Lack of financial resources is one of the main reasons why none of the Aichi Targets has been fully achieved.
Some developing countries are refusing to sign up to the “30 x 30” target for protected areas until wealthy nations pledge enough money to help them meet it. In a late-night discussion, developing countries pulled out of the talks, frustrated by the lack of commitment from developed countries.
subsidy
There is also disagreement over how to manage the money, with African countries calling for a new separate fund, while others, such as the European Union, want to continue using existing U.N. funding channels.
Argument over the fund nearly derailed the agreement at the last minute, as the final plenary meeting to sign the document began hours after the Democratic Republic of the Congo expressed opposition to the text, which proposed a new fund dedicated to biodiversity. Facility 2023 falls under the United Nations’ existing Global Environment Facility. It will also be open to other funding sources, including from the private sector and philanthropy.
A number of countries pledged to increase funding levels during COP15, including France, which announced it would double international funding for biodiversity to €1 billion per year by 2025; Germany to double its international biodiversity funding by 2025 This increased to €1.5 billion, with COP15 host Canada committing $350 million.
The final deal agrees to increase total financing from rich to poor countries by at least $20 billion a year by 2025 and to at least $30 billion a year by 2030. While acknowledging that the funding wasn’t enough, the campaign group accepted it as a start.
Countries also need to act on subsidies, identifying those that harm nature, such as those that encourage intensification of agriculture, by 2025 and reducing them by at least $500 billion a year by 2030.
loophole
However, campaigners are disappointed that there are no numerical targets for reducing consumption and production, the main drivers of biodiversity loss. The agreement states that countries will reduce their global consumption footprint “in an equitable manner” and “significantly reduce overconsumption”.
“Overconsumption needs to be eliminated, not just vaguely reduced,” said Guido Broekhoven, head of international policy research and development at WWF.
The framework also does not include any mechanism for reviewing progress in implementation by individual countries, which many activists warn could jeopardize the deal’s success.
green flat
“Corporate initiatives such as nature-based solutions and offsets have played a role in the UN biodiversity negotiations from start to finish,” Lambrechts said. “These are the wrong solutions and could prove to be costly mistakes. The scandals and greenwashing you see in carbon offsetting today are on the menu for biodiversity tomorrow.”
WWF is more aggressive. “Two weeks ago, we had a whole host of differences to resolve. Today, we walk away with an agreement that at least begins to repair our relationship with nature,” said Lin Li, the group’s senior director of global policy and advocacy.
the author
Catherine Early is Chief Reporter ecologist.
