Contents

Post 2020 Global Biodiversity FrameworkEdit

The Post 2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) is the centerpiece of the international effort to halt and reverse the loss of biodiversity by 2030 and to put humanity on a more sustainable path. Negotiated under the aegis of the United Nations Environment Programme and the Convention on Biological Diversity (Convention on Biological Diversity), it builds on the legacy of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets and aims to translate global ambition into action at national and local levels. The framework seeks to align development, infrastructure, and business planning with the preservation of ecosystems, the sustainable use of natural resources, and the fair sharing of benefits arising from biodiversity.

Grounded in a broad conception of human prosperity, the GBF treats biodiversity as a critical asset for economies, security, and quality of life. It emphasizes governance, finance, science, and technology as levers to advance conservation without unduly constraining growth. The agreement envisions a portfolio of instruments that can be deployed by governments, private actors, and civil society to protect habitats, restore degraded ecosystems, and integrate biodiversity protections into decision-making across sectors such as energy, mining, agriculture, and transportation. The framework is designed to be implemented through national biodiversity strategies and action plans (National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans), while mobilizing international cooperation and finance to support efforts in lower-income countries.

Core objectives and structure

  • Global goals and targets: The GBF lays out a set of explicit objectives and measurable targets intended to guide national policies through 2030. The targets address areas such as habitat protection, restoration, sustainable use, and the reduction of direct pressures on biodiversity. They are designed to be ambitious yet adaptable to local contexts, enabling governments to tailor approaches that fit their development needs and institutional capacities. The framework frames these targets within a broader accountability framework, including monitoring, reporting, and verification mechanisms (MRV).

  • Governance and decision-making: The GBF relies on a collaborative governance model that engages multiple stakeholders, including governments, business, and civil society. It emphasizes transparency, data-driven decision-making, and the alignment of public policy with evidence on biodiversity outcomes. The framework also interfaces with existing international regimes on land tenure, fisheries, and resource extraction, seeking coherence across policy domains.

  • Financing and incentives: A central pillar is mobilizing adequate and predictable financing for biodiversity, including public funds, private investment, and innovative instruments. Mechanisms such as biodiversity finance facilities, blended finance, and market-based tools are foregrounded as means to scale up conservation without creating blanket prohibitions on development. For example, instruments like biodiversity offsets and payments for ecosystem services (Payments for ecosystem services) are discussed as ways to channel resources toward conservation while remaining economically viable for project developers.

  • Knowledge and science: The GBF underscores the role of science in setting baselines, assessing risk, and guiding investments. It encourages the use of standardized indicators and robust data to track progress and to inform policy adjustments as conditions change.

  • Linkages to development agendas: The framework seeks to harmonize biodiversity goals with the broader sustainable development agenda, including poverty reduction, food security, energy transition, and climate objectives. This integrative approach is intended to prevent zero-sum outcomes between conservation and growth and to encourage solutions that deliver multiple benefits.

  • Digital information and access: The framework engages with evolving debates about digital sequence information (Digital sequence information) and how data relating to genetic resources should be governed and shared, acknowledging the balance between open science and sovereign interests of nations hosting biodiversity.

Controversies and debates

  • 30x30 and land use implications: A centerpiece in many discussions is the call to conserve a substantial share of land and sea. Critics argue that aggressive protection targets risk limiting economic activity in regions that depend on natural resource use for livelihoods, particularly where land tenure is complex or poorly defined. Proponents counter that well-designed protected areas, coupled with sustainable management and restoration, can produce long-term economic dividends through ecotourism, resilient ecosystems, and stable provisioning of services. The debate often centers on how targets are defined, measured, and enforced, and on how to balance conservation with local development priorities.

  • National sovereignty and local autonomy: The GBF’s global targets are implemented through national strategies. Critics from market-oriented perspectives emphasize sovereignty and decision-making at the sub-national level, arguing that centralized targets can be ill-suited to diverse landscapes and economies. They advocate for flexible, outcome-based approaches that empower local communities and private actors to innovate within a coherent framework.

  • Regulation vs. innovation: Some observers worry that expansive conservation mandates may raise compliance costs, create regulatory uncertainty, or hinder investment in critical sectors such as energy, mining, and agriculture. Supporters of market-based and performance-oriented tools suggest that well-calibrated incentives, rights-based approaches, and clear MRV can secure biodiversity gains without crippling development.

  • Equity and access to benefits: Debates exist over fair access to and benefit sharing from biodiversity and genetic resources. The Nagoya Protocol (Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from Their Utilization) provides a framework for sharing benefits with source countries, but its interaction with research incentives and private sector needs remains a point of contention. Critics worry about administrative complexity and potential disincentives for innovation, while proponents see it as essential to justice and sustainability.

  • Climate-biodiversity tradeoffs: Biodiversity protection intersects with climate and energy policy. Some argue that aggressively expanding protected areas could limit land available for renewable energy, storage, or more intensive farming in the near term. Others maintain that protecting and restoring ecosystems enhances climate resilience, supports carbon sequestration, and reduces climate risk for agriculture and infrastructure.

  • Offsets, offsets, and indigenous and local rights: Biodiversity offsets—where developers compensate for biodiversity losses elsewhere—are controversial in part because of concerns about ecological equivalence, leakage, and the distribution of costs and benefits. Advocates see offsets as a pragmatic, scalable tool; critics warn that offsets can become a substitute for real habitat protection and may undervalue local communities’ rights and stewardship responsibilities.

Implementation mechanisms and governance

  • National action plans and policy alignment: Countries translate the global targets into domestic plans, aligning wildlife protection, land use planning, and sectoral policies with biodiversity objectives. This often involves reforming permitting processes, environmental impact assessments, and licensing regimes to factor biodiversity considerations more effectively.

  • Market-oriented tools and private sector engagement: The GBF encourages using market-based instruments to align profitability with conservation outcomes. Private investment can be steered toward projects that deliver biodiversity gains, with safeguards to prevent greenwashing. Instruments such as biodiversity offsets, payments for ecosystem services, and green finance instruments are discussed as levers to mobilize capital and expertise.

  • Monitoring, reporting, and accountability: A robust MRV framework aims to track progress against targets, identify shortfalls, and drive course corrections. Data quality, transparency, and comparability across borders are essential to maintaining trust and ensuring that stated commitments translate into real-world results.

  • International cooperation and knowledge exchange: The GBF reinforces cooperation on science, technology transfer, capacity building, and finance. It connects with other international regimes to promote coherent action across climate, land use, and development policy.

Implications for developing countries and the private sector

  • Development choices and opportunity costs: For many nations, biodiversity goals are intertwined with livelihoods, food security, and energy access. Proponents argue that well-designed policies can foster green growth, attract green investment, and create new job opportunities in protection, restoration, and sustainable management. Critics caution that if regulatory burdens are too heavy or if compensation mechanisms fail to deliver timely resources, development needs could be delayed.

  • Intellectual property, access, and benefit sharing: The framework engages with questions about who gains from biodiversity-related innovations, and how benefits are shared. This includes debates over the accessibility of genetic resources for medical, agricultural, or industrial use, and how protections under instruments like the Nagoya Protocol influence research ecosystems and investment climates.

  • Indigenous peoples and local communities: Recognizing the role of local stewardship, the GBF highlights participation by indigenous peoples and local communities in planning and governance. The practical implementation of these rights can be contested where land claims intersect with development projects, underscoring the importance of clear land tenure and inclusive processes.

  • Technology and data: Advances in sensing, remote monitoring, and data analytics offer new ways to track ecosystem health and enforcement of targets. The debate centers on data ownership, privacy, and the proper balance between open science and national interests in genomic information.

See also