Challenges to Implementing the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework

Abstract

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) has been a pivotal international instrument for global biodiversity conservation since 1992. The recent Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) aims to provide a pathway for the CBD for the present decade. However, the practicalities of land use and biodiversity conservation pose significant challenges. Drawing from diverse literature and reports, we identify nine implementation challenges for the GBF. These encompass harmonising conservation with sustainable development, integrating local values and indigenous knowledge, adopting a holistic landscape approach, and prioritising effective local governance. A shift from broad targets to explicit conservation metrics is vital. We propose strategies emphasising building institutional capacity for localised, participatory conservation and policy-making processes. This article offers suggestions for improving the GBF’s implementation and shaping future policy frameworks.

1. Introduction

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), adopted in 1992, represents a milestone international treaty to achieve biodiversity conservation and sustainable use [1,2,3]. Through time, the CBD has adeptly merged conventional conservation with contemporary economic principles. It recognises the economic significance of biodiversity for human well-being and the need to address the development needs of people living in biodiverse areas. Recently, the CBD adopted the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) as an urgent response to biodiversity loss by 2030 [4]. This framework outlines an ambitious trajectory for transformative actions to reshape societal relationships with biodiversity [5]. Its ultimate vision is for people to coexist harmoniously with nature by 2050 (

Table 1. A brief overview of the historical cross-sectoral commitments of the CBD.

Key Event	Key Output	Main Content(s)	Reference(s)
Rio Earth Summit (1992)	The initial version of the CBD	The three foundational objectives were set: The conservation of biological diversity; The sustainable use of the components of biological diversity; The fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilisation of genetic resources.	[1,2]
COP 10 (2010)	Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020	Twenty Aichi Biodiversity Targets by 2020	[6]
COP 15 (2020- postponed to 2022)	Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework	Twenty-three global targets by 2030	[4]

) [5].

While the CBD provides invaluable guidance for land-use policy and biodiversity conservation, its successful implementation presents formidable challenges. This article delves into these challenges, drawing upon the literature reviews, reports, and pertinent biodiversity and land-use initiatives undertaken under the GBF. Notably, we identify nine key challenges arising from intense competition for land and economic resources.

These challenges encompass various dimensions, ranging from the urgency of harmonising conservation with sustainable development to integrating local values and indigenous knowledge with expert insights. Moreover, we discuss the significance of adopting a landscape approach, combining economic and ecological knowledge, and ensuring effective local-level implementation. We advocate for a shift in focus from ambitious global targets to more locally targeted strategic measures. We believe the new measures are needed to enhance the effectiveness of conservation efforts on the ground.

We present a discourse on prospective solutions, emphasising local empowerment, integrating conservation and local development goals, and endorsing a holistic perspective that bridges conservation and socio-economic needs. We suggest the synergistic engagement of multi-level and cross-sectoral stakeholders facilitated by the CBD Secretariat. The article advocates enriching the conservation and sustainable land-use discourse by shifting to more localised, community-centred strategies operating at landscape scales. These strategies must recognise the trade-offs between conservation and the legitimate development needs of people, particularly the poor and politically marginalised in lower-income countries often dependent on natural resources.

2. Nine Challenges to Implementing the GBF Targets

2.1. Challenge 1: Global Targets Must Be Clear and Measurable

The effectiveness of global commitments such as the GBF is often hindered by vague and ambiguous objectives [7,8,9,10]. The limitations of metrics to enable tracking progress compound this issue, impeding the effectiveness of national and regional institutions implementing these agreements [7,8,9]. The CBD struggled to report progress on implementing the Aichi targets due to the lack of quantifiable indicators. Therefore, global commitments such as the GBF must set SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and Time-bound) local targets with reliable metrics [8,11,12].

2.2. Challenge 2: Global Targets Must Recognise Local Realities and Not Compromise Local Livelihoods

The CBD Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 advocated integrating biodiversity conservation with sustainable development [13,14]. However, managing the inherent trade-offs between conservation and development remains a profound challenge [9,15]. Realism is needed to recognise and manage trade-offs between GBF targets and other legitimate societal aspirations such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). For example, the “30 × 30” initiative (Target 3) may deliver on SDG15 (Life on Land) and SDG14 (Life below Water) but may conflict with other SDGs, such as food security (SDG2) [16]. Properly navigating these complex interactions necessitates understanding biodiversity conservation within its socio-economic and environmental contexts [7,17]. Such a holistic perspective can avoid negative development outcomes while maximising positive impacts on biodiversity [7,17]. An integrated approach must address trade-offs and harmonise ecological conservation with improving the lives of people. Local values and priorities often conflict with National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) and global targets [8,18,19]. This can create tensions and lead to counterproductive conservation interventions [8,18,19]. Harmonising these contradictions requires careful consideration of diverse stakeholder interests and local imperatives coupled with optimal resource allocation in a multi-actor and multi-level governance system [8,19,20]. Such coherence is a prerequisite to ensuring that local actions effectively contribute to the high-level conservation aspirations set by the GBF.

2.3. Challenge 3: Effective Financial Mobilisation for Localised Management

Achieving the GBF targets demands securing consistent, sustainable, and equitable financial resources and mechanisms for land-use and biodiversity conservation [21,22]. This financial support should bridge the gap between global conservation objectives and local development needs [21,22]. Previous CBD strategic plans have failed for lack of funds therefor finance for conservation has been central to negotiations of the GBF [22,23,24]. The GBF requires substantial investment, with an annual expenditure estimated between USD 151 billion and USD 895 billion, notably for expanding protected areas [25,26]. However, the effectiveness of funds like the Global Environment Facility (GEF) is limited by funding ceilings [23,25]. Similarly, the newly launched Global Biodiversity Framework Fund (GBFF) under the GEF demonstrates a proactive approach, but its operation and relationship with the GEF require clarity.

Furthermore, disparities in achieving conservation targets correlated with national and regional economic status are particularly challenging for lower-income countries or regions struggling with institutional, economic, and political challenges [27,28,29]. These countries often depend on international biodiversity financing [29,30,31,32]. Reassessing past funding effectiveness is essential for developing equitable and efficient financial frameworks that compensate for economic constraints in low-income countries. Region-specific and decentralised funding mechanisms could better meet sustainable and diverse conservation needs [29]. Financial mechanisms must directly empower local governance, ensuring funds effectively contribute to field-level biodiversity conservation. Excessive funding currently flows to high-level international institutions rather than to local, landscape-level bodies.

2.4. Challenge 4: Conservation Resource Allocation Must Align with Global Targets

The GBF has ambitious and time-sensitive targets, like the “30 × 30” initiative, but these global targets may inadvertently neglect unique local contexts and capacities [24,33]. Although universal targets can foster a unified vision, they may disregard the balance between intensive land use and conservation in the widely differing socio-economic, cultural, and ecological contexts of member nations. The “30 × 30” target favours investment in expanding protected areas when funding for improving management effectiveness for existing areas is a higher priority in many countries [12]. Consequently, the CBD resource allocation strategy must be tailored to local and context-specific requirements [24,33]. Countries need general guidance to develop and evaluate their biodiversity conservation plans but must allow local institutions to define local impacts and outcomes. Strengthening the capacity and competence of local institutions ensures those in close proximity to resources, whose decisions determine conservation outcomes, are central to conservation decision-making [19]. Recognising local entities for their knowledge of historical stewardship demonstrates their indispensable contribution to the broader objectives of the CBD [19]. Appropriate land allocation should be central to local adaptive management [19]. The practice of subsidiarity will help integrate local values and knowledge into conservation decisions [19]. Transitioning local people from mere beneficiaries to active stakeholders while acknowledging the impacts on their livelihoods should underpin conservation compensation interventions and, eventually, payments for environmental services [19].

2.5. Challenge 5: Integrating Local Values and Traditional Knowledge with Expert Insights

Although the GBF recognises indigenous peoples and local communities, the challenge remains of effectively integrating local values and traditional knowledge into global conservation goals. Conservation initiatives are most effective when local communities are actively involved, especially when these measures directly impact their livelihoods [19]. Decisions on biodiversity conservation profoundly affect local people dependent on these landscapes [9]. Stakeholders, representing diverse socio-economic, ethnic, and religious backgrounds, possess valuable traditional knowledge [9]. Their conservation contributions, when acknowledged and compensated through environmental service payments, can amplify the societal advantages of their stewardship [9,19]. Achieving conservation goals requires reconciling local interests with the broader public good provided by nature [9]. This balance is crucial to avoid concentrating land- and water-use decisions in the hands of an elite minority, notably the wealthy or politically powerful. While local communities must have a decisive role in land allocation, these must be seen in the context of broader ecosystem services. Local interests must be reconciled with the public goods benefits of nature [19]. Governance structures must integrate local insights with broader public aspirations and promote the co-production of local and expert solutions as a basis for a holistic conservation approach [9,19]. Such integration of perspectives addresses the vital challenge of balancing the rights of those living on the land with the needs of those relying on its ecosystem services.

2.6. Challenge 6: Actions to Overcome Conservation Time Lags

The GBF aspires to counteract biodiversity loss with ambitious conservation targets [5,34]. However, the CBD is hindered by significant time lags that could compromise these goals. As we approach the end of 2023, only seven years remain to achieve the 2030 targets. But today, we are still in a conceptual phase [5,35]. Many nations are still working on crafting their National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs). Long delays between conceptualisation and on-the-ground implementation can result in outdated or misaligned strategies [15,24,36]. This situation risks missing opportunities, using obsolete approaches, and failing to take advantage of the evolving understanding of conservation management [15,24,36]. It is vital to acknowledge the inherent delays and time required for achieving conservation outcomes, such as species recovery and land restoration [34].

Addressing these time-sensitive challenges requires a paradigm shift. Conservation must evolve from siloed and static approaches to collaborative and dynamic frameworks emphasising the building of local and adaptable institutions [37]. The institutions implementing the GBF must have the ability to adjust and modify their priorities in response to emerging knowledge and changing ecosystems [15,33,36,38]. Furthermore, leveraging advanced research and employing rigorous monitoring can refine strategies, enhancing both policy and practice for optimal outcomes [7,38]. The success of the CBD hinges on this balance of timely execution and adaptable management, particularly in the race to achieve the pressing 2030 objectives.

2.7. Challenge 7: Bridging the Knowledge and Data Gaps

Effective biodiversity conservation under the GBF is impeded by pervasive knowledge and data gaps, both locally and globally [24]. Despite extensive research on biodiversity and ecosystem governance within cities and broader landscapes, disparities exist in disseminating, interpreting, and applying findings in policy making [24]. The issue extends beyond information scarcity to encompass accessibility, interoperability, and relevance for diverse stakeholders [21].

Over the past four decades, conservation biology has seen shifts between problem-focused and solution-oriented research, leading to periodic shortages of actionable data [36]. This fluctuation sometimes results in a lack of data relevant to practical conservation. The absence of data may undermine evidence-based land-use and conservation decisions. This situation is exacerbated by the politicisation of the CBD, which sometimes sidelines science-driven decision-making processes [16,23]. Addressing this challenge requires not only generating comprehensive data but also establishing networks and platforms for inclusive data exchange and utilisation across sectors and regions.

2.8. Challenge 8: Forging Operational Synergies between Nations, Sectors and Interest Groups

The GBF symbolises a global commitment to conserve biodiversity, demanding extensive collaboration, transcending national borders and traditional conservation institutions. Aligning priorities across sectors like agriculture and energy becomes pivotal when goals like increasing crop yields or optimising energy production might conflict with conservation [24]. These sectors, encompassing agriculture, energy, and urbanisation, dominate the land-use narrative and significantly impact critical habitats [24]. Creating synergy among these seemingly conflicting sectors requires an innovative framework. This involves recognising mutual benefits, such as sustainable agriculture, bolstering ecosystem services or renewable energy, and reducing habitat degradation [39]. The onus is on crafting adaptable policies and strategies that meet the specific needs of each sector while advancing global biodiversity conservation [33]. The absence of inter-sectoral agencies from the decision-making process inevitably means conflicts are built into the system. Integral to this process is involving all influential land-use sectors in the GBF discussions, ensuring their perspectives shape decision-making.

The challenge in achieving these objectives is manifested by the lack of action to address several GBF targets a year after the Montreal decisions. This gap points to the necessity of effective partnership frameworks to foster knowledge sharing, joint resource mobilisation, and cooperative on-the-ground actions. As we move towards an increasingly interconnected world, a cohesive strategy blending inter-sectoral expertise and resources becomes paramount. The success of the GBF in safeguarding biodiversity hinges on its ability to promote such inclusive, collaborative, and innovative partnerships, ensuring all targets receive focused institutional support and action [40].

2.9. Challenge 9: Overcoming Entrenched Opposition from Powerful Entities

The implementation of the GBF will encounter significant resistance from powerful interest groups. A notable example relates to Target 7. This target, which seeks to significantly reduce excess nutrients and the risks posed by pesticides and hazardous chemicals, is claimed to directly confront the need to increase global food production. Smallholder farmers through to agro-industrial actors have legitimate ambitions which may counter the GBF goals. Interest groups with substantial influence and financial resources may take actions that compromise the achievement of the GBF. Extensive lobbying efforts, for instance, in the European Parliament, against the prohibition of specific pesticides, indicate the intensity and scale of this opposition [41]. This situation highlights the complex dynamic between environmental policy goals and powerful economic interests, underscoring a critical challenge in advancing GBF targets when they conflict with broader societal goals.

Such opposition is not just a matter of conflicting interests but also reflects the broader challenge of aligning economic and environmental objectives. The resistance of the chemical and fossil fuel industries is emblematic of the broader dilemma where economic imperatives take precedence over environmental concerns [10,42]. Navigating this complex landscape requires a strategic approach that not only advocates for biodiversity conservation but also engages with and addresses the concerns of society at large. This engagement is crucial for finding a middle ground that accommodates both sustainable environmental practices and the economic realities of societies and especially of the large number of people in low-income countries who still do not enjoy the benefits enumerated in the SDGs.

3. The Core Vision and Future Directions of the CBD

The CBD, a cornerstone in global environmental governance, pursues three primary objectives: biodiversity conservation, sustainable utilisation of its components, and equitable benefit distribution [2]. This treaty seeks to harmonise human demands with nature conservation, emphasising the synergy among biodiversity, development, and human well-being. However, with our world population exceeding eight billion, we confront a pressing question: how much biodiversity can we conserve [16,43]? This dilemma extends beyond mere numbers, spanning economic, socio-political, and ecological balances [16,43]. The global imperative is ensuring that biodiversity conservation goes beyond simply maintaining current political and economic structures [23]. These structures often prioritise immediate benefits over long-term ecological health [23]. The dialogue should shift from attaining set targets to fostering transformative change and promoting proactive local interventions, ensuring local communities’ well-being and livelihoods [19,34].

Critics have highlighted the risk of excessive politicisation in the CBD, occasionally side-lining science-driven decision making [16,23]. Such deviations from its core objectives can potentially jeopardise the very essence of the convention. For the CBD to remain practical, genuine biodiversity conservation intents must be central [23]. It should avoid inadvertently becoming a tool that endorses an unsustainable status quo driven by socio-political imperatives [23].

With its burgeoning population, the world presents challenges for conservation. However, it is the responsibility of global accords such as the CBD to lead with a vision, ensuring the planet’s ecological integrity is not compromised. The actual mission should not merely quantify what biodiversity we can conserve. The focus should pivot from the limits of our conservation capabilities to restructuring socio-economic frameworks, aligning them with the indispensable values of biodiversity.

4. Possible Solutions and Recommendations

4.1. Enhancing Local Implementation and Monitoring

The GBF principles must be anchored at the grassroots level, ensuring alignment with local practices and social-ecological contexts [8,44,45]. Actively engaging local communities in biodiversity governance is crucial for translating global directives into meaningful local actions [19,44]. Thus, empowering local administrations and communities to implement and monitor GBF guidelines will ensure more efficient conservation practices [18]. This approach can garner community support, fostering conservation efforts in sync with local livelihoods and traditions [18,19,44]. Additionally, trends in biodiversity values should be continuously monitored in locally managed areas, allowing compliance and adjustments to optimise conservation outcomes for evolving challenges [19,24].

4.2. Adopting a Holistic Perspective: Reconciling Conservation and Livelihoods

Integrating a holistic perspective into CBD criteria, especially for other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs), is vital to successfully align conservation efforts with local livelihoods [22,24]. Strategies should be developed not only to prioritise conservation but also to respect local socio-economic requirements [44]. Evidence from regions like Africa demonstrates that achieving this balance is feasible when conservation efforts align with regional development goals [46]. Biodiversity benefits can be positioned as integral to societal well-being, facilitating their integration into local land- and resource-use practices [47]. This approach advocates for equitable benefit distribution and subsidiarity, emphasising local rights and governance structures that promote community well-being without compromising broader conservation objectives [48,49,50]. Addressing the complexity of the GBF requires an interdisciplinary strategy, leveraging diverse expertise to develop comprehensive and adaptable solutions [51].

4.3. Strategic Measures for Effective Implementation and Transformative Change

The focus of the GBF should be shifted from ambitious but unrealistic and vague targets to strategic, high-quality on-the-ground metrics, thereby promoting transformative change [52]. One crucial step is evaluating the effectiveness of existing protected areas rather than hastily creating new ones or expanding existing ones [53]. This approach resonates with the advocacy of strategically located intermediate-sized conservation areas, balancing manageability with effectiveness as a pragmatic compromise [54]. Additionally, leveraging international frameworks, such as the World Heritage Convention, is crucial for prioritising high-biodiversity sites and fostering transformative changes [55]. By emphasising quality and strategic location, global agreements can enable a more pragmatic and results-oriented approach to biodiversity conservation.

4.4. Engaging Multi-Level and Cross-Sectoral Stakeholders

Effective GBF implementation requires synergistic stakeholder collaboration at multiple scales, from local to global [33,56]. This article outlines a broad overview of stakeholder roles (see Figure 1). However, variations will occur due to different national and regional contexts. The CBD Secretariat plays an instrumental role in fostering international cooperation, providing resources, monitoring progress, and facilitating knowledge exchange, thereby ensuring the collective achievement of goals [24].

4.5. Navigating the Solutions to Challenges

The figure below gives a visual guide to understanding the strategic approach to implementing the GBF (see Figure 2). This concise representation serves as a potential tool for scientists, policymakers, and stakeholders, offering a structured approach to understanding and tackling the complexities involved in conserving global biodiversity.

5. Conclusions

This article identifies nine key challenges in achieving the GBF targets for land allocation and biodiversity conservation. These challenges range from balancing conservation with development to recognising local values and indigenous knowledge. We advocate for a landscape-driven strategy, merging economic and ecological knowledge and ensuring effective local-level implementation. We stress the need for a transition between ambitious targets and a focus on strategic measures that promote quality and effectiveness on the ground.

Furthermore, we highlight the potential for a more holistic perspective, reconciling conservation with the socio-economic needs of local communities. We emphasise the critical role of community-centred governance and the principle of subsidiarity. We advocate improved global collaboration in biodiversity initiatives and their integration into poverty alleviation and development strategies.

Addressing these challenges necessitates unified efforts among policymakers, researchers, and practitioners. Solutions must integrate conservation efforts with local development goals, empower local communities, and promote a balanced approach to biodiversity conservation. A holistic and collaborative approach involving governments, local communities, civil society organisations and the private sector is required in the framework. By adopting a landscape approach, integrating economic and ecological knowledge, and prioritising effective local-level implementation, we can progress towards fulfilling the GBF objectives and safeguarding invaluable biodiversity for future generations.