Towards the New Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework

1 Introduction

Humanity and the planet are at a crossroads. Never in the history of mankind has humankind faced a crisis of this magnitude and with such daunting consequences. While Governments and people everywhere try and fight COVID-19 and its procession of deaths, disease and suffering, the international community can only recognise that this pandemic is –although a terrible one –just another lens showing us that the current state of the planet demands immediate action. The most recent report from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) 1 has highlighted what were the primary 2 and secondary 3 drivers of biodiversity loss. Sadly, the Report clearly shows that all these drivers are a result of human activities. At the same time, all have been recognised as very high-risk factors for the potential emergence and spread of diseases.

Over 60%of known human infectious diseases are zoonotic and, in addition to being public health issues, many of the major zoonotic diseases also affect animal populations. 4 Meanwhile, over the last 60 years, the majority of new zoonotic pathogens has emerged largely as a result of human activity. 5 Consequently, we need to realise that, “humanity is placing too many pressures on the natural world” and “failing to take care of the planet means not taking care of ourselves”. 6 COVID-19 started as a simple health crisis but has quickly transformed into a developmental and economic crisis. Indeed, it has reminded us that health, economic, social and environmental disasters need to be tackled but has also confirmed that they cannot be tackled in isolation. On the contrary, lessons learned over the years from pandemics show that preventing and fighting them requires concerted and collaborative actions supported by a long-term vision.

Such long-term vision would sustain and avert “major threats to our fragile eco-system through human actions” 7 such as climate change or biodiversity loss as well as from the current and previous pandemics. Such a long-term vision calls for a fundamental transformation of our relationship with the natural world. Indeed, only by doing so will we be able to reduce the risk of witnessing emergence of new pandemics in the future. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), as a product of the international environmental law-making process, has a role to play in the desired transformation for the benefit of planet and people. Coming back to the CBD, its history and its unique place in the web of environmental agreements and conventions (1), the paper will review in more detail the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020, (2) the ongoing negotiations of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework, including the current draft framework (3) and how the protection of biological diversity impacts all aspects of human life (4).

2 The Unique Place and Role of CBD Among MEAs

There are today hundreds, exact number is not known with certainty, of conventions and other legal instruments which aim to protect and safeguard the environment. However, many of them –especially those adopted in the 1970s and 1980s –had adopted a sectoral approach as they protect only certain species or categories of species, or regulate specific activities recognised as having adverse impacts on the environment.

For instance, the 1946 Whaling Convention regulates whale hunting, the 1951 International Plant Protection Convention protects and conserves agricultural crops, the 1971 Ramsar Convention protects wetlands, the 1973 CITES regulates international wildlife trade, and the 1979 Bohn Convention focuses on conservation of migratory species. Likewise, the 1987 Montreal Protocol strictly regulates substances that deplete the ozone layer while the more recent Basel, Rotterdam, Stockholm and Minamata conventions taken together aim at preventing pollutions due to hazardous wastes, chemicals, persistent organic pollutants and mercury. A vast number of regional agreements complement these conventions in the global endeavour to protect the environment, often sharing this sectoral approach. 8

Although they are complementary, the CBD is different from all these conventions. Indeed, biodiversity loss and environmental threats such as climate change or land degradation have in common that they are global and transboundary threats and therefore cannot be solved in a sectoral manner. In order to mitigate such threats, other instruments were needed, with a larger mandate, able to cover the complex web of these transboundary issues that cross all borders. In that respect, the CBD is more similar to two other conventions: the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), which aim at protecting the Earth’s climate system and at avoiding, minimizing, and reversing desertification and land degradation respectively.

Instead of focusing on one species or group of species, the Convention aims at conserving biological diversity as a whole, ensuring the sustainable use of its components and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilisation of genetic resources. This global mandate automatically impacts a wide array of economic sectors and relies on the contribution of other environmental related conventions including the Rio Conventions. With their very extensive mandates, these three Rio conventions have opened a new chapter in the protection of the global environment.

The CBD is thus the main international instrument focusing on the global protection of biological diversity. It was negotiated under the auspices of UNEP. It was adopted on 22 May 1992 and opened for signature the following month at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (the “Rio Summit”) along with the UNFCCC and the UNCCD. It entered into force in December 1993. 9 Its three objectives are: (i) The conservation of biological diversity; (ii) The sustainable use of its components; and (iii) The fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources.

Over the years, the Convention has been complemented by two Protocols, regulating specific issues through the development of appropriate legal regimes. The first of these protocols is the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, which entered into force in September 2003. 10 This Protocol aims to ensure the safe handling, transport and use of living modified organisms resulting from modern biotechnology that may have adverse effects on biological diversity, taking also into account risks to human health. The Cartagena Protocol was itself complemented with its own separate protocol, the Nagoya –Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress, which entered into force in March 2018. 11 The Supplementary Protocol provides international rules and procedures in the field of liability and redress relating to living modified organisms.

The second protocol to the Convention is the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization, which entered into force in October 2014. 12 The Nagoya Protocol aims at guaranteeing access as well as fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources. The programme of work on biological diversity derives from these treaties and is adopted by the Convention and Protocols governing bodies, namely, the Conference of the Parties to the Convention and the Meetings of the Parties to the Protocols which meet every two years. 13 Aiming at furthering the implementation of the Convention and its Protocols, the programme of work covers biodiversity conservation, sustainable use, biosafety, access and benefit-sharing as well as financial matters, technology transfer, capacity-building and education and awareness with regard to biodiversity, to mention but few.

The Convention has been in force for almost thirty years 14 and has developed a complete regime regulating issues and sectors impacting biodiversity. However, as will be discussed below, the growing consequences of biodiversity loss show that the Convention is yet to fully fulfil and meet its key objectives.

3 Assessment of the CBD Strategic Plan 2011–2020 and Aichi Biodiversity Targets

The long-term implementation of the Convention and its protocols is guided by strategic plans normally adopted for ten-year periods. The current strategic plan for biodiversity is the 2011–2020 Strategic Plan accompanied by the, now famous, Aichi Biodiversity Targets all of which ought to have been met by the end of the 2020. The plan is guided by the overarching long-term Vision of “Living in Harmony with Nature” where “By 2050, biodiversity is valued, conserved, restored and wisely used, maintaining ecosystem services, sustaining a healthy planet and delivering benefits essential for all people.” 15

The 2011–2020 Strategic Plan and Aichi Biodiversity Targets have helped to foster global action in favour of biodiversity and, in conjunction with the implementation of the plan, hundreds of projects and programmes have been executed in countries to support their implementation. Some targets have seen progress and a major target, Target 11 on protected areas which compliments SDG Target 14.5 for 17%terrestrial and 10%marine areas should have been met by the end of 2020. 16 However, as the last IPBES global assessment, 17 the 5^th Global Biodiversity Outlook 18 and other recent reports have unequivocally shown, it is clear that none of the Aichi Targets will be fully met. 19 Some progress has however been achieved only for 6 of them, 20 and yet still at a low percentage.

There is infinity of reasons that can explain why the biodiversity regime has not been able to deliver on the 2011–2020 Strategic Plan and Aichi Biodiversity Targets. The current status of biodiversity and the risks that the situation is creating for our societies –as determined in the aforementioned reports –makes it necessary to understand these reasons and overcome them. Most countries had to update their National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) in order to reflect the Strategic Plan and Aichi Targets. As this updating process took time –sometimes up to 3 or 4 years - the actual period of implementation of the Strategic Plan was thus reduced, sometimes to half a decade. On the ABTs scorecard, 170 Parties had their NBSAPs redone or reviewed during the period thus an increase of 85%of them. This is great progress but delayed the start and period of the implementation during the decade. 21

Meanwhile, it seems that there was a certain assumption that the Aichi Targets were to be implemented mainly by Governments, the Parties. As a result, many stakeholders who were inadequately engaged in the development of the Strategic Plan and the Aichi Targets –such as the finance and business sector, youth, indigenous peoples and local communities, the economic, agriculture, fisheries, planning sectors –were not involved as a result in their implementation. This situation negated the fact that, in order to meet the Targets, all stakeholders had to be engaged in a whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach in their implementation. Additionally, there was no review, monitoring and reporting mechanism or framework accompanying the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, whereby periodic progress of implementation based on specific indicators could have been monitored and measured.

A recurrent issue is also that all countries are not at the same level of development. Consequently, many Parties were not able to implement the Aichi Targets on their own, without additional resources or capacity development to support their efforts. Although international financial flows for biodiversity doubled during the decade, they were unfortunately insufficient to satisfy the demands. For instance, the US$500 millions invested every year into unsustainable biodiversity services (fossil fuels, oil and gas, expansion of agricultural land, unsustainable infrastructure, etc.) could have been redirected and used to incentivize action to reverse biodiversity loss. In addition to these specific reasons, environmental law globally suffers from inadequate or chronic lack of implementation and enforcement, at all levels. In the case of the biodiversity regime, it is clear that this global lack of implementation negatively impacted the 2011–2020 Strategic Plan and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets.

Finally, it has become evident in the recent years that climate change, biodiversity loss, oceanic pollution and acidification, desertification and health impacts (e.g. as a result of COVID-19) among other issues are all intrinsically interconnected. Consequently, global transformation, solidarity and action in a whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach have become a condition sine qua non to tackle these challenges in a holistic and integrated manner. That is, therefore, the way to halt and reverse biodiversity loss while enhancing climate change mitigation and adaptation and a better protection of the global environment.

4 The Negotiations of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework Build On this Assessment

The post-2020 global biodiversity framework to be adopted at CBD COP 15 is currently being negotiated. Hence its final contents cannot be ascertained as yet. However, many elements already appear in the updated zero draft, showing that negotiators are trying to build on the experience gained in the implementation of the 2011–2020 Strategic Plan and Aichi Biodiversity Targets. An essential element, at the onset, is that the post-2020 negotiations are grounded in science, and especially on the findings of the last IPBES global assessment published in 2019 and the 5^th Global Biodiversity Outlook published by the Secretariat of the CBD.

When the process was launched at COP14, Parties made it very clear that the new framework should be accompanied by an inspirational and motivating 2030 mission, thus aligning with 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, as a steppingstone towards the long term 2050 Vision of “Living in harmony with nature”. 22 The new framework thus builds on the Vision formulated in the Strategic Plan 2011–2020 and aims at attaining it in the long-term. 23 In its current state, the draft proposes a simplified 2030 Mission for the framework: “To take urgent action across society to put biodiversity on a path to recovery for the benefit of planet and people”. 24 The objective is thus to develop a framework that is simpler and more action-oriented. Various commitments made by stakeholders –for example, through the UNDP series of Nature for Life Hub held back-to-back with the UN Biodiversity Summit at the end of September 2020 –seem to take this new direction of action.

In accordance with Decision 14/34 the development of the post-2020 framework is a Party led process and guided by a series of principles in order to ensure that the process is (a) Participatory; (b) Inclusive; (c) Gender responsive; (d) Transformative; (e) Comprehensive; (f) Catalytic; (g) Visible; (h) Knowledge-based; (i) Transparent; (j) Efficient; (k) Results-oriented; (l) Iterative; and (m) Flexible. In its current state, the draft framework is built around goals to be achieved in 2050 and milestones to realise by 2030. The objective of such milestones is to: (i) ensure we can measure and show progress by 2030 milestones and 2050 Goals and (ii) ensure we can evaluate if the Action Targets are the right tools to meet the 2050 Vision.

The draft framework’s 4 main pillars include: (i) to reduce threats to ecosystems, species and genetic diversity; (ii) to ensure that nature meets peoples’ needs; (iii) to ensure that benefits are shared fairly and equitably; and (iv) to ensure the availability of means of implementation to enhance parties’ capacities to implement the framework. Most importantly, by aiming to galvanize urgent action in a whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach 25 to achieve the outcomes it sets out in its vision, mission, goals and targets, the draft framework develops a change of paradigm. It does so by insisting on global transformative action, tackling biodiversity loss as a global issue and not solely an environmental matter. Accordingly, it is supported by a theory-of-change, underlying the whole framework. 26

Furthermore, building on the lessons learned from the failure to meet the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, it is also envisaged, at this stage, that the post-2020 will include a review, monitoring and reporting mechanism and a resource mobilization component. Equally, it will be accompanied by a long-term strategic plan on capacity building and technology transfer; along with various hooks for capacity-building. This is extremely important since, without these elements, it will not be possible to monitor the global implementation of the framework and it is certain that many parties may not even be able to implement the framework as expected.

Likewise, the framework aims to promote synergies and coordination with different relevant processes, including the protocols as well other biodiversity-related conventions and other instruments. It is hoped, as was the case for the current Biodiversity Strategic Plan, that relevant conventions will align their strategies and plans with the global biodiversity framework and that the implementation of the framework will positively impact the implementation of these conventions and vice-versa.

Currently, all stakeholders, including indigenous peoples and local communities’ groups, youth, and private sector, such as, industry, business, finance are contributing to the process and the various iterations of the draft framework. The on-going period of uncertainity caused by the pandemic has provided additional time for the process of the development and negotiation of the framework. Indeed, this extra time has allowed for extensive virtual consultations with multiple stakeholders in addition to consultations conducted with Parties. Similarly, the extended period has provided the Convention’s subsidiary bodies, namely, one on Scientific, Technology and Technological Advice (SBSTTA) and the other on Implementation (SBI), more time to do so as both are mandated to contribute to the draft substantively to the draft framework. Consequently, this extended period has allowed time to further build on the principles of participation and inclusiveness as decided by the Parties and thus leaving no one behind.

Results of such global participation are already visible as more than 560 companies with combined revenue of US$4 trillions per year have called upon Governments to adopt policies, create an enabling environment to urgently halt and reverse biodiversity loss. 27 The UN General Assembly President convened Biodiversity Summit on 30 September 2020 28 with a theme: “Urgent action on biodiversity for sustainable development”. It was another proof of this new engagement of actors, with more that 150 governments registered including 72 at the level of Head of State / Head of Government, along with CEOs and other stakeholders, all made strong statements calling for concerted actions to halt and reverse biodiversity loss. On this occasion, 78 Governments and many stakeholders signed the Leaders’ Pledge for Nature. 29 This underscores the inextricable link between global biodiversity and human well-being on this planet. This umbilical connectivity was amply reflected in the adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by the UN General Assembly resolution 70/1 of 25 September 2015. In this decisive step forward, the plenary of the UN highlighted the significant importance of the 5 Ps –People, Planet, Prosperity, Peace and Partnership. 30

Our common objective is to ensure that the post-2020 global biodiversity framework is relevant for sound implementation of the Convention and its protocols, the conservation of nature, and the achievement of sustainable development. Indeed, 14 out of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) depend on the contribution of biodiversity for their achievement.

5 Nature Beyond Biodiversity Conservation

Biodiversity is the foundation of human life. In addition to being one of the pillars of our environment, along with our atmosphere, climate and landscapes, biodiversity provides the plants and animals that form the basis of agriculture and the immense variety within each crop and livestock species. In turn, agriculture provides humans with food, raw materials for goods –such as cotton and linen for clothing, wood for shelter and fuel, materials for biofuels –and with incomes and livelihoods, including those derived from subsistence farming. Biodiversity is thus at the root of our agricultural system and our livelihoods.

At the same time, food production and consumption patterns have been recognised as some of the drivers of biodiversity loss along with changes in land use. 31 The World Economic Forum (WEF) 2020 Global Risks Report indicates, for instance, that agricultural and industrial expansion have led to the loss of over 85%of wetlands, altered 75%of land surface, and impacted 66%of ocean area. 32 Similarly, the 2019 IPBES assessment considers as well-established that expanding trade means consumption affects the degradation of biodiversity and ecosystems. 33 Thus, food production and agriculture have become very important topics in biodiversity negotiations, including the negotiations of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework.

Accordingly, the CBD’s collaboration with the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) on agricultural and livestock matters is of essential importance to ensure food security, adequate nutrition and stable livelihoods for all on one side, and the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity on the other.

6 Biodiversity and Health

Biological diversity also supports human health as being the direct source of most of our modern pharmacopeia. 34 Although it might not have been noticed widely, the evidence of the links between biodiversity and human health, or rather between human health and the health and resilience of nature is today incontrovertible. The IPBES report noted that nature’s contributions to people are essential for human health and their decline thus threatens a good quality of life. 35 The WEF report reminded us that an estimated 50,000–70,000 plant species are harvested for traditional or modern medicine, and around 50%of modern drugs were developed from natural products. 36

Yet, all the drivers of biodiversity loss are also very high-risk factors for the potential emergence and spread of diseases. Indeed, these activities along with climate change reduce the abundance of some organisms, cause alterations in the composition of others, modify the interactions among these organisms, and alter their interactions with their environment. Patterns of infectious diseases, including zoonotic diseases, are sensitive to these disturbances.

The continuing loss of biodiversity on a global scale thus represents a direct threat to human health and wellbeing. Indeed, on one side, it increases the risk of emergence or spread of infectious diseases in animals, plants and humans. On the other, biodiversity loss may limit the discovery of potential treatments for many diseases as nature, from microorganisms to flora and fauna, is the source of medicine and antibiotics.

On the contrary, healthy and functioning ecosystems would ensure that nature’s control on zoonotic pathogens is restored and would nourish pharmacological research thus allowing a better protection of human health.

For many years, the CBD Secretariat has been working closely with the World Health Organisation (WHO) and other partners, under a joint work programme on biodiversity and health. This has translated into several comprehensive decisions underlining the connectedness of the two issues. For instance, COP14 adopted the Biodiversity-inclusive One Health Guidance, which seeks to assist countries in implementing more integrated, inter disciplinary and cross-sectoral approaches for the delivery of multiple benefits to health and well-being. This One Health Guidance identifies epidemics and pandemics as biological hazards that can be tackled through ecosystem-based solutions. Under this decision from COP14, Parties and other governments are invited to integrate One Health approaches in their national biodiversity strategies and action plans, national health plans, but also in other instruments including those developed under the UNFCCC or the International Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction for instance. The CBD Secretariat, WHO and other partners are currently developing a draft Global Plan of Action on Biodiversity and Health for discussion in the near future. Through well-defined, ambitious and measurable targets, the post-2020 global biodiversity framework could provide the legal basis to help restoring nature’s control over zoonotic pathogens. It would therefore be an important step forward in the prevention of pandemics while ensuring the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity.

7 Biodiversity, SDGs and Human Rights

Finally, the protection of biological diversity is also a key element to achieve the SDGs. Two of the SDGs particularly focus on biological diversity. However, as indicated earlier, 14 out of the 17 SDGs have biodiversity related elements, clearly indicating the importance of biodiversity conservation and protection for the sustainable development agenda. The two main ones are SDG14 on conservation and sustainable use of oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development, and SDG15 on the protection, restoration and promotion of sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainable management of forests, combat against desertification, and halt and reversal of land degradation and biodiversity loss.

In its actual form, the draft post-2020 global biodiversity framework proposes to retain and restore freshwater, marine and terrestrial ecosystems; protect sites of particular importance for biodiversity through protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures. It also proposes to control all pathways for the introduction of invasive alien species; reduce pollution from excess nutrients, biocides, plastic waste and other sources; and ensure that the harvesting, trade and use of wild species, is legal and at sustainable levels. All these areas of work are directly linked to the targets and indicators of SDG14 on life below water and SDG15 on life on land and are therefore direct contributions to the achievement of these two goals. Conversely, it would be wrong to assume that the contribution of all multilateral environmental agreements is limited to the achievement of SDGs 14 and 15. On the contrary, the implementation of the CBD, its protocols and decisions positively contributes to the achievement of various other SDGs.

For instance, the cross-cutting issue of biodiversity and climate change was included in various decisions, including recent COP decisions XIII/4 and 14/5. Furthermore, the draft framework under consideration provides that the post-2020 global biodiversity framework should contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation and disaster risk reduction through nature-based solutions. It thus proposes that the post-2020 framework contribute in the efforts needed to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement. In doing so, the CBD directly partakes in the achievement of SDG13 on urgent action to be taken to combat climate change and its impacts.

At the same time, through their respective programmes of work, the cooperation developed with other environmental conventions and with international organisations such as, inter alia, the WHO or the FAO, the CBD and other environmental conventions support the advancement of: (i) SDG1 on poverty eradication; (ii) SDG2 on hunger, food security, nutrition and sustainable agriculture; (iii) SDG3 on healthy lives and promotion of well-being for all at all ages; (iv) SDG6 on availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all; (v) SDG11 on inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable cities and human settlements; and (vi) SDG12 on sustainable consumption and production patterns.

This interconnection of the various SDGs and environmental conventions is fully considered in the updated zero draft of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. The draft thus recognises that the theory of change developed is complementary to and supportive of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and takes into account the long-term strategies and targets of other multilateral environment agreements, including the biodiversity-related and Rio conventions, to ensure synergistic delivery of benefits from all the agreements for the planet and people.

Meanwhile, the CBD strategy for gender mainstreaming also supports, in the realm of biodiversity, the achievement of SDG5 on gender equality. A new draft gender action plan is currently prepared to integrate gender in the post-2020 and thus contribute to the global biodiversity framework.

The CBD and its protocols, along with other environmental conventions, thus participate in the achievement of numerous SDGs, beyond SDG14 and SDG15. Furthermore, the protection of biodiversity and the maintenance of healthy ecosystems are also key to enjoying a broad range of human rights. Indeed, the pursuit of the objectives of the CBD, its protocols and other environmental agreements contributes to the protection of the right to a healthy environment, which embodies and illustrates the indivisibility and interdependence of human rights, the environment and sustainability principles.

To date, more than two thirds of the world’s countries have language in a variety of forms relating to the environment in their constitutions and 51 of these constitutions include specific provisions on wild species and ecosystems. 37 Meanwhile, hundreds of pieces of legislation have also been passed concerning the environment. For instance, more than 100 States have enacted legislation that specifically identifies and articulates the right to a healthy environment, including both procedural and substantive elements. 38

However, the implementation of the CBD also contributes to the implementation of human rights globally. Indeed, the fight against biodiversity loss protects agriculture, in the form of, for example, protecting pollinators, and therefore supports the right to food. The prevention of pollution, whether caused by wastes or chemicals, protects the right to access clean water, among others. The protection of the atmosphere and of biodiversity –on which modern medical research and pharmacopeia rely –protects the right to health. Through these various means, environmental law including biodiversity law contributes to the protection of the right to life.

The global protection of the environment thus partakes and is, to some extent, a condition sine quo non to the full enjoyment of rights 39 which have long been protected at different levels in national laws, regional conventions such as the European, Inter-American or African conventions on human rights or the international covenants, and in the jurisprudence of human rights courts.

Since its inception, the CBD regime has also integrated traditional knowledge and thus recognised the unique role of indigenous peoples and local communities (Article 8(j), inter alia). The Ad Hoc Working Group on Article 8(j) and related provisions (established at COP4) is dedicated to the implementation of the commitments of article 8 (j) of the Convention and the enhancement of the role and involvement of indigenous peoples and local communities in the achievement of the objectives of the Convention. The work of and contribution from this working group is fully integrated in the development of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework.

The planet’s biological resources are thus vital to our economic and social development, and our well-being. At the same time, the protection of the global environment contributes, directly and indirectly, to the achievements of the SDGs, the 2030 Agenda, and the full enjoyment of our human rights. The post-2020 framework is therefore an essential development for our societies and considering biological diversity as a purely environmental question would be a mistake. 40

8 Conclusion

The post-2020 global biodiversity framework constitutes a turning point, not only for the conservation of biological diversity, but also for our social, economic and development agendas, as well as our well-being, and indeed the whole planet. Undeniably, if the loss of biological diversity continues unabated, this will have far reaching consequences, on our access to clean water, food, natural supplies, medicines etc. as well as on the enjoyment of human rights. The current updated zero draft of the post-2020 framework 41 and the engagement of parties and all stakeholders in the process seem to indicate that issues encountered in the implementation of the current Strategic Plan and Aichi Biodiversity Targets have been analysed and understood. In addition, that efforts are being made to overcome them, including by urging and calling for a new whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach to transform our development models to achieve sustainable development.

The partnerships needed to implement an ambitious post-2020 framework are in place. Although further improvement can always be sought, they have already produced positive results. Thus, in the context of the global COVID-19 pandemic and the appeals from the UN Secretary-General to aim for a green recovery and “Building back better”, it appears that the post-2020 is a clear marked road towards sustainable development and a greener future for all life on Earth.