International Chamber of Commerce: Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework
Almost 200 nations agreed on a historic agreement to prevent and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030 at Montreal’s United Nations Conference on Biodiversity (COP15) by International Chamber of Commerce. These service delays are the result of COVID-19. The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) was finalized after two weeks of vigorous discussions at COP15 in Montreal, Canada. The GBF aims to achieve 23 distinct sub goals and four main objectives.
This accord has replaced the 2010 Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Governments have vowed to safeguard at least 30% of terrestrial and marine regions and recognize Indigenous and traditional territories to achieve the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development objectives. Many people have expressed their disapproval of the deal, citing worries about its aims and the pact’s corporate influence, vague wording, and watered-down ambitions, which are qualitative. International Chamber of Commerce Montreal, Canada, hosted the fifteenth Conference of the Parties, or COP15.
At the United Nations Biodiversity Conference (COP15), held in Montreal, Canada, over 200 nations vowed to stop biodiversity loss by the end of this decade. This was accomplished after protracted negotiations and several protests, including a “die-in” by young people throughout the globe and a walkout by developing countries due to a funding crisis.
The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) was accepted early Monday morning at the fifteenth Conference of Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP15). The GBF contains 23 action-oriented targets and four goals. A meeting that was held in Canada from December 7–19 was presided over by China.
International Chamber of Commerce Agreement’s main objectives
The International Chamber of Commerce Agreement’s main objectives are to recognize “indigenous and traditional territories, where applicable,” as well as “ensure and enable that by 2030 at least 30% of terrestrial, inland water, coastal, and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services, are effectively conserved and managed.” This purpose must remain a guiding concept throughout the term of the Agreement. Currently, 17% of the Earth’s landmass and 10% of its seas are designated as protected areas.
The Agreement includes pledges to mobilize a minimum of $200 million annually in financial flows from “all sources,” which consists of the public and private sectors, and to “progressively” close the $700 million annual biodiversity finance gap by 2030. It also calls for financial flows to be aligned with the Framework and the Convention on Biological Diversity. We must always make an effort to achieve these goals. By the Framework and the Convention on Biological Diversity, the parties commit to harmonizing their respective financial flows.
International Chamber of Commerce researcher’s opinion
The consequences of the framework’s outputs on other processes, in this International Chamber of Commerce researcher’s opinion, will be intriguing. Our lives have been greatly improved by the decisions made at the World Trade Organization, the United Nations Environment Assembly, and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. At a press conference shortly after the adoption, Basile van Havre, the co-chair of the Open-Ended Working Group on the GBF at CBD, stated: “It is our turn to see how we can impact them, and eventually there will be a convergence among the many instruments.” During a CBD meeting, this was said.
The GBF text is a portion of a larger document that also contains resolutions on issues like a monitoring framework, digital sequence information (DSI) on genetic resources, resource mobilization, planning, monitoring, reporting, and review mechanisms, capacity-building and development, technical and scientific collaboration, and more.
International Chamber of Commerce Wins and Losses:
The COP15 Agreement has been criticized for its watered-down goals, flimsy language, and lack of advancement in critical areas like halting species extinction, protecting pristine ecosystems, and addressing unsustainable production and consumption. The Agreement indeed opens the way for resource mobilization and monitoring frameworks. The Agreement has received appreciation despite these reservations.
Co-chair of the 2019 IPBES report and Argentine ecologist Sandra Diaz praised the effort to adopt the framework, especially “after so many days of negotiations that did not look promising,” but lamented the lack of more ambition throughout the framework. The 2019 IPBES report is one of the critical scientific assessments supporting the framework’s science-based targets.
She complimented the “quite exceptional progress” made in several areas, such as gender equality and the inclusion of local communities and Indigenous peoples’ perspectives in the written text. While the text did not precisely reflect the IIFB’s proposed language, IIFB member Jennifer-Tauli Corpuz notes that it does provide an opportunity for Indigenous and traditional territories to be considered in new ways that go beyond protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures (OEMs). According to the Wilson Biodiversity Foundation, Monagaby’s primary responsibility is to ensure that the 30% objective is global rather than national and appropriately reflects biodiversity.
The poorer nations’ primary demand, the formation of an international fund for biodiversity, was partly satisfied by the final declaration of International Chamber of Commerce. Following the protest, Brazil started on behalf of a group of developing countries with the same objectives. A vow “to mobilize and jointly offer financial gifts of at least $100 billion annually or 1% of global GDP till 2030, an amount to be adjusted for the period 2030-2050,” was demanded by these states. Brazil, on behalf of a group of developing countries with similar interests, published the statement.
According to the International Chamber of Commerce draft agreement, these payments “must be fresh and extra to those already being given under past [multilateral environmental accords] MEAs.” China, the second-largest economy in the world, can afford to raise the amount of money it contributes to charitable organizations.
Should Private Businesses Fill the Void?
This massive financial shortfall is anticipated to be compensated by for-profit enterprises and charity groups. O’Donnell thinks one possible approach may be to charge the businesses most responsible for biodiversity loss.
Mark Opel says that even if such a provision was not anticipated to be included in the accord, governments might still utilize debt-for-resource swaps to raise money for conservation efforts. According to Rainforest Action Network staffer Shona Hawkes, Target 14 of the biodiversity agreement contains wording that suggests nations must control corporate money and financial flows to accomplish biodiversity goals.
The conference was dominated by the private sector, which heavily influenced negotiations and actively lobbied governments, according to indigenous, local, and civil society activists, as well as representatives from Friends of the Earth International, Rainforest Action Network, Global Forest Coalition, the corporate watchdog ETC Group, and scientists from the Federation of German Scientists. They also contend that industrial lobbying had an impact on governments.
Business Impacts the Accord on Biodiversity:
Corporate worries focused on three primary issues: pressing for the elimination of biotechnology monitoring, a lack of responsibility for bad economic decisions, and the inclusion of biodiversity offsets. Biodiversity cannot be equated with carbon emissions due to ecosystems’ local and interrelated nature. Unexpectedly, many companies have demanded that the private sector be forced to disclose risks, dependencies, and repercussions.
This has taken up much of the time spent negotiating over Target 15 International Chamber of Commerce. Large multinational organizations and financial institutions are required by the rules and laws to monitor the risks, dependencies, and effects on biodiversity resulting from their operations, supply networks, value propositions, and investment portfolios. Those still need to be prepared to assess and document their risks, effects, and dependencies.
Governments have realized that continuing in the same manner is no longer acceptable since doing so would be fiscally irresponsible and result in a long-term loss of value. According to Shona Hawkes, “access to justice is one of the most important things communities are clamoring for.”
According to the International Chamber of Commerce, “Biodiversity financing was the GEF’s priority going into these negotiations; more than 60% of our recent record replenishment of $5 billion will be committed to programs addressing the causes of environmental deterioration to safeguard species and the environments in which they live.”
Talks about the Use of Gene Drives:
During the International Chamber of Commerce conference, topics regarding gene drives and other issues relating to biotechnology practices were discussed. A gene drive alters a live organism’s DNA and releases it back into its natural environment. Brazil, Argentina, and other significant exporters of agricultural products rejected any wording that permitted control over new technical processes. One of these exporting nations is Brazil.
These countries’ economies depend heavily on the production of items for the agriculture industry. The book has been stripped of horizon scanning, technical evaluations, monitoring, and a conservative perspective on biotechnology. Goal 17 is focused on protecting biodiversity while lowering needless risks.
The prior commitments made by several countries to start “frequent” and “wide” horizon scans, assessments, and monitoring at COP14 have been compromised as a consequence. Steinbrecher has compiled a list of international biotech initiatives using gene drives to remove 32 insect species, 21 of which are agricultural pests.
The term “digital structural information” (DSI) refers to digitalized data, which includes genetic data gathered from the outside world. The development of new foods and pharmaceuticals often makes use of this knowledge. These digital assets are highly prized by the governments or companies who mine for them, yet they are often found in the diverse ecosystems of underdeveloped nations. Tropical areas are where these ecosystems are often found.
We source different products for our export buyers around the globe. Would you like to have a look?
Types of Biodiversity
Above Article Sources