Save

Less Specific and More Comprehensive? An Analysis of How the Ocean Is Reflected in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework

In: Ocean Yearbook Online
Authors:
Carolina Hazin The Nature Conservancy Arlington, Virginia USA

Search for other papers by Carolina Hazin in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
and
Daniela Diz The Lyell Centre, Heriot-Watt University Edinburgh United Kingdom

Search for other papers by Daniela Diz in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Open Access

Abstract

In response to the increasing trend of biodiversity decline globally and its consequences for the planet as a whole, the Convention on Biological Diversity Conference of the Parties adopted the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) in December 2022. The Framework sets conservation, sustainability and equitable sharing of benefits from the use of genetic resources and MEAns of implementation goals to be achieved by 2050, and actionable targets to be achieved by 2030 to halt and reverse biodiversity loss. During the negotiations and even after the adoption of the GBF, much debate has surrounded how the ocean has been represented in the Framework. By addressing the scope of the GBF vis-à-vis the Convention, quantifying and comparing the use of marine-related terms in the GBF and in the previous biodiversity framework, and aligning relevant COP decisions and objectives and activities of the CBD Programme of Work on Marine and Coastal Biodiversity with the GBF targets, we conclude that the GBF does not fail to address marine and coastal biodiversity and all targets are applicable to this ecosystem.

Introduction

This article addresses the extent to which conservation and sustainable use of marine and coastal ecosystems is featured in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF)1 adopted in December 2022 at the 15th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP15) of the Convention on Biological Diversity2 (CBD) and offers a perspective on the relevance of the framework to ocean conservation and sustainability. It also outlines, based on the CBD Programme of Work (PoW) on Marine and Coastal Biodiversity and relevant marine CBD decisions, how targets of the GBF relate to the marine realm, despite the lack of explicit reference to marine ecosystems in all of its targets.

The post-GBF adoption view is that this Framework has little coverage of ocean biodiversity.3 The argument relates to the number of targets that spell out marine and coastal-related wording. In contrast, we interpret the scope of the GBF as a whole in addition to the number of occurrences of marine-related terms in the Framework.

The question we pose is whether the perceived limited reference to marine biodiversity in the GBF will result in poorer commitment or intention to conserve and promote the sustainable use of marine and coastal ecosystems. It is beyond the aim of this article to cover the probability of success or failure in implementing the GBF or why previous frameworks failed to achieve their respective goals. Rather, the point raised here is that the level of reference to any ecosystems should not be open for an oblique interpretation of the commitments or possibility to fully implement the CBD and its three objectives and be an excuse for lack of action.

While the assumption—the “out of sight out of mind” saying—may hold true, during the negotiations of the Framework, Parties acknowledged and advocated for a streamlined plan that would be more communicable to a wider and more diverse constituency, and consequently, would potentially gain an increased uptake. However, in order to lean in the other direction and avoid leaving critical issues uncovered, the path pursued during the negotiations was to design targets that would cover all ecosystems and to avoid ones that were too specific on certain conservation issues or sub-types of ecosystems.

This article first provides a brief legal context of the CBD, including its geographical area of competence, but also the scope of the ecological realms the treaty has as a mandate. On scope, how consultations around the inclusion of marine and coastal biodiversity evolved during the nearly four years of negotiations of the GBF are outlined.

In order to evaluate if the GBF falls short in reference to ocean conservation, the marine-related terms used within the text of the Framework have been quantified, and also compared to the number of occurrences of marine-related terms in the previous CBD Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 (SPB). In addition to this assessment on the GBF and SPB decision text, goals and targets, the indicators that were coastal- and marine-specific within the monitoring framework of the two frameworks mentioned above have been compiled. The intention is not only to compare the number of terms, but to also assess the framing and specificity of the targets and the indicators that embedded marine-related terms within them in order to determine the applicability of the GBF to the marine environment as a whole.

Finally, the GBF targets are mapped against the existing PoW on Marine and Coastal Biodiversity and relevant CBD COP decisions to further reveal the linkages of the targets with ocean conservation, regardless of the express reference to marine-related terms in all targets. The aim is to reiterate that the GBF is an authoritative framework applicable to all ecosystems and as such it should be equally implemented in all realms, including marine ecosystems.

Legal Context

Global conservation and sustainability targets, although not always legally binding per se (depending on the nature of the instrument that establishes those and on how it is described/qualified),4 are often set under intergovernmental processes advancing environmental agendas. The GBF is a policy instrument, adopted through a COP decision, as opposed to a legally binding protocol adopted under the Convention (e.g., the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing5 or the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety6). Nevertheless, soft-law instruments still carry normative force and drive interpretation and implementation of international obligations.7 CBD decisions also contribute to the evolution of the Convention.8

The CBD is a quasi-universal treaty which has among its objectives the conservation of biodiversity and the sustainable use of its components.9 It applies to terrestrial, inland waters and marine biodiversity alike, however, in the case of components of biodiversity (e.g., genetic resources) it applies to areas within national jurisdiction, and with respect to processes and activities carried out under the jurisdiction or control of its Parties, it applies to both areas within and beyond national jurisdiction.10

Conservation obligations emphasized under the Convention include, inter alia, the establishment of a system of protected areas; restoration of degraded ecosystems; prevention of the introduction of invasive alien species; and the adoption of legislation for the protection of threatened species and populations.11

With regards to sustainable use, the Convention obliges its Parties to mainstream biodiversity conservation and sustainability into national decision-making.12 The implementation of environmental impact assessments (EIA s) and strategic environmental assessments (SEA s) that assess whether proposed projects, programs, policies or plans are likely to have significant adverse effects on biodiversity is also an obligation under the Convention.13 Several COP decisions on these and other matters have further elaborated on these issues and provided guidance on implementation, including with respect to the marine environment (see Annex A below).

The GBF, as a global policy instrument adopted by a COP decision, aims to facilitate the implementation of the above obligations under the Convention in all ecosystems. The extent to which the GBF addresses marine and coastal biodiversity has been highly debated and the interpretation among the different actors differ. To clarify this issue, the next section focuses on the scope of the GBF vis-à-vis the marine environment, while also providing a quantitative analysis of the marine-related terms used.

Scope and Quantity

As mentioned above, much debate has surrounded the negotiations of the GBF with respect to the application of the Framework and its goals and targets to coastal and marine biodiversity. In the run-up to the COP, the co-chairs of the Open-ended Working Group on the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework convened a series of thematic and regional workshops to collect proposals from the Convention Parties and other actors on the structure and content of the Framework. In 2019, they guided the Thematic Workshop on Marine and Coastal Biodiversity for the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework14 with that purpose.

Some negotiators called for a specific GBF goal on the ocean and/or for specific marine-related targets, similar to the structure of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG s), in particular, SDG 14. The suggested goal would read:

By 2030, the ocean is on the path to recovery, supporting healthy ecosystems, thriving species, and human well-being, to achieve a 100% [responsibly managed/ecologically sustainable] ocean by 2050 that supports the three objectives of the Convention (conservation, sustainable use, fair and equitable sharing of benefits).15

Furthermore, the report of the 2019 Thematic Workshop on Marine and Coastal Biodiversity for the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework features aspirations of including a target that called for 100 percent well-managed ocean (which is already an obligation under the CBD and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea), as well as focus on areas that require special attention, applying the ecosystem approach, and variations of that. The call for an ocean-specific target was suggested to feature in the Framework in addition to one calling for 30 percent of the ocean surface to be effectively managed through protected or conserved areas. The call for specificity went even further, namely, a few negotiators and/or members of non-governmental groups were of the view that the Framework should explicitly reference specific types of marine ecosystems such as mangroves, seagrass beds or coral reefs.16 In addition to the argument of existing evidence of threats that these ecosystems are under, the view was that the GBF should not take a reverse approach from the SPB 2011–2020.

The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 of the CBD, which preceded the GBF as the global implementing framework for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use, carried a few targets dedicated to the marine realm. Some negotiators or advocates reasoned that this approach should also be reflected in the new Framework.

While the benefits of the higher visibility offered by SDG 14 was recognized, as negotiations progressed, the structure of the GBF was set in a way to reflect the three objectives of the Convention, namely, biodiversity conservation, sustainable use and equitable utilization,17 through the GBF’s Goals A–C, respectively. This structure was meant to be inclusive of all biodiversity attributes without specific considerations for specific ecosystems, which also reflects the ecosystem approach,18 and the approach taken under the Convention itself. In addition to these, it was felt that it would be important to also incorporate a fourth goal on implementation (Goal D) where financial and enabling commitments could facilitate the implementation of the framework as a whole. In view of this proposal of four goals, there was an overall agreement that the set of targets should be streamlined and the GBF text communicable, but several delegates questioned the degree to which the ocean conservation needs had been sufficiently incorporated into the Framework.19 For some, having explicit and ambitious reference to marine and coastal ecosystems in specific targets continued to be a high priority. This was the case especially because, historically, terrestrial ecosystems have been emphasized in international policy instruments (e.g., considering the number of decisions targeted at terrestrial ecosystems as opposed to those related to marine and coastal ecosystems). The following data depicts the higher attention that has been given to the terrestrial environment in the conservation work: the number of Key Biodiversity Areas (KBA s) identified in terrestrial (n = 15,693) versus marine environments (n = 644);20 the number of threatened species in the IUCN Red List that have been assessed, of which below 15 percent of the total species assessed are marine;21 and finally, the global coverage of areas protected, which is 16.01 percent terrestrial against 8.16 percent marine.22

In the case of the GBF, the absence of dedicated marine and coastal goals and targets does not imply exclusion of the matter. In assessing this issue, we address the scope of the Framework, and then explore the occurrence of marine-related references within the GBF decision text (CBD decision 15/4). These occurrences in the 2011–2020 Strategic Plan (CBD decision X/2) for Biodiversity are compared vis-à-vis the GBF.

Scope

As discussed in the “Legal Context” section above, the CBD Convention applies to the components of biodiversity within the limits of national jurisdiction (e.g., marine genetic resources), and to “processes and activities, regardless of where their effects occur, carried out under its jurisdiction or control, within the area of its national jurisdiction or beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.”23 As such, the GBF, which was adopted by a COP decision aiming to contribute to the implementation of the Convention,24 has the same jurisdictional scope. Marine and coastal biodiversity is therefore an intrinsic element of the Convention and of the Framework, especially when considering that the definition of biological diversity under the Convention explicitly refers to marine ecosystems.25

Furthermore, the COP decision that adopted the GBF emphasized “the need for a balanced and enhanced implementation of all provisions of the Convention, including its three objectives.”26 It is clear that when referring to biodiversity, ecosystems and habitats, the GBF targets do not exclude marine ecosystems, but rather, encompass those by default. In addition, it is important to note that the GBF is expected to be implemented by the whole-of-government and whole-of-society, relying “on action and cooperation by all levels of government and by all actors of society,”27 once again indicating that all ecosystem realms, economic sectors, government departments and governance levels are included.

It is also important to consider the value of specificity in the targets: all- ecosystem-encompassing targets versus specific targets addressing specific issues of the conservation and sustainable use agenda. The practice of listing particular sub-types of ecosystems (e.g., mangroves and coral reefs), pressures/pollution type (e.g., excess nutrients and underwater noise) in targets may be considered detrimental to action that addresses also those non-listed.

For instance, GBF Target 7 states the following:

Reduce pollution risks and the negative impact of pollution from all sources by 2030, to levels that are not harmful to biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services, considering cumulative effects, including: (a) by reducing excess nutrients lost to the environment by at least half, including through more efficient nutrient cycling and use; (b) by reducing the overall risk from pesticides and highly hazardous chemicals by at least half, including through integrated pest management, based on science, taking into account food security and livelihoods; and (c) by preventing, reducing, and working towards eliminating plastic pollution.28

Although it is clear that Target 7 applies to all sources of pollution, which is aligned with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,29 obligations regarding marine pollution,30 the explicit reference to excess nutrients, pesticides and highly hazardous chemicals, and plastic pollution, could make Parties prioritize actions on the reduction of these sources, while other sources, such as underwater noise and artificial light pollution, which are relevant to the marine realm, could be sidelined.

To avoid this situation, the role of indicators under the monitoring framework31 of the GBF becomes of high relevance. They may work as drivers for Parties to take action as governments are required to report on the status of the subject matter of those indicators. The challenge, however, is that, in the case of the GBF, currently Parties are only required to report on headline indicators (component and complementary indicators are suggested, therefore, of voluntary use), which are more high level, rather than more detailed, such as the component or complementary indicators (see Annex B below).32 The risk of this path is that Parties may “cherry pick” which ecosystem realms to report on.

Despite this limitation, the Global Biodiversity Outlook 5 (GBO-5)33 provides evidence on the contrary with respect to the reporting on progress of targets of the SPB 2011–2020. The GBO-5 scores the progress of each of the elements (specific commitments within a target) of the 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets and summarizes national achievements based on the set of generic and specific indicators.34 Of these descriptions found at the GBO-5, some do not actually relate to elements of the targets. For instance, on target 2,35 the Outlook reports that countries were working on the development of national legal frameworks to incorporate biodiversity values including on fisheries (Generic indicator: “Trends in integration of biodiversity and ecosystem service values into sectoral and development policies.” Specific indicator: “Number of countries that have integrated biodiversity in National Development Plans, Poverty reduction strategies or other key development plans).” In the case of target 3,36 it reports that countries were falling behind in reducing fisheries subsidies in the past decade (Specific indicator: “Trends in potentially harmful elements of government support to fisheries”). In neither of the targets outlined above was there marine-related language in the target text.

Quantity

As noted above, the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 contained five goals under which there were 20 targets, widely known as the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. In that, the following words related to the marine realm were included 13 times (in four targets and twice in the decision text):37 “seascape,” “marine,” “coastal,” “coral,” “fish,” “fisheries,” “overfishing,” “ocean acidification,” and “aquaculture.” In contrast, we can find the words “ocean,” “sea,” “seascape,” “marine,” “blue,” “coastal,” “fisheries,” “ocean acidification,” “aquaculture,” and “plastic pollution” (the last two not being exclusively applicable to the marine, but also to inland waters),38 also 13 times, but embedded in seven of the targets and in the GBF decision text to guide the world’s policies and actions to halt biodiversity loss.

In the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020, the terms were used in Target 6 (sustainable fisheries), Target 7 (sustainable production— aquaculture), Target 10 (pressures on coral reefs) and Target 11 (protected and conserved areas). Targets 6 and 10 were considered as ocean-specific (although, in reality, target 6 was equally applicable to all aquatic ecosystems, including fresh waters), while Target 7 and 11 referred, respectively, to other sustainable productive activities and to protected and conserved areas in the terrestrial and inland water ecosystems as well.

The above does not mean, however, that other targets within the Plan were aimed, exclusively, at terrestrial and/or inland waters ecosystems. For instance, Targets 1 and 2 (on biodiversity values), Target 5 (on natural habitats), Target 8 (on pollution), Target 9 (on invasive alien species), Target 12 (on threatened species), Target 13 (on genetic diversity), Target 15 (on carbon stocks), among others, are also applicable to marine/coastal biodiversity, even without express referencing.

Some of those listed terms are also mentioned in the section that outlines the rationale of the Plan and in Section V on “Implementation, monitoring, review and evaluation.” In Section V, Parties are directed to the PoW agreed to under the Convention, including the PoW on marine and coastal biodiversity, as existing guidance to support implementation of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets.

In respect to the GBF, marine-related terms were used in Target 1 (spatial planning), Target 2 (habitat restoration), Target 3 (protected and conserved areas), Target 7 (pollution—plastics), Target 8 (climate change), Target 10 (sustainable production, e.g., aquaculture, fisheries) and Target 12 (access to natural spaces). All the above targets where the marine-related terms are mentioned, the reference relates not specifically to protection or sustainable use of marine resources, but rather, to all ecosystem types. It is therefore interesting to note that despite delegates’ opinion that the GBF targets insufficiently covered marine-related issues, the explicit reference to marine-related terms were included in more targets than in the previous Strategic Plan. Moreover, similarly to the Aichi Targets, the lack of explicit reference in the other targets does not imply that those other targets are not applicable to the marine environment (see Scope section above).

Furthermore, to reference within target texts, the term “sea” is also referred to in Section A “Background” of the GBF decision, which, based on the Global Assessment Report of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) report, outlines that land and sea use change were among the major drivers of biodiversity loss.

Giving Meaning to the Ocean in the Global Biodiversity Framework through the Marine and Coastal Biodiversity Programme of Work

As considered above, the fact that some targets do not expressly mention marine and coastal biodiversity does not mean that these cannot be implemented in the ocean space. In order to clarify the linkages between these targets with the marine environment, we illustrate how they can be implemented by cross-referencing them with the CBD PoW on Marine and Coastal Biodiversity operational objectives and activities, while also identifying areas that would benefit from further attention in future COP decisions.

The PoW was first adopted in 1998, and revised in 2004 and 2010, therefore, recognizably needing to be updated to reflect current needs and approaches. The CBD decision that adopted the GBF requested the Secretariat to conduct a strategic review and analysis of all PoWs of the Convention to facilitate the implementation of the GBF.39 Draft updates of the PoWs will be prepared for the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA) and the Subsidiary Body on Implementation (SBI) consideration prior to submission to COP16 scheduled for 2024.40 More specifically, the update of the marine and coastal biodiversity PoW by COP16 was called for under the marine and coastal biodiversity decision of COP15.41

While the current marine and coastal PoW contains very pertinent objectives and activities that are still relevant today for the implementation of the GBF, it does not cover all elements contained in the GBF, and in this sense, an update would indeed facilitate the implementation of the framework as a whole. In this respect, this section provides an overview of a rapid gap analysis of the current PoW vis-à-vis the GBF targets, while also highlighting a few examples of relevant instruments adopted or considered by previous CBD COP s that merit further implementation attention given their important role in achieving the GBF targets (see Annex A below).

Current PoW vis-à-vis the GBF

In 1998, the CBD COP through its decision IV/5 adopted the PoW on marine and coastal biodiversity under the Convention for three years.42 The PoW comprised five programme elements, namely:

  • (i) integrated marine and coastal marine and coastal area management;

  • (ii) marine and coastal living resources;

  • (iii) marine and coastal protected areas;

  • (iv) mariculture; and

  • (v) alien species and genotypes.

Further to this, in 2004, CBD decision VII/5 recognized that the elements of the PoW were still global priorities,43 and refined the PoW considering new developments and priorities, such as climate change.44

Upon the adoption of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and its Aichi Biodiversity Targets, and after an in-depth review of implementation, COP10 reaffirmed that the marine and coastal biodiversity PoW still corresponded to global priorities, encouraging Parties to continue to implement the program elements, while also endorsing further guidance contained in decision X/29.45

Each program element contains a goal, operative objectives, suggested activities, and ways and means of implementation. In the rapid assessment (see Annex A below), the existing program elements’ goals, operative objectives, and activities are matched with the GBF targets in order to identify GBF areas that are not covered by the PoW and that would benefit from updates. Furthermore, key instruments or recommendations adopted by CBD COP (focus on decisions from COP10) that could assist the implementation of the GBF, and that therefore, could be reinforced in the updated marine and coastal biodiversity PoW are identified. The reason for that being that the PoW was last updated at COP10.

From Annex A below, it is clear that:

  • (i) all GBF targets are relevant to the marine environment;

  • (ii) the current PoW and existing COP decisions continue to be relevant for the implementation of the GBF; and

  • (iii) to perfectly align with the GBF, the updated PoW and future COP decisions would benefit from further work with respect to, inter alia:

    1. the role of blue carbon ecosystems and respective conservation and management measures to ensure that these continue to perform mitigation, adaptation and disaster risk reduction functions (in relation to Target 8), since so far the main focus of the work conducted on the marine biodiversity-climate nexus has been on coral reefs, cold water areas and ocean acidification. In addition, other climate change-related pressures on marine ecosystems, such as warming and deoxygenation, could also be the object of further attention.

    2. mainstreaming of biodiversity (Targets 14 and 15) within and across sectors active in marine and coastal spaces would also benefit from further attention in the revised PoW despite existing guidance on mainstreaming from other COP decisions more broadly, and the ongoing work being conducted on the long-term strategic approach on mainstreaming (CBD decision 15/17 (2022)) to ensure that the marine sectors are fully represented.

    3. Sustainable consumption (Target 16) with regards to the marine environment would also benefit from further attention in the revised PoW. This could include a compilation of best practices regarding sustainable consumption initiatives related to seafood for instance, and even supply chain analysis of products that rely on and could pose an impact on marine and coastal ecosystems (e.g., electric car batteries with respect to deep seabed mining, sand mining, etc.).46

Conclusion

Biodiversity is under threat in all geographies of the globe, and increasing pressures are putting several species on the verge of extinction in all realms: terrestrial, inland waters, coastal and marine.47 In response to this crisis, the GBF “aims to catalyze, enable and galvanize urgent and transformative action by Governments, and subnational and local authorities, with the involvement of all of society, to halt and reverse biodiversity loss.”48

The authors of this article were able to collect impressions in communication exchange with peers within, for instance, informal coalitions of non-governmental organizations that were formed along the process of and present at the negotiations of the GBF, as well as through the participation in the marine and coastal biodiversity thematic workshop49 with a diverse range of stakeholders and CBD negotiators, and other negotiating fora (Open-ended Working Group on the GBF, SBSTTA, SBI, COP). For most, the limited reference to marine ecosystems or marine species or even the lack/fewer dedicated targets to the marine realm were a cause of concern. The fear was that by not referring to the marine environment, there would be a risk of continued neglect on addressing the impacts this ecosystem has been suffering. However, the scope of the GBF is clear, especially when considering the jurisdictional scope of the Convention: it applies to all ecosystem realms.

Another critical consideration is that, notwithstanding the ‘umbrella’ scope of the GBF for ocean conservation, there are other crucial multilateral agreements that will spur ocean conservation and sustainability. The recently adopted Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biodiversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ Agreement), is an example.50 This Agreement will reinforce and complement CBD obligations and efforts made by CBD Parties with respect to areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ). While the BBNJ Agreement is not yet into force, the role of other regional or global binding or voluntary commitments on ocean protection under Regional Seas Conventions and Action Plans; the Sustainable Development Goal 14, regional fisheries management organizations, the International Maritime Organization, the International Seabed Authority, among others, will be crucial for the implementation of the GBF in a mutually supportive manner. This synergistic approach can help pave the ground for the BBNJ COP deliberations when it is first convened, with a view to achieve policy coherence, while also facilitating reporting streamlining to some degree.

While one could argue that the SDG 14 elevated the visibility and awareness about the need to enhance ocean protection, the expected outcome on improving ocean health has not held true.51 The UN report on SDG14 outlines a failure in relevant progress throughout the whole set of targets under this goal.52 Indeed, some targets are experiencing regression.

It is also worth noticing that Parties of the CBD built the GBF based on a theory of change (ToC) that was underpinned by the recognition of the need for urgent action to halt biodiversity loss in all ecosystem types. This ToC was structured around the aim to “(a) put in place tools and solutions for implementation and mainstreaming, (b) reduce the threats to biodiversity and (c) ensure that biodiversity is used sustainably in order to meet people’s needs and that these actions are supported by enabling conditions, and adequate means of implementation, including financial resources, capacity and technology.”53 And, in this respect, drivers of change have effects on all applicable ecosystems (i.e., drivers such as non-sustainable agriculture practices are applicable to terrestrial ecosystems, while fisheries apply for marine and freshwater ecosystems), according to the IPBES report.54 We are here not arguing that a dedicated goal to the marine environment could not potentially drive the attention of CBD Parties to this ecosystem. Rather, we believe that, given the logic structure of the Framework, singling out any ecosystems in goals or targets would turn it into a repetitive set of goals and targets for terrestrial, inland waters and coastal and marine environments.

Furthermore, through a rapid assessment of marine and coastal biodiversity terminology contained in the previous framework in comparison with the GBF, it is clear the ocean is better represented in the GBF than in the SPB 2011–2020. The sort of representation is, however, different. In the latter, there are some targets that are considered marine and coastal biodiversity-specific. And possibly for that reason, there is an interpretation that the others are terrestrially focused. In contrast, in the GBF, marine and coastal biodiversity is referred to in half of the targets (excluding the ones on enabling conditions—Targets 14 to 23 “Tools and solutions for implementation and mainstreaming”), which are cross-cutting to the substantive ones.

Moreover, indicators are an important and integral part of the Framework that can potentially drive implementation. And, in this regard, the Monitoring Framework of the GBF falls short in marine-specific headline indicators, but it has a suite of component and complementary indicators that can be utilized to measure the status of marine biodiversity nationally and globally.

Finally, the GBF has been mapped against the Programme of Work on Marine and Coastal Biodiversity operational objectives and key COP decisions related to the marine environment. The result of this exercise demonstrates that the current PoW and marine-related COP decisions and the several guidance instruments adopted by COP to date can significantly contribute to the implementation of the GBF in the marine realm. In addition, the results of this exercise reinforce the notion that all GBF targets are applicable to the marine environment, while also pointing to areas that could benefit from further attention in the revised PoW and in future COP decisions for a comprehensive implementation of the Framework.

The 23 actionable targets that address conservation, sustainable use of biodiversity and benefits to people, the equitable share resulting from the use of genetic resources and the ways and means to achieve the Framework goals should be equally applicable to all types of ecosystems.

Annex A. Relationship between the GBF Targets and the CBD Programme of Work (PoW) on Marine and Coastal Biodiversity and Relevant Marine-Related COP Decisions/Policy Instruments55

FIG000001
FIG000001
FIG000001
FIG000001
FIG000001
FIG000001
FIG000001
FIG000001
FIG000001
FIG000001
FIG000001
FIG000001
FIG000001
FIG000001
FIG000001
FIG000001
FIG000001
FIG000001
FIG000001
FIG000001
FIG000001
FIG000001
FIG000001
FIG000001
FIG000001
FIG000001
FIG000001
FIG000001

Annex B. Headline, Component and Complementary Indicators, Marine and Coastal Specific, for Assessing Progress of the Attainment of Global Biodiversity Goals and Targets of the GBF (CBD Decision 15.5). (x = Indicator Not Defined or Not Specific to the Marine Realm)

FIG000002
FIG000002
FIG000002
FIG000002
FIG000002
1

CBD decision 15/4 (2022) (GBF).

2

United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, 5 June 1992, 1760 United Nations Treaty Series 79 (entered into force 29 December 1993) (CBD).

3

D. Obura, “The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework: What’s in it for Africa marine conservation,” WIOMSA Newsbrief 32, no. 1 (2023); International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), 9(783) Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB), “CBD WG2020 Highlights, CBD COP15 Daily Report, 3 December 2022,” available online: <https://enb.iisd.org/un-biodiversity-conference-oewg5-cbd-cop15-daily-report-3dec2022>.

4

For instance, the Paris Agreement, a legally binding treaty, establishes a global target within its text. In contrast, the 169 targets of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG s) were adopted through a United Nations General Assembly resolution (UNGA) (UNGA resolution 70/1 (2015)). UNGA resolutions, different from UN Security Council resolutions, are policy instruments and therefore non-binding. The GBF was adopted through a CBD COP decision, and therefore is also a policy instrument.

5

Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity, 29 October 2010, 1760 United Nations Treaty Series 79 (entered into force 12 October 2014).

6

Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity, 29 January 2000, 2226 United Nations Treaty Series 208 (entered into force 11 September 2003).

7

A. Boyle and C. Redgwell, Birnie, Boyle and Redgwell’s International Law and the Environment, 4th ed. (Oxford: OUP, 2021).

8

B. Ferreira de Souza Dias and K. Garforth, “Historical perspectives on the challenge of biodiversity conservation,” in: Biodiversity and Nature Protection Law, eds., E. Morgera and J. Razzaque (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2017), 13–30.

9

CBD, n. 2 above, art. 1. The third objective, which is beyond the focus of this article, relates to fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources.

10

Id., art. 4.

11

Id., art. 8.

12

Id., art. 10, see also art. 6(b).

13

Id., art. 14.

14

CBD/POST2020/WS/2019/10/2, Report of the Thematic Workshop on Marine and Coastal Biodiversity for the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (Montreal, Canada, 13–15 November 2019).

15

CBD/WG2020/2/4 (2020), para. 18.

16

CBD/POST2020/WS/2019/10/2, n. 14 above.

17

CBD, n. 2 above, art. 1.

18

See CBD decisions V/6 (2000) and VII/11 (2004).

19

IISD, 9 (783) ENB (2022), n. 3 above.

20

Key Biodiversity Areas Data, available online: <https://www.keybiodiversityareas.org/kba-data>.

21

IUCN, “Human Activity Devastating Marine Species from Mammals to Corals—IUCN Red List,” Press Release (2022), available online: <https://www.iucn.org/press-release/202212/human-activity-devastating-marine-species-mammals-corals-iucn-red-list>.

22

Protected Planet, available online: <https://www.protectedplanet.net/en>.

23

CBD, n. 2 above, art. 4.

24

CBD decision 15/4 (2022), n. 1 above, para. 1 adopts the GBF contained in the decision’s Annex.

25

CBD, n. 2 above, Article 2 defines biological diversity as “the variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems” (emphasis added).

26

CBD decision 15/4 (2022), n. 1 above, preambular paragraph.

27

Id., Annex, Section C.

28

Id., Annex, target 8.

29

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 10 December 1982, 1833 United Nations Treaty Series 397 (entered into force 16 November 1994) (UNCLOS). In addition to the CBD, UNCLOS is a key legal framework for ocean governance, and as recognized by the UNGA, “the Convention sets out the legal framework within which all activities in the oceans and seas must be carried out” (UNGA resolution 77/248 (2022), 6th preambular para.) See also N. Oral, “A 50-year reflection on global ocean governance for protection of the marine environment,” in: Research Handbook on Ocean Governance Law, eds., S. Borg, F.G. Attard, P. Mallia Vella de Fremeaux (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2023), 10–23; J. Harrison, Saving the Oceans through Law: The International Framework for the Protection of the Marine Environment (Oxford: OUP, 2017).

30

UNCLOS, n. 29 above, Part XII, and art. 1.

31

CBD decision 15/5 (2022), n. 1 above.

32

See CBD decisions 15/5 (2022) and 15/6 (2022).

33

Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Global Biodiversity Outlook 5 (Montreal, 2020).

34

CBD COP decision 128 (2016).

35

Target 2: “By 2020, at the latest, biodiversity values have been integrated into national and local development and poverty reduction strategies and planning processes and are being incorporated into national accounting, as appropriate, and reporting systems” CBD decision X/2 (2010).

36

Target 3: “By 2020, at the latest, incentives, including subsidies, harmful to biodiversity are eliminated, phased out or reformed in order to minimise or avoid negative impacts, and positive incentives for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity are developed and applied, consistent and in harmony with the Convention and other relevant international obligations, taking into account national socio-economic conditions” CBD decision X/2 (2010).

37

Note that more than one term can be used in one single target, explaining the total of targets and text references that we count as referencing marine-related terms not equaling the total number of times the term appears.

38

The authors acknowledge that fisheries, aquaculture and plastic pollution are not terms only associated with the marine, but rather to aquatic ecosystems, that is, also including inland waters. However, these are issues of high relevance to marine and coastal conservation and clearly associated with ocean space.

39

CBD decision 15/4 (2022), n. 1 above, para. 9.

40

Id.

41

CBD decision 15/24 (2022), para. 4.

42

CBD decision IV/4 (1998), para. 1.

43

CBD decision VII/5 (2004), para. 4.

44

Id., para. 5.

45

CBD decision X/29 (2010), para. 13.

46

See, for instance, P.A. Lusty et al., Deep-sea Mining Evidence Review (2021) British Geological Survey Commissioned Report (2021) CR/21/119.

47

IPBES, Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, eds. E.S. Brondizio et al. (Bonn: IPBES Secretariat, 2019), available online: <https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3831673>.

48

CBD decision 15/4 (2022), n. 1 above, para. 4.

49

CBD/POST2020/WS/2019/10/2 (2019), n. 14 above.

50

Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction, 19 June 2023, C.N.203.2023.TREATIES-XXI.10 (not yet into force).

51

UN, The Sustainable Development Goal Report 2023. Extended Report. Life Below Water (New York: United Nations, 2023), available online: <https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2023/extended-report/Extended-Report_Goal-14.pdf>.

52

Id.

53

CBD/WG2020/3/3 (2021), First Draft of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, para. 6.

54

IPBES, Summary for Policymakers of the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Eco- system Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, eds., S. Díaz et al., (Bonn: IPBES Secretariat, 2019).

55

The COP decisions referenced herein are solely those on marine and coastal biodiversity and ecologically or biologically significant marine areas, with the exception of: decision 14/8 (2018) on protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures (OECM s), given its relevance for marine OECM s as well as MPA s; decision V/6 (2000) and VII/11 (2004) on the ecosystem approach given its prominence in the GBF; and decision XIII/3 (2016) on mainstreaming, which made specific recommendations on mainstreaming biodiversity into fisheries.

Content Metrics

All Time Past 365 days Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 944 944 59
PDF Views & Downloads 875 875 52