the land actually becomes drier. Higher global temperatures mean clouds hold more water vapour before dispensing them, so rainstorms become more common. The destruction of the rainforest from lightning, wildfires and rainstorms then exacerbates global warming in a vicious cycle.
This has a knock-on effect on animals in the rainforest. Firstly, it destroys the habitats of tree-adapted species in rainforests like orangutans, monkeys and sun bears. Secondly, it affects the feeding patterns of rainforest animals.
Due to the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenomenon, every 2 to 10 years, there are mast fruiting events. In these, 88% of trees simultaneously flower or bear fruit. Outside of these, figs are the staple of the rainforest as they are nutritious and available in mass quantities all year round. Larger predators prey on animals that eat the figs. Fig Wasps pollinate unripe figs whilst laying their eggs.
The fragility of this ecosystem can be tragically illustrated by the Famine of 1999. An intense El Nino period in 1997/8 caused droughts across Southeast Asia. The drought plus using fire for agricultural land clearing practices resulted in severe wildfires. Borneo was covered by a thick haze which led to the deaths of local fig wasps. Subsequently, unripe figs were dropped and forest animals starved.
How close are we to reaching the 30×30 target?
In short, not very. In October, a UN Environmental Programme (UNEP) report assessed the progress that has been made. 17.6% of land areas and 8.4% of ocean and coastal areas are currently protected. Since 2020, this has grown by 0.5% in both domains, or twice the area of Colombia. To reach the land target, an area greater than Australia and Brazil combined still needs to be protected by 2030, and for the sea, an area larger than the Indian Ocean.
Moreover, many crucial, highly biodiverse areas remain unprotected. This includes international waters such as much of the Southern Ocean around Antarctica. On land areas like the Marungu Highlands in the Democratic Republic of Congo are also vulnerable.
Another problem identified was the difficulties in assessing the quality of protection in protected areas. This is due to data being difficult to attain for logistical and political reasons.
Target 3 of the biodiversity goals involves protecting lands and waters in a way that respects the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. However, less than 4% of the world’s land is governed by them despite them inhabiting 13.6% of the land.
What was agreed at COP16.2?
Positive steps were taken at COP16.2. For example, a new permanent body was created to represent indigenous peoples. This allows indigenous peoples to have a greater say in biodiversity discussions, a key step towards achieving target 3. Including indigenous peoples is not simply a matter of representation, but it is also the most effective way of managing ecosystems sustainably. Aboriginal Australians sustainably managed their environment for thousands of years before the arrival of Europeans. This knowledge is crucial for protecting biodiversity.
Within Taman Negara, a protected area on the Malaysian peninsular, live the Batek people. They are nomadic tribes within the rainforest that have conserved it for approximately 25,000 years. Their special permission to remain in the protected area is due to their sustainable ways of living. They only destroy things to use them meaning they produce no waste, and they do not sell stuff for profit. When an area’s resources deplete, they move on to another area, allowing the previous area to grow back. Additionally, they pass their intricate knowledge of the rainforest to park rangers who play a role in governing Taman Negara and educating visitors.
As COP16.2 began, the Cali Fund was launched. Profits from digitally sequenced genetic data of plants and animals will be shared with the communities from which they are taken. In layman terms, companies in industries such as medicine and cosmetics that use genetic information will pay back profits made on the products they developed with this information to the communities from which they got them.
The pot is currently empty, though discussions are ongoing with potential donors. However, the potential donors remain anonymous to protect commercial confidentiality.
COP President, Susana Muhamad emphasised ‘this is not a charity from the companies. The funding here is the fair payment for the use of global biodiversity.’ This is an important point. It would be encouraging to see a stronger mandate enforcing this kind of compensation. At least 50% of this fund is ringfenced for indigenous and local communities as recognition that they are the best protectors of biodiversity.
The most significant development was agreeing a pathway for funding in the future. As mentioned above, there were disagreements about what happens when the current GBFF, funded largely by the World Bank, expires in 2030. Whilst no final decision was made, the route to it was laid out. Importantly, countries agreed that there should be a permanent fund for protecting biodiversity. At COP18 in 2028, countries will decide to continue with the GBFF or create a new one. If they decide on a new fund, the details for it will be confirmed in 2030 at COP19. At least, that is the plan. For many environmentalists, the glacial speed of progress at these summits represents a major criticism of them. Especially given the work required to achieve the 30×30 target.
The challenges ahead
Funding was the central issue of COP16.2 but it could also prove to be the biggest hurdle. Notably, Donald Trump has frozen all USAID programmes. However, it is not just the US that is reducing international aid budgets. Keir Starmer has further reduced the UK’s international aid budget to prioritise other policy areas. This is detrimental to the finances of organisations like the WWF and World Bank. These are major partners and donors to the GBFF. So, as more funding is desperately needed, budgets for environmental programmes are becoming increasingly squeezed.
Time is another challenge. In general, the climate crisis is becoming exponentially worse. The longer it takes to tackle it, the bigger the problem we face. Time is also running out to achieve the 30×30 target. Under the current plan, details of a new biodiversity fund are to be discussed in 2030. This is when the GBFF expires. Any delays to the timeline could result in a funding or organisational gap in biodiversity efforts. Delays, unfortunately, are a common feature of global environmental talks. The Loss and Damage Fund announced at COP28 took 30 years to agree on, and even then, details were scarce.
The bureaucracy required for attracting investors and monitoring progress could be a hindrance without flexibility. Many of the most biodiverse areas are in developing countries or indigenous peoples’ areas. Collecting data here can be difficult due to the costs involved or a lack of necessary infrastructure. Without data, applications for funding are harder to attain. This frustrates conservation efforts when they should be getting accelerated.
Data collection is important. It allows for progress to be monitored and attracts donors. However, this cannot be an obstacle to beginning new projects. Efforts to improve the spread and quality of data collection must be done alongside conservation efforts and not instead of.
However, compromises on similar issues have been reached before. For example, when deciding on countries’ biodiversity targets, devising plans with extensive consultation with Indigenous communities was an expensive endeavour. This was particularly an issue in Africa. To avoid pricing African countries out of devising plans, less detailed national biodiversity targets were deemed to suffice, these were cheaper to produce. Whilst these were not ideal, they allowed progress to be made in these countries. This spirit of compromise should be applied to data collection going forwards.
Another alarming development is the growing presence of lobbyists from climate-damaging industries. At Cali, a record number of meat, oil and pesticides lobbyists attended. Furthermore, there was a heavy presence from banking and multinational corporations, many of whom are directly or indirectly responsible for deforestation. Curiously, the rise in lobbyists from these industries at biodiversity COPs happened as soon as the 30×30 target was agreed. This trend risks sending the biodiversity talks the same way as the wider climate change COP. These have become overrun by climate-damaging groups. For example, at COP29 in Baku, over 1,770 fossil fuel and 204 agricultural lobbyists attended.
The damage these sectors cause can be seen across Cambodia. Farmers along the Mekong River use readily available pesticides on their plants then throw the plastic bottles into the river. This shows the need for education and infrastructure for the responsible use of pesticides. Such investments should come under the remit of conservation efforts.
In the rainforests of Mondulkiri live 400-600 elephants amongst an array of other species. Their numbers have already been depleted by deforestation and poachers. However, they are under even greater threat as Chinese loggers and miners are near enough given a free pass into the forest, destroying the elephants’ habitat. Luckily, some organisations resist this. The Elephant Valley Project (EVP) works in partnership with the local Bunong community to rescue working elephants from across Cambodia. They re-introduce them to their natural environment in the rainforest and work tirelessly to protect them. Part of this involves working with Cambodian authorities to protect the elephants’ habitat. However, they receive no government support and rely primarily on tourists for their income. The government instead bow to the money from loggers and miners instead of protecting their natural wonders.
Reasons for hope
Despite the GBFF only being launched in August 2023, major projects have commenced. These include conservation efforts in Gabon, Brazil and Mexico. Hopefully, the lessons learned here can be applied elsewhere and assist in a rapid scaling up of operations. Its projects also show that where there’s political will, there’s a way.
Scaling up can be assisted by utilising existing grassroots projects. The four projects I visited for this article all operate without funding from the GBFF. Thousands more are running around the world. By investing in current projects, progress can be rapidly made. Some of these projects have had great success. For example, in the Mekong, since Irrawaddy dolphins were officially protected in 1998, their populations are beginning to grow.
Incredible work by Indigenous and local communities are happening around the world. With proper investment and use of local expertise, conservation efforts can be expanded rapidly and efficiently. This should be the approach countries take to achieve the 30×30 target.