The Institut du Développement Durable et des Relations Internationals (IDDRI) has published a policy brief analyzing the zero draft of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. The brief calls for a concise final text, the mainstreaming of biodiversity across all relevant sectors, as well as the mobilization of States and other stakeholders to achieve the highest ambition possible.

The zero draft’s proposed framework, published on 13 January, presents five long-term goals for 2050 related to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) 2050 Vision for Biodiversity. The framework also includes 20 action-oriented targets for 2030 that are meant to contribute to achieving these five longer-term goals.

The IDDRI brief discusses some of the sticking points likely to arise in forthcoming negotiations of the post-2020 framework. It describes a “potential trade-off between “ambition” and “realism” in the draft, noting a reduction in ambition from the Aichi Targets. For instance, the Aichi Targets called for the prevention of species extinction whereas the zero draft calls for a reduction in the number of threatened species. For habitat loss, the language is also less ambitious, reading, “no net loss” versus “habitat loss at least halved”. The brief emphasizes that with the credibility of international governance at stake, targets should be achievable.

With the credibility of international governance at stake, targets should be achievable.

Other thorny issues in the forthcoming negotiations, per the brief, will be the question of baselines as well as attributing improvement in ecosystems services to enhanced biodiversity conservation. On baselines, there is a risk of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR) complicating negotiations. The brief gives the example of the IPBES baseline of 1970, which advantages developed countries that already transitioned through the major drivers of biodiversity loss and habitat conversion in years (if not centuries) prior to this date. Meanwhile developing countries’ drivers of loss and their related impacts on biodiversity are unfolding now. The brief argues that there are “numerous other ways to address fairness and equity issues in the framework” without risking the derailment of the negotiation process with CBDR. On the issue of ecosystem services, the brief gives the example of clean water, noting that improvements could come via pathways that do not improve the status of biodiversity or ecosystem services, and that such issues could be addressed with a “rewording and proposal of metrics, that would ensure that it is the services provided by ecosystems that are enhanced.”

The brief goes on to present small modifications to the language of the zero draft on areas key for upcoming discussions. It discusses habitat loss, pollution, and human-wildlife conflict. The publication also calls for “strengthening” synergies with related multilateral processes (in addition to the biodiversity-related conventions, the oceans conventions, the other Rio conventions, and other MEAs) and expanding tools and solutions to target all subsidies that negatively impact on biodiversity as well as to shift public and corporate incentives and policy.

The brief concludes by calling for biodiversity mainstreaming at every level, including through the mechanisms of the High-level Political Forum as a way to promote linkages across the achievement of all the SDGs. It also highlights the importance of improved transparency and responsibility for all national actors. [Publication: A good working basis in the making. How to handle the zero draft of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework] [IDDRI Landing Page]