A global pact agreed on by almost 200 countries in Canada this week has been hailed as a groundbreaking framework to transform humanity’s relationship with the natural world. But it may unravel due to disputes over how the treaty was finalised in a rush.
UN Secretary-General called the deal, which sets an overall ambition to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030, a “peace pact with nature”.
But that ambition may have been made more difficult to achieve by the final moments of the summit, which saw the Chinese presidency swiftly gavel the pact through despite objections from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Confusion spread through the room along with cheers and applause as the agreement was made final in the early hours of 19 December.
Advertisement
Negotiators from the DRC objected on the basis that the deal does not set up a new, dedicated fund for financing biodiversity action. Parties reacted furiously to the rushed way the text was adopted, with Uganda’s negotiator warning there had been a “coup d’état” of the summit. Ève Bazaiba, the DRC environment minister, told The Guardian her country does not recognise the agreement and
Such anger leaves a sour taste at the end of a summit meant to put the world on a path for the global recovery of nature. The African nations involved in the dispute, which include some of the most biodiverse countries in the world, may leave Montreal with little enthusiasm to implement a deal they see as being forced through by China.
Privately, some negotiators say the damage can be smoothed over with some artful diplomacy. Meanwhile, at WWF UK says the “regrettable” last-minute dispute should not overshadow an agreement that, if fully implemented, could change the world.
“I would hope a framework that has such an inspiring mission like halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030 will still inspire countries to pull ahead,” says Fischler Hooper. The last time nations came together to set targets to achieve these same goals, it was a failure. Not a single one of the of the 20 targets set at a 2010 meeting in Aichi, Japan, were fully achieved, and scientists warn the rate of species extinction and biodiversity collapse has accelerated in the last decade.
But the global attitude to biodiversity loss has changed, said at Natural England, a UK government agency. “In 2010 when those targets were agreed, I believe that many people in boardrooms and in national government [felt that] the loss of nature was regrettable but it was the inevitable price of progress,” he said at a briefing on 19 December. “Whereas today we have a much stronger understanding that this is not just about endangered species and declining animals and plants. This is about the future of the economy.”
That urgency should spur bolder action this time around, he argues: “The penny does seem to have dropped.”
Negotiators drafting the Kunming-Montreal pact set out to word the agreement to ensure countries could be held to account for their pledges, by drafting clear, numerical targets and a clear mechanism for nations to review and improve progress in the coming years.
On this, only partial success was achieved. Some of the goals, such as the target to protect 30 per cent of land and oceans by 2030, are clear and measurable. But goals on the so-called drivers of biodiversity loss, such as reducing overconsumption and tackling pollution, are much vaguer, says Fischler Hooper. There’s “room for improvement” on those goals, she said. With COP15 at an end, any changes will have to be negotiated in future meetings of the parties.
Likewise, a system to require countries to improve national ambitions if a global review shows the world is falling short against the treaty was weakened to become voluntary.
Without a forceful mechanism to compel countries to do better, the role of campaigners to hold governments to account becomes more important, says Fischler Hooper. “We will definitely push them to do it,” she says.
at The Wildlife Trusts in the UK says the pact gives charities like his fresh ammunition to level at laggard governments. “There’s a new minimum level of requirements in town on what needs to be delivered on biodiversity in the future,” he says. “These kinds of agreements help people like me and organisations like mine to set a new standard of expectation from governments and business”.
Already he is calling on the UK government to redraft targets set in the Environment Act, published for the first time just last week. Ambition under those goals falls short against the Kunming-Montreal agreement, he says. For example, the UK did not set a goal to increase protected areas or reduce harm from pesticides. “They need to be looked at again to make sure they are in line with what has been agreed in Montreal,” he says.
