Almost 200 countries have agreed to a new set of goals and targets to “halt and reverse” biodiversity loss by the end of the decade.
The landmark deal was reached after two weeks of often tense talks in Montreal at the UN biodiversity summit, known as COP15.
Observers hope that a strengthened mission, measurable targets and an “enhanced implementation mechanism” mean that the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), as it is formally known, will succeed where its predecessor – the Aichi targets, agreed at COP10 in 2010 – did not.
Occurring two years later than planned due to the global pandemic, COP15 was characterised by the city’s frigid winter temperatures and sometimes-frosty negotiations.
Tensions were high throughout the summit, with developed countries wanting to ratchet up the framework’s ambition, while developing countries sought assurance that developed countries would devote sufficient resources to allow them to do so.
The final deal, reached in the early hours of Monday 19 December, included the oft-repeated headline target of “30×30” – an ambition to conserve 30% of the world’s land and 30% of the ocean by 2030.
A second “30×30” goal also made it into the final package, with developed countries agreeing to mobilise $30bn for developing countries by 2030.
But tensions flared once again after COP15 president Huang Runqiu appeared to gavel through the deal despite objections from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, leaving observers to wonder whether the “consensus” deal could legally stand.
However, the issue was smoothed over in the closing plenary, although reservations about the final procedure will be noted in the final report of the meeting.
Alongside the new framework, the summit resulted in dozens of other “decision texts”, which lay out more technical aspects of the negotiations, including monitoring mechanisms, resource mobilisation and areas for future work.
These texts have garnered less political and media attention than the GBF itself, but contain some of the key details underlying the framework.
None of the components of the CBD – including the GBF and the decision texts – are legally binding.
However, countries have agreed to turn promises into action through a plan to report on, review and voluntarily “ratchet up” their ambitions for tackling biodiversity loss. This is similar to the plan drawn up to implement the Paris Agreement for climate change.
In this article, Carbon Brief lays out how the negotiations in Montreal unfolded and explains all of the key outcomes from COP15.
Background context
COP15 in Montreal was the second part of a landmark UN biodiversity summit which was originally supposed to take place in Kunming, China, in 2020, but was postponed several times due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
A major goal of the COP was to finalise and agree on global nature targets for 2030 and 2050. Following tense negotiations, this was achieved in the form of four “overarching global” goals and 23 specific targets in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF).
The overall aim of the global framework is to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030.
The first part of the conference was held in October 2021 as a hybrid event both in Kunming and online. The second part was initially supposed to be held in Kunming in April and May 2022, but it was ultimately moved to Montreal due to continuing Covid-19 restrictions – although China still held the presidency of COP15.
In between the two halves of COP15 were three meetings of the open-ended working group tasked with drafting the GBF and steering countries towards consensus on its final form.
These meetings included the final working group meeting held on 3-5 December in Montreal, immediately before the COP began. Carbon Brief reported on the progress made in the previous meetings in Geneva and Nairobi.
The biodiversity “Conference of the Parties”, otherwise known as COP, governs the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).
This is an international treaty established in 1992 along with two other multilateral agreements: the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD).
The main objectives of the CBD are:
- The conservation of biological diversity.
- The sustainable use of its components.
- The fair and equitable sharing of the benefits of genetic resources.
In total, 196 countries, including the EU, have ratified the CBD and are, thus, parties to the COP. The US is a notable outlier as the only UN member state not to have ratified the treaty – although it still has a presence at biodiversity COPs.
Decadal goals for biodiversity were previously set at COP10 in 2010, which was held in Nagoya, Japan. At that summit, almost every country in the world agreed to 20 Aichi biodiversity targets in order to achieve a goal of “living in harmony with nature” by 2050.
In September 2020, a CBD report found that governments had collectively failed to meet even a single one of these targets.
On a national level, the report said progress was being made, but more work was needed to actually achieve the targets. Almost 100 countries incorporated biodiversity values into national accounting systems, the report said, which was one aspect of target 2 and an indication of some progress on the targets.
So negotiators in Montreal were under intense scrutiny to not only agree on a framework for 2030, but also put strong implementation measures in place to ensure the world will achieve them.
Formal negotiations
Halting and reversing biodiversity loss
The overarching aim of the GBF is for people “to live in harmony with nature” by 2050. To achieve this, the GBF has set out a “mission” to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030. (Biodiversity is currently declining at the fastest rate observed in human history.)
Many parties and observers see this mission as the most crucial part of the agreement when it comes to achieving ambitious action for tackling biodiversity loss.
Speaking during a final press briefing held on Monday 19 December, WWF International chief Marco Lambertini compared the mission to the aspirations of the Paris Agreement. In an emotional final address, he told journalists:
“Halting and reversing biodiversity loss by 2030 is the equivalent of [the global warming limit] 1.5C – and has the ability and power to inspire and unite the whole of society.”
“Halting and reversing biodiversity loss by 2030 is the equivalent of 1.5C – and has the ability & power to inspire & unite the whole of society,” @WWF_DG in his final press briefing
He briefly gets emotional, saying he can look his granddaughter in eyes knowing this is in text pic.twitter.com/b5JfcG8NQW
— Daisy Dunne (@daisydunnesci) December 19, 2022
Ahead of COP15, Carbon Brief published analysis laying out which countries were for and against setting a mission of halting and reversing biodiversity loss by 2030, among other issues.
Heading into the negotiations, a group including the UK, the EU, Canada, New Zealand, Nepal, Zambia, Australia, Norway and Switzerland had signalled that including the mission to halt and reverse biodiversity loss in the GBF was a high priority for them.
In contrast, countries including Bolivia, Argentina, South Africa and Uganda had signalled that they opposed the inclusion of such a mission in the GBF.
During the first week of the conference on 8 December, a group of 46 countries (including the 27 member states of the EU) issued a statement confirming their commitment to the mission to halt and reverse biodiversity loss.
🥇46 countries from all regions outlined in plenary their baseline for ambition for the Global Biodiversity Framework, including halt & reverse nature loss by 2030, 30×30, resource mobilisation and indigenous peoples’ rights – see here: https://t.co/fhrtBJoPlg
— Bernadette Fischler Hooper (@baernadette) December 8, 2022
Countries offering their support for the mission on this date included Colombia, Costa Rica, Gabon, Japan, Malawi, Mexico, Monaco, Nigeria, Palau, South Korea and Vanuatu.
On the morning of Sunday 18 December, the COP15 presidency released a draft version of the GBF. This text contained the mission to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030 – a major victory for those hoping for an ambitious outcome from the GBF.
🪸🚨CO15 presidency draft of Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity framework released🚨🪲
Reading now…
Here’s how the 2030 mission currently looks. No mention of “nature positive”. More soon…https://t.co/qa0C0dxGPQ pic.twitter.com/QjRgyN4j2q
— Daisy Dunne (@daisydunnesci) December 18, 2022
The final version of the GBF repeats the mission laid out in the COP15 presidency draft.
Though the inclusion of the mission to halt and reverse biodiversity loss in the GBF is viewed as a major win for ambition, it is important to note that it would be largely meaningless if not supported by quantitative and measurable conservation targets, experts told Carbon Brief.
Speaking during a briefing on 18 December, Georgina Chandler, senior international policy officer at the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) wildlife charity, explained to journalists:
“The mission is strong. It’s just whether the targets sitting underneath that add up to a level of ambition that actually allows us to deliver that mission.”
Without strong goals and targets, the mission risks being “pretty wrapping paper around a disappointing package”, added one close observer speaking to Carbon Brief.
One target key to achieving the mission is target 3, which aims to protect 30% of the Earth’s land and seas by 2030. This target – which emerged as the headline issue among politicians, activists and the media – is discussed in much more detail below. (See: 30×30.)
Some of the other targets key to achieving the mission that received much less public attention include target 1, which aims to ensure that all land and ocean areas are under “spatial planning” to bring the loss of biodiverse areas to “close to zero” by 2030.
Having all areas under spatial planning was a key aim for some countries looking for an ambitious outcome, including the UK, Carbon Brief understands. However, observers have raised concerns about the vagueness of the phrase “close to zero” included in the final text.
Another target key to achieving the mission is target 2, which aims to ensure that at least 30% of land and sea areas are under restoration by 2030.
The 30% figure was chosen over a less ambitious 20%, to the delight of some parties and observers. Tony Juniper, chair of the UK government advisory body Natural England, told a huddle of journalists on 19 December:
“This is very significant. There are literally billions of hectares of land across the world that have been degraded by past activities, including agriculture. If we can get that land back into a better state, this will be one of the principal ways we can take pressure off natural ecosystems.”
However, some observers raised concerns that the target to restore 30% of land and sea does not contain an explicit baseline, which may make measuring progress difficult.
Another target key for biodiversity is target 4, which aims to halt the “human-induced extinction of known threatened species” by 2030, among other outcomes for wildlife.
The inclusion of a 2030 target for halting species extinctions was a relatively late addition to target 4. It was added in between the release of the COP15 presidency text on the morning of Sunday 19 December and the production of the final agreement in the early hours of Monday morning.
Carbon Brief understands this happened after certain parties raised the alarm about the lack of reference to species extinctions in the COP15 presidency text.
Some parties originally wanted specific numerical targets and dates for species extinctions included in Goal A of the GBF, which specifically addresses conservation. However, the COP15 presidency text did not include such figures.
Goal A – key one for conservation
🪲No numerical target for restoring ecosystems, as some parties pushing ambition wanted
🪲No mention of halting human-induced extinctions by 2030, as UK wanted
🪲No numerical target for boosting wild populations
🪲No target for genetic diversity pic.twitter.com/F02SXKjmKq— Daisy Dunne (@daisydunnesci) December 18, 2022
Other targets key to achieving the mission include those that directly address the drivers of biodiversity loss, such as pollution, harmful subsidies and agriculture. All of these issues are discussed in more detail below.
In addition to halting and reversing biodiversity loss, some parties had also hoped that the mission would also make reference to achieving a “nature-positive world” by 2030. (“Nature positive” means a state where biodiversity increases year-on-year, rather than declining.)
Outside of the negotiating halls, some NGOs, scientists and businesses took up the term “nature positive” as a rallying cry for achieving success from COP15. During the summit’s first week, representatives of WWF and other NGOs held a protest inside COP15, chanting: “What do we want? Nature positive. When do we want it? 2030.”
Protest at #COP15 calling for a “nature positive” world by 2030
This means halting and reversing biodiversity loss by 2030, a proposal backed by UK, EU, Canada, New Zealand, Nepal, Zambia, Australia, Norway & Switzerland
(According to our tracker: https://t.co/MYHDo63ejZ) pic.twitter.com/ceEE5fNynO
— Daisy Dunne (@daisydunnesci) December 7, 2022
Some had even suggested that “nature positive” could become the “net-zero” of the biodiversity world.
However, in the end, no reference to the phrase was included in the mission. A close observer of COP15 told Carbon Brief that they had “hoped to see it, but could live without it”.
30×30
One target that grabbed the attention of politicians, media, activists – and even celebrities – at COP15 was the pledge to protect 30% of the world’s land and seas for nature by 2030.
Science shows that protecting more of Earth’s land and seas will be key to tackling both climate change and biodiversity loss. When left intact, ecosystems provide a haven for wildlife and help to soak up and store CO2 released by humans.
Target 3 of the GBF – commonly referred to as “30×30” – has even been likened to the 1.5C temperature goal of the Paris Agreement in articles and speeches stressing its importance. (Others prefer to describe the GBF’s mission to halt and reverse biodiversity loss as the 1.5C equivalent. See above for more on the mission.)
The call for a 30×30 target to be included in the GBF was officially launched at the One Planet Summit in Paris in January 2021. At this time, a group of 50 nations calling itself the “High Ambition Coalition for Nature and People” – led by Costa Rica and France – pledged commitment to the target and urged other countries to sign up.
(It came after the UK in 2020 set up a separate initiative to protect 30% of the world’s oceans by 2030, known as the Global Ocean Alliance (GOA). The UK was also the ocean co-chair of the High Ambition Coalition.)
By the time that UN biodiversity intersessional talks were held in Geneva in March 2022, 91 countries had backed the 30×30 pledge.
And, by early December, just ahead of COP15, 114 countries had publicly backed the target. (There are 196 countries, including the EU, that are party to the CBD.)
Despite the high level of public support of the 30×30 target, there were behind-the-scenes fears throughout COP15 that it might not survive into the final agreement.
The numerical element of the target – the 30% figure – was not addressed at all in negotiating rooms before ministers arrived near the end of the summit on 16 December.
Rumours swirled that certain countries – such as vocal opponent Turkey, long-time CBD troublemaker Brazil or even COP15 host China – might move to block or weaken the target at the last minute.
30×30 update: Still no discussion of the “30%” figure in negotiating rooms.@LinLi_WWF_Int says this may not come until the last day of COP, something she describes as “risky”
One “celebration” is that brackets have now been lifted on respecting the rights of Indigenous people pic.twitter.com/pCgjqVTwcq
— Daisy Dunne (@daisydunnesci) December 17, 2022
Upon their arrival on 16 December, ministers from 12 countries that are part of the High Ambition Coalition for Nature and People held a press conference, where they reconfirmed their commitment to 30×30 and urged other countries to join them.
We just saw ministers from 12 countries issue a call for all to back the 30×30 target at #COP15
They announced that they now have the support of 116 countries… But that’s still around 80 countries that don’t publicly support the flagship pledge with very little time to go pic.twitter.com/wd3pd0ZyrM
— Daisy Dunne (@daisydunnesci) December 16, 2022
Addressing the press conference, Canada’s environment minister Steven Guilbeault said:
“We’re calling on all countries to unite around the 30×30 target. 30×30 and halting and reversing [biodiversity loss] is our 1.5C.”
Later on in the briefing, Costa Rican environment minister Franz Tattenbach Capra announced that the coalition had created a new internal target to ensure that developing countries would receive the resources and technical assistance needed to help them achieve the 30×30 target.
On the morning of Sunday 18 December, the COP15 presidency released a first draft of the GBF, which contained the crucial 30% figure.
Parties and observers widely celebrated this. However, some raised concerns that the wording of the COP15 presidency text left ambiguity over whether countries would be required to protect both 30% of land and 30% of waters.
End game in Montreal, but plans too weak, including 30% target, which now not 30% protected on land & 30% on sea but 30% overall. Also species content too weak on extinction & abundance. Calls for ambition on finance must be matched by stronger ambition for Nature recovery #COP15 pic.twitter.com/mO2gWOR9B1
— Tony Juniper (@TonyJuniper) December 18, 2022
This wording was tweaked for the final version of the GBF, which calls on countries to ensure that “at least 30% of terrestrial, inland water, and of coastal and marine areas” are conserved by 2030.
As well as a fierce political campaign to get 30×30 into the GBF, there was also fierce debate on how the target should be implemented and worded.
One of the biggest concerns was how the target should ensure the knowledge and rights of Indigenous people are respected and protected.
Lands under the stewardship of Indigenous people currently contain 80% of the world’s remaining biodiversity. In the past, conservation efforts have forced Indigenous peoples from their lands, with measurably bad outcomes for biodiversity.
The final version of target 3 “recognise[s] and respect[s] the rights of Indigenous peoples and local communities, including over their traditional territories”. This inclusion was cautiously celebrated by Indigenous people and NGOs. (See: Indigenous rights.)
Another bone of contention was what kinds of areas should be earmarked for protection.
On both a global and national level, biodiversity tends to be concentrated within certain areas. One observer explained to Carbon Brief:
“When it comes to preventing species extinctions, you will do a lot more by protecting a small area of the Brazilian Pantanal – which is home to highly unique and localised species – than a large bit of Russian tundra, where animals roam over large areas.”
The final agreement promises to focus on “areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services” – something considered a positive by conservationists.
There are, however, elements of target 3 that some observers are not pleased with.
The COP15 presidency draft saw an introduction of the term “sustainable use” to the target, promoting fears that this could be used as a loophole to allow for further development in protected areas. This reference is repeated in the final agreement.
The big one, 30×30…
🌴30% figure in
🌴rights of Indigenous people respected
🌴mention of “sustainable use”, which some worry could be a loophole for more development in protected areas. How do you define what kind of activities are sustainable? beyond those by Indigenous people pic.twitter.com/9yBV80dxCv— Daisy Dunne (@daisydunnesci) December 18, 2022
In addition, some environmental groups think the 30% figure does not go far enough.
A landmark Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report released in February said that safeguarding biodiversity requires 30-50% of Earth’s land and sea to be set aside for nature.
Some environmental groups think that countries should have aimed for the top-range figure of 50%.
At a press conference held on 9 December, Karl Burkart, deputy director of the NGO One Earth, likened the jostle over figures to the two temperature goals of the Paris Agreement.
“30% to me really does feel like the 2C and 50% is the 1.5C,” he told journalists.
The 30×30 target is even more complicated when the role of the ocean is considered.
Only about 40% of the Earth’s ocean surface lies within national jurisdictions, where parties to the CBD can enact policies to preserve biodiversity. On the high seas – and on the seafloor – stakeholders will have to agree to different sets of rules and targets to address biodiversity loss.
Negotiations for a treaty to govern the use of biodiversity on the high seas – known as Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdictions, or BBNJ – have been ongoing since 2018. They are scheduled to continue at the UN in early 2023.
Additionally, the International Seabed Authority sets regulations for the exploitation of the seafloor outside national borders.
Several observers and delegates told Carbon Brief that the interplay between these different authorities would be key to ensuring the success of any ocean-related conservation targets in the framework.
Biodiversity finance
Finance and resource “mobilisation” were, predictably, the running undercurrent and, ultimately, clincher of the COP15 biodiversity talks.
However, even with the GBF agreed, finance for nature protection and restoration remains a source of bitterness for many biodiverse developing countries.
As the GBF was gavelled through, the Chinese presidency seemingly failed to consider objections by the DRC, which demanded the establishment of a separate Global Biodiversity Fund, as well as wanting developed countries to increase their financial contribution towards halting biodiversity loss to $100bn a year.
DRC says it is unable to support the adoption of the Global Biodiversity Framework, disappointed with the state of the finance target, wants new fund to be operationalised by the end of COP15, says developed countries should be responsible for financing implementation. #COP15
— Aruna Chandrasekhar (@aruna_sekhar) December 19, 2022
As it stands, the GBF hopes to mobilise “at least $200bn per year” by 2030 from “all sources” – domestic, international, public and private.
Of this, developed countries – along with others that “voluntarily assume” their obligations – are expected to “substantially and progressively increase” their international finance flows for nature “to at least $20bn per year by 2025, and to at least $30bn per year by 2030”.
These financial “flows” from developed countries and others would be focused on supporting least developed countries, small island developing states and economies in transition to achieve their national biodiversity plans. However, the wider $200bn would also include private finance, philanthropic funds and other sources.
With the biodiversity finance gap estimated at roughly $700bn per year for conservation over the decade, countries have been deeply divided on how to get to that figure. Target 19 on finance (above) remained the most-bracketed target at the start of negotiations in Montreal and progress was minimal late into week two.
Specific figures on how much funding countries would stump up to implement the GBF were always contentious. As were the questions of who would contribute what and whether the total target would include the repurposing of harmful subsidies, philanthropic handouts or “innovative” elements, such as taxes on retail or controversial biodiversity offsets.
During the fourth meeting of the open-ended working group in Nairobi in June, Brazil put forward a proposal for a new “Global Biodiversity Fund” to be established by next year, with a call for the fund to be operational by 2025.
This fund would be distinct from climate funding and development aid, with a demand that mirrors a climate finance target that rich countries have so far failed to deliver on: $100bn a year, but for biodiversity.
Support for a separate fund had been drawing support from a range of countries, from early supporters South Africa to a 22-country strong bloc of like-minded developing countries. The call gained further traction at COP15.
However, the proposal for this all-new fund was opposed by countries including the UK and the JUSCANZ group from the time it was announced.
At COP15 in Montreal, the EU strongly opposed the establishment of any such fund, while also repeatedly clarifying that official development assistance would comprise only a minor fraction of finance available for biodiversity and that developed countries would also have to invest more in nature conservation.
🇪🇺 this morning: “Let’s address the 🐘 in the room. This call from developing countries for more finance, yes, it is legitimate. We are the biggest donor, will continue to be a reliable donor. ODA is important but it will never do the trick, not enough for what we as a 🌍 face.”
— Aruna Chandrasekhar (@aruna_sekhar) December 12, 2022
French president Emmanuel Macron had apparently written to EU chief Ursula don der Leyen that the creation of a new Global Biodiversity Fund was a “red line”.
BREAKING. We are in a position to confirm that @EmmanuelMacron sent a letter to Ursula @vonderLeyen saying that the creation of a new fund for #biodiversity was a “redline”. #COP15 – see thread 👇🏼
— Oscar Soria #COP15 (@oscar_soria) December 14, 2022
In climate negotiations, the responsibility for mitigating and addressing damages rests upon all countries, but not equally, due to differences in historical contributions to the problem and capabilities to address it. A greater emphasis is placed on big emitters in developed countries to make bigger, faster cuts.
This is enshrined in a principle known as common but differentiated responsibility (CBDR), which also points to the role of rich countries to provide finance to poorer countries to support their low-carbon transition and efforts to adapt.
While the world’s biodiversity is concentrated in the global south, developing countries will largely be responsible for implementing the GBF towards conserving biodiversity on their territories. These countries will also be responsible for monitoring, reviewing and reporting on biodiversity efforts – all of which have significant financial implications.
While the UN Convention on Biological Diversity does not explicitly spell out the words “common but differentiated responsibility”, the sentiment is reflected in Articles 20 and 21 of the Convention, experts and parties point out, and enshrined in the Rio Convention.
Efforts to include the term “CBDR” in the new framework, however, were bitterly contested, with Norway, hosts Canada, the UK, EU, Switzerland, Japan questioning its place in the CBD and wanting the principle confined to climate talks.
Finance + equity deadlock at #COP15.
What better time for host 🇨🇦 + 🇳🇴🇨🇭🇪🇺🇬🇧 🇦🇺🇯🇵🇳🇿to reject references to CBDR (common but differentiated responsibility) in the CBD and in the new Global Biodiversity Framework. Want it to be confined to climate talks only. #COP15 pic.twitter.com/Gw5VTSGDFx
— Aruna Chandrasekhar (@aruna_sekhar) December 16, 2022
Another significant demand from developing countries was to increase access to funds from the Global Environment Facility (GEF) – a multilateral environmental fund set up by nations at the Rio Earth summit in 1992 – to low-income biodiverse countries and to ensure that these funds were adequate, predictable and reliable, as well as fast-tracked.
At 4am on 14 December, developing country representatives walked out of negotiations on resource mobilisation, saying that “at some point we were not allowed to negotiate on numerical values”, Bloomberg reported.
In a statement issued the next morning by a group of countries, including the African Group, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Paraguay and the Philippines, they argued:
“When COP15 agrees on an ambitious GBF, we will bear a higher burden than others in implementing it. We agree that the implementation of the GBF will require additional funds from all sources. At the same time, the resources mobilised from the private sector cannot be conflated with the legal obligations contained in Articles 20 and 21 of the CBD.”
On 15 December, the Chinese COP presidency appointed two co-facilitators to conduct ministerial consultations for each of the three thorniest topics. Rwanda’s Jeanne d’Arc Mujawamariya and Germany’s Jochen Flasbarth were tasked with resolving the roadblock on finance.
Amid a stalemate on resource mobilisation, parties tabled a “middle ground” suggestion: to set up a biodiversity trust fund housed under and administered by the GEF, where funding exclusively for biodiversity would be parked until a new fund was set up before COP16.
Campaign group Avaaz, too, put forward a proposal to bridge divides around finance.
In contact groups and plenaries, observers reported that these middle-ground options were rejected by African countries, India and Indonesia, among others, who all reaffirmed their wish to see a new fund, and not the hybrid model that had been proposed.
On 16 December, a group of 13 countries and the EU issued a joint-donor statement to outline their commitment to “leveraging international public finance to mobilise private resources to implement an ambitious GBF”.
Canada announced that it would provide “a new contribution of C$350m (£211.8m) to support developing countries to advance conservation efforts”, while the EU said it has pledged €7bn (£6.12bn)for biodiversity over 2021-27, “in particular for the most vulnerable countries”. Germany committed to increasing its international biodiversity funding to €1.5bn (£1.3bn) by 2025, as part of its climate budget.
Separately, the Bezos Earth Fund pledged $110m (£90m) in grants towards “restoration in Africa and the US and [to] advance science, monitoring and governance globally”.
Going into the final days of COP15, countries were still divided on the issue of finance – not made easier by the positions of developed countries on equity and common but differentiated responsibility.
Finance + equity deadlock at #COP15.
What better time for host 🇨🇦 + 🇳🇴🇨🇭🇪🇺🇬🇧 🇦🇺🇯🇵🇳🇿to reject references to CBDR (common but differentiated responsibility) in the CBD and in the new Global Biodiversity Framework. Want it to be confined to climate talks only. #COP15 pic.twitter.com/Gw5VTSGDFx
— Aruna Chandrasekhar (@aruna_sekhar) December 16, 2022
Finally, at 2:30am on 19 December, the COP presidency published a final resource mobilisation strategy document, which requests the GEF to establish a “Special Trust Fund” – called the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund (GBF Fund) – “in 2023, and until 2030” to support the framework.
This fund would have its own “equitable governing body” dedicated to achieving the goals of the GBF and must be prepared to receive “financing from all sources”, including official development assistance.
📢@UNBiodiversity #COP15 requested @theGEF to establish the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund as soon as possible, to complement existing support and scale up financing to ensure the timely implementation of the #post2020 global biodiversity framework.
➡️ https://t.co/vh0ovXbIce pic.twitter.com/YqbQJ4Ej47— Global Environment Facility (GEF) (@theGEF) December 19, 2022
The finance decision was adopted as a package without a pause for interventions or enough time to read the final documents, a move by the presidency that has not been received well by some parties.
The decision to bring in all sources to the biodiversity finance pool has not sat well with some observers, either. According to a statement of a group of organisations under the umbrella of the CBD Alliance:
“Developed countries owe an ecological debt to the rest of the world and must provide the necessary finance to developing countries in line with their legal obligations under the CBD. We firmly reject the notion of ‘all sources of finance’ as we cannot end up in a situation where 30% of the planet is being protected through financial resources earned through destroying 70% of the planet.”
Harmful subsidies
The language around harmful subsidies in the final Kunming-Montreal GBF text was watched closely by many observers during COP15.
Overall, stakeholders were pleased with the final outcome of target 18, which addressed incentives that have a negative impact on biodiversity – such as subsidies for agriculture, fisheries and fossil fuels.
The final text aimed to identify – by 2025 – and then “eliminate, phase out or reform incentives, including subsidies” that are harmful for biodiversity.
It added that this should be done in a way which is “fair, effective and equitable”.
Crucially, these incentives should also be “substantially and progressively” reduced by at least $500bn each year by 2030, “starting with the most harmful incentives”.
Positive incentives “for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity” should be increased, the final text said.
The financial aspect of this target was of particular importance to many. Analysis published in February this year found that governments around the world spend at least $1.8tn each year on subsidies that exacerbate biodiversity loss and climate change. This figure is equivalent to 2% of global GDP.
The general idea is to reroute these harmful incentives towards more positive actions for biodiversity.
Ladislav Miko, the special biodiversity envoy from the Czech Republic, and who represented the European Commission, said in a 12 December EU press briefing:
“We’re not speaking about getting subsidies away, we are speaking about repurposing them in a way that they will be not harmful, but supporting biodiversity.”
Carole Saint-Laurent, head of the forests and grasslands team at the International Union for Conservation of Nature, told Carbon Brief:
“There’s an opportunity to redirect a lot of harmful subsidies to restoration where you can create jobs at the same time instead of creating jobs through unhelpful activities.”
She added:
“It seems to be this drive to allocate subsidies to create jobs and maintain economies in a way that isn’t sustainable…Instead of building roads, let’s give people jobs being out in the fields restoring different ecosystems.”
Lauren Baker, deputy director of the Global Alliance for the Future of Food, said that subsidies for intensive and monocrop agriculture should be among the incentives targeted.
She told Carbon Brief that “weaker language” around subsidy reform should be focused instead on “really strong language around removing subsidies and recreating a stronger policy and subsidy framework”.
However, it was not all smooth sailing to reach the eventual outcome for target 18.
On 13 November, the possibility of getting strong wording was called into question after many countries came out against the elimination of harmful subsidies – an aim that had already been agreed in the Aichi targets.
Some interesting discussion tactics were deployed when Mexican negotiators promised a bottle of tequila for every bracket removed from the text on the harmful subsidies target.
How to build consensus on eliminating subsidies that harm species, the Mexican way. #COP15 pic.twitter.com/ucijWyp1B2
— Aruna Chandrasekhar (@aruna_sekhar) December 14, 2022
Target 18 in an earlier GBF draft included, in brackets, a mention of harmful “fisheries and agricultural subsidies”. But this explicit call-out did not make it into the final text.
This earlier draft also included a bracketed mention that incentives should be redirected and repurposed towards nature-positive activities and “prioritising the stewardship of Indigenous peoples and local communities”. This also did not make it out of the brackets into the final GBF.
Following these developments, Florian Titze, adviser on international biodiversity policy at WWF Germany, said, as of 14 December, there were fears the level of ambition contained in target 18 would be similar to or worse than the Aichi targets agreed 12 years ago.
But, ultimately, the inclusion of a clear financial target and the continued aim to “eliminate” subsidies was enough to keep most parties satisfied.
Turning pledges to action
One major issue for the GBF is how the goals and targets contained within the agreed text can be turned into rapid action by countries.
A lack of implementation was widely cited as one of the major factors behind the failure of the last set of global biodiversity rules, the Aichi targets.
🦷How can we make sure the global biodiversity framework has teeth?🦷
After the failure of the last set of nature targets, many feel it is key that nations are held accountable for enacting the promises they (might!) make in Montreal
Section J of GBF deals with this issue
— Daisy Dunne (@daisydunnesci) December 15, 2022
Details for how the agreement should be implemented – the so-called “teeth” of the deal – are contained within section J of the GBF itself and a separate document called “mechanisms for planning, monitoring, reporting and review”. (It is worth noting that the GBF and its underlying documents are not legally binding.)
Carbon Brief understands that negotiations for these texts were long and complex, often running into the early hours of the morning throughout both weeks of the summit.
The agreed plan for how the GBF should be implemented by countries follows three key steps – sometimes referred to as “present, review, ratchet” by NGOs.
It is worth noting that much of this plan appears to mirror the implementation schedule of the Paris Agreement, which requires countries to submit national climate plans, specifies dates for “global stocktakes” to take place and asks nations to “ratchet” up their ambition following reviews.
Section J of the GBF specifies that countries should produce national biodiversity action plans that are “in alignment” with the GBF and its goals and targets. The underlying document adds that this should be done “by COP16”, the next biodiversity summit, which will take place in Turkey in 2024.
Parties should then submit national reports containing agreed headline indicators in 2026 and 2029, according to the underlying document. (Carbon Brief understands that the very idea that countries should start using standardised indicators under the CBD is a big step forward.)
At COP16 and “subsequent COPs”, a global analysis of national biodiversity action plans should be conducted to assess progress towards achieving the GBF, the document adds.
A “global review” should then be held – an element that observers believe could be key for implementation, the GBF says. The underlying document says this global review should take place at COP17 and COP19.
After global reviews, there will be “voluntary peer reviews”, according to the GBF, after which countries “may take the outcome of the global reviews into account in future revisions and implementation of their” national biodiversity action plans. (This is the “ratchet” element of the implementation plan.)
Clement Metivier, a senior policy adviser at WWF, said that the plans for implementation overall represent a big step forward from the Aichi targets, but that the final step – the ratchet mechanism – is weaker than desired. He told Carbon Brief:
“We welcome the improved reporting and monitoring as well as the newly introduced global review of progress. It’s great to see a type of ‘ratcheting’ step included that allows countries to improve actions and efforts if implementation is not on track. But tragically, it’s only voluntary.”
When challenged on the voluntary element of the ratchet mechanism, a negotiator who worked closely on the topic claimed that the wording couldn’t have been any “legally tighter” than what was agreed. They insisted that the “dream outcome” had been achieved. (The Paris Agreement also does not contain a clear instruction when it comes to “ratcheting” ambition.)
Metivier added that civil society groups will continue to hold countries to account to ensure they up their national biodiversity action plans when necessary:
“We also need to ensure that governments respect the deadlines for submitting stronger national plans aligned with the goals and targets of the GBF and for communicating national reports that will be assessed during the global review of progress. There cannot be any delay – implementation must start today.”
Indigenous rights
According to the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), “at least a quarter of the global land area is traditionally owned, managed, used or occupied by Indigenous peoples”.
In a 2019 landmark scientific report, the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, IPBES estimated that, of that area, almost 70% can be classified as “protected” areas or “areas with very low human intervention”.
Indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs) depend on nature for “subsistence, livelihoods and health”, but their lands are facing pressure from extractivism, energy and transport projects, added the document.
Right now at the March for Biodiversity and Human Rights, as part of the #COP15 in Montreal, Indigenous peoples call to respect their rights, traditions and lands, because they conserve 80% of world’s biodiversity.
They want Canadian mining companies out of the Amazonas. 🧵 pic.twitter.com/QOmUxB5LyN
— Yanine Quiroz (@YanineQuiroz) December 10, 2022
COP15 was an opportunity for Indigenous leaders to push for recognition of their rights as stewards of biodiversity, before the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework was adopted on 19 December.
Indigenous groups take part in the CBD process through the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity (IIFB), an international organisation that lifts the voice and petitions of 100 IPLC delegates from seven regions, including Latin America, Asia and Africa.
Ramiro Batzin, co-chair of the IIFB, told Carbon Brief:
“We sustainably use natural resources, we co-exist with Mother Nature, we take from Mother Nature, in a balanced way – our food, medicines, everything that allows our Indigenous peoples to survive. Thus, we demand the recognition and respect of Indigenous territories and traditional knowledge, as well as the free, prior and informed consent.”
In the new biodiversity framework, direct mentions to Indigenous rights appear in section C, which contains overall considerations for the framework, as well as a range of targets.
Indigenous rights were incorporated into targets on “spatial planning (target 1), area-based conservation (target 3), customary sustainable use (target 5 and 9), traditional knowledge (goals C, targets 13 and 20) [and] participation and respect for the rights of IPLCs to lands, territories and resources (target 22)”, according to IIFB.
Target 3 looks to “ensure and enable” the conservation of “30% of terrestrial, inland water and of coastal and marine areas” by 2030. At COP15, it was one of the most-discussed targets, but Indigenous groups warned of its potential impacts on IPLC rights and displacement.
However, pressure from IPLCs resulted in the recognition of “Indigenous and traditional territories”, and respect of “the rights of Indigenous peoples and local communities over their traditional territories”.
In targets 5 and 9, regarding customary sustainable use, IPLCs had expressed concern over the possible prohibition of wildlife use considered illegal, as much of their “customary use is considered that way”, said Viviana Figueroa, another representative of the IIFB.
Indigenous peoples had also worried about target 19, which covers direct access to biodiversity finance, since IPLCs have historically only received around 1% of these funds.
These outcomes were generally well-received by the IIFB, which issued a statement after the COP presidency released its GBF draft, highlighting the “strong language on respect for the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities” in goal C and targets 1, 3, 5, 9, 13, 20 and 22. IIFB “urged parties to accept the text and not to reopen it for further negotiation”.
Here it is, our statement on the outcome of the #post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework #cop15 #ForPeopleAndNature pic.twitter.com/U1NOmQkb8Q
— IIFB (@IIFB_indigenous) December 19, 2022
Avaaz, an environmental and human-rights organisation, welcomed “strong references to the rights of Indigenous peoples and local communities across the goals and targets, and other sections”, as well as the “inclusion of the principle of ‘free, prior and informed consent’ and their explicit mention of their full and effective participation in decision-making”.
Figueroa offered a more critical perspective to Carbon Brief.
“How will parties make sure these targets will be achieved?”, she asked. She added that the monitoring mechanism will ask them to assess the implementation of goals and targets at national and international level and IPLCs will be looking at this process.
At the COP15 closing plenary, in parallel to the adoption of the GBF, parties approved an agreement to “reevaluate and expand the role of IPLCs and traditional knowledge in the CBD process”, CBD head of communications David Ainsworth told reporters at a press briefing on 19 December.
Sustainable use of biodiversity
coming soon
Digital sequence information
coming soon
Pollution & pesticides
coming soon
Agricultural footprint & sustainable production
COP15 also focused on the need to assure world food security, while transitioning towards more sustainable food systems.
Food security remains a crucial challenge in a world with 828 million people suffering from hunger and 2.3 billion people – almost 30% of global population – with some grade of malnutrition, according to a 2022 report from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).
By contrast, food waste accounts for 17% of global food production, with 11% of food waste coming from households, 5% from food service and 2% from retail, the UN Environment Program (UNEP) pointed out in a 2021 report.
Current food systems – a term which encompasses activities related to food production, transport, processing and consumption – are major drivers of biodiversity loss, land degradation and climate change.
A study from the UN Convention to Combat Desertification in 2022 revealed that food systems account for 80% of deforestation and 29% of greenhouse gas emissions globally. Food systems are also thought to drive about 70% of terrestrial biodiversity loss and 50% of marine biodiversity loss, according to the 2020 WWF Living Planet report (pdf).
Food-systems footprint has been embedded in international talks since the adoption of the UN Sustainable Development Goals – specifically the goal 12 on production and consumption – and the Aichi targets, where it was covered by target 4.
Speaking at the COP15 food day, FAO deputy director general Maria Helena Semedo emphasised how food systems rely on biodiversity:
“We depend on biodiversity for diverse food and products, as well as for water, for healthy ecosystems, for stable and productive soils to grow crops, as pollinators and the myriad of other species perform essential services.”
She also stressed that the GBF needs “an active engagement of all stakeholders across the food and agriculture sectors”.
At COP15, environment ministers from around the world took the opportunity to showcase policies and actions their governments were implementing to enhance sustainability in food production and consumption.
For example, at an event during “food day”, Natasha Kim from the Canadian agriculture department explained how, in 2019, Canada launched its first food policy that promoted consultations with farmers and other actors to reach a sustainable agriculture strategy.
Observers, such as WWF director-general Marco Lambertini, focused on the importance of going beyond conservation and restoration of nature to transitioning into a more sustainable consumption and production to halt and reverse biodiversity loss.
In the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), the role of business in the production footprint appears in target 15, which seeks to “encourage and enable” businesses and large transnational companies to “regularly monitor, assess, and transparently disclose their risks, dependencies and impacts on biodiversity”. It urges business to “provide information needed to consumers to promote sustainable consumption patterns”.
But some observers were not fully satisfied with the final text on businesses. Campaign group Avaaz noted, in a message to journalists, “with great concern” that the final text weakened the requirement for mandatory monitoring, assessment and disclosure of business impacts on biodiversity.
Moreover, an earlier GBF draft had included a call to “foster a circular economy” in target 15, but in the final version was eliminated. (“Circular economies” aim to reduce waste by incorporating it into production processes, thus decreasing the consumption of natural resources.)
For Doreen Robinson, UNEP head of biodiversity and land, including language around circularity and value chains was essential because of the urgency to reduce 1.3bn tonnes of food waste every year. Food waste is “not feeding anybody, so getting the action plans at the country level is really important”, she said during “food day”.
The footprint of consumption is addressed by the GBF in target 16. The EU and Argentina had asked for more time to review it and state their positions. However, language specifically focused on diets – included in earlier drafts of the GBF – was dropped from the final version.
This target seeks to ensure “people are encouraged and enabled to make sustainable consumption choices including by establishing supportive policy, legislative or regulatory frameworks, improving education and access to relevant and accurate information”.
This target also called for halving global food waste by 2030, as well as reducing the global footprint of production and “substantially reducing waste generation”.
Nature-based solutions
The controversial concept of nature-based solutions (NBS) was a dividing issue for many at COP15, but the term eventually made its way into the Kunming-Montreal framework.
NBS was featured in brackets eight times in the draft GBF agreed at the final meeting of the open-ended working group during 3-5 December. The term was reduced to two mentions in the final text, once each under targets 8 and 11.
Several countries, such as Bolivia, were against any inclusion of the term. Bernadette Fischler Hooper, head of international advocacy at WWF UK, said there is possibly too much heat put on NBS. She told Carbon Brief:
“There is an over-criticism of nature-based solutions – which is maybe not that justified – that it leads to the commodification of nature and to greenwashing. That doesn’t change if you add ecosystem-based approaches.”
She added:
“While they play a critical role to restore, maintain and enhance ecosystems, functions and services, that alone will not suffice. Just doing nature-based solutions will not be enough – it really needs, in addition, regulations, incentives and policies and [ways] to address the drivers of biodiversity loss.”
The term, which is already used in other UN conventions, was also included in the climate change COP27 cover decision in November – a first for a UN climate summit.
The UN Environment Programme’s 2022 State of Finance for Nature report found that finance for NBS must double by 2025 – and triple by 2030 – to help halt biodiversity loss and achieve climate goals.
In a press briefing on 7 December, Souparna Lahiri, climate campaigner and adviser at the Global Forest Coalition, said the term should not be included in the final framework, adding that actions that fall under NBS are “false solutions”. He said:
“We know ecosystems approaches. We know of the principles by which the ecosystems approach are defined within the CBD.…These false solutions [NBS] are creating barriers to move forward with real solutions towards both addressing the climate-change crisis and the biodiversity-loss crisis.”
A letter sent by members of the Third World Network in the days before the high-level segment of COP15 called on ministers to not include NBS in the final text and focus instead on “ecosystem-based approaches”.
Letter to the Ministers of the world participating at the 15th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (#CBD). #COP15 #GBF pic.twitter.com/R0fG288qOV
— Third World Network (@3rdworldnetwork) December 17, 2022
Including nature-based solutions, the letter said, would be “tantamount to signing a blank cheque” as the term has no set definition under the CBD.
There is a definition for NBS under other UN bodies, such as the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA).
Earlier this year, UNEA defined nature-based solutions as actions that “protect, conserve, restore, sustainably use and manage” ecosystems, effectively address social, economic and environmental challenges and also provide human wellbeing, ecosystem services and biodiversity benefits.
The CBD’s definition for an “ecosystem approach” is a “strategy for the integrated management of land, water and living resources that promotes conservation and sustainable use in an equitable way”.
Ebony Holland, nature and climate policy lead at the International Institute for Environment and Development, said there was concern that including NBS in the text could “erode” the work put in to establish a CBD definition for ecosystem approach. Holland told Carbon Brief:
“We often get tied up in fixations around certain terms where, in actual fact, what we’re all talking about is using the power of nature, using the power of cultural knowledge, traditional knowledge to solve issues like loss of nature, climate change.”
In the final GBF, target 8 outlined an aim to minimise the impact of climate change and ocean acidification on biodiversity and increase its resilience through actions including “nature-based solution and/or ecosystem-based approaches”, while minimising negative and fostering positive impacts of climate change on biodiversity.
Target 11 focused on restoring, maintaining and enhancing nature’s contribution to people, such as regulation of air, water and climate, and protection from natural hazards and disasters through NBS and ecosystem-based approaches, “for the benefit of all people and nature”.
(For more on nature-based solutions, see Carbon Brief’s explainer from last year.)
Oceans
Scarcely mentioned in the GBF itself, the ocean was, nonetheless, an important feature of the negotiations in Montreal.
Explicit mentions of the ocean, seas and coastal and marine areas can be found in several of the final framework’s targets, including target 2 on ecosystem restoration, target 3 on ecosystem protection and target 8 on climate change.
References to ocean acidification in the climate change target had been in brackets throughout the negotiations, but, ultimately, made it into the final text.
no numerical figure but importantly, “ocean acidification” remained in the target — had previously been in brackets. OA was mentioned in the Aichi targets so good to see that there was no regression on that https://t.co/EeyUxm8q5x
— Giuliana A. Viglione, PhD (@GAViglione) December 19, 2022
Furthermore, the dearth of direct mentions in the text did not mean that marine issues were not present in the GBF, said Pepe Clarke, the global oceans practice leader at WWF International. He told Carbon Brief:
“Oceans are present in a cross-cutting way across the global biodiversity framework. So most, if not all, of the targets have relevance to our oceans and coastal ecosystems.”
Target 10 of the final framework also contains ocean-centric references, calling on countries to “ensure that areas under agriculture, aquaculture, fisheries and forestry are managed sustainably, in particular through the sustainable use of biodiversity, including through a substantial increase of the application of biodiversity friendly practices”.
But, elsewhere in the framework, fishery-focused text was dropped along the way.
Target 18, on harmful subsidies, had initially identified fisheries as one of the sectors with the “most harmful subsidies” that should be targeted for the most urgent action. However, the sector-specific language did not make it into the final text. (See: Harmful subsidies.)
In addition, target 14, which calls for biodiversity to be integrated into policies and planning, had originally contained bracketed text on the environmental impacts of several specific sectors, including fisheries, aquaculture and deep-sea mining. This text was also dropped from the final framework.
Two sets of negotiations in Montreal focused on some of the more technical aspects of marine biodiversity: the identification of ecologically or biologically significant marine areas (EBSAs) and the conservation and sustainable use of marine and coastal biodiversity. Both of these were discussed by working group two at the meeting.
The working group defined 17 new EBSAs in and around the north-east Atlantic Ocean, including areas around Iceland, the UK, Denmark and the Azores. The designation of EBSAs “is a scientific and geographic exercise of description of those places”, Clarke told Carbon Brief. He added:
“It doesn’t directly deliver protection for those sites, but it’s actually a very important foundation for national governments and, in due course, intergovernmental processes to identify places that are particularly in need of protection or active management.”
The decision on EBSAs also “decides” to extend the mandate of its advisory group and “encourages” further collaboration between the CBD and several other relevant international governance mechanisms, as well as regional groups.
The text on marine and coastal biodiversity calls on international and regional bodies to “support the implementation of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework with respect to marine and coastal biodiversity”. It also calls for “collaboration and cooperation” between the CBD and other organisations in conserving marine biodiversity.
The EBSA decision text from COP15 “encourages” parties to take the outcomes of the EBSA process into account during deliberations on the high seas treaty and “invites” parties to take them into account during discussions under the International Seabed Authority.
And the marine and coastal biodiversity text “encourages” parties to ensure that the impacts on the marine environment and biodiversity are sufficiently researched and the risks understood” before seabed mining activities are commenced.
Clarke said that the language around deep-sea mining was “encouraging”.
Health
coming soon
Gender
Women and girls are important actors in biodiversity conservation and sustainable resource management due to their roles, knowledge about natural resources and dependence on nature for their livelihoods.
For example, a report released in late 2021 by the civil society group Women4Biodiversity found that women “make up about 47% of the global fisheries labour force and just under 50% of the global agricultural workforce”.
The report cautioned that women suffer most from the impacts of biodiversity loss and climate change, yet still face a lack of participation in decision-making on biodiversity, climate action and land administration, among other issues.
The IPBES 2019 global assessment report also noted that “land or resource tenure insecurity, as well as declines in nature, have greater impacts on women and girls” than they do on men.
That reality has prompted women and youth to call for the inclusion of equity, equality and a gender perspective in decision-making at local, national and international levels, as well as in the creation and implementation of the GBF in the coming decade.
Alejandra Duarte, a policy intern at Women4Biodiversity, explained that having a gender perspective and human rights in the GBF is important to allow the recognition and quantification of the contribution of women and Indigenous peoples, plus local communities (IPLCs), to biodiversity conservation. Further, it might help these groups address the threats they face to conserve nature, Duarte told Carbon Brief.
Equity was a priority for youth throughout the negotiations. Mirna Inés Fernández, a representative of the Global Youth Biodiversity Network, said:
“Women, youth and Indigenous peoples are the rights-holders that will implement this GBF, so it is important that countries enable access to capacity-building for them.”
Fernández added that the final text is “more focused on strengthening governments’ capacities” than on the rights of women and youth.
Target 22 in the GBF aims to “ensure gender equality in the implementation of the framework through a gender-responsive approach”. The terms “gender-responsive” and “responsiveness” had been pushed by the women’s caucus, as it is stronger language than “gender-sensitive” and might thus enable measurable policies and finance resources.
Mrinalini Rai, director of Women4Biodiversity, explained the difference at a COP15 press briefing. She said:
“‘Gender-sensitive’ is not enough. It is limited to be aware of the problem, responsiveness is what you do about it.”
Additionally, at COP15, parties adopted the Gender Plan of Action. Its purpose is to “support and promote the gender-responsive implementation of the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework” and its associated mechanisms. It has three expected outcomes, all with their own indicative objectives, actions, deliverables and timelines.
For example, one of its highlighted objectives is number 1.1, which lays out the increase of “women and girls’ rights to ownership and control over land and access to natural resources and to water, to support the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity” by 2024.
The Gender Plan of Action is considered a pivotal document by Amelia Arreguin, co-coordinator of the Women’s Caucus, because it is the first time an international environmental agreement recognises access to natural resources. Although the plan is not legally binding, it addresses important issues such as the protection of women defenders and gender violence in an environmental context, she told Carbon Brief.
Invasive species
Although it garners less notice on the global stage than other drivers of biodiversity loss, the introduction of invasive species is “probably the major cause of extinctions globally”, Dr Piero Genovesi, the chair of the invasive species specialist group at the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, told Carbon Brief.
The other main drivers – habitat destruction, harvest of natural resources, climate change and pollution – are “definitely more clear to the public and decision-makers”, Genovesi added.
The need to address invasive species was covered in target 6 of the new GBF, as well as a separate decision text. The target sets a specific numerical target of reducing the rates of introduction of “known or potential” invasive species by 50% by 2030.
The inclusion of a numerical target shows an important step in building upon the corresponding Aichi target, which had set a goal that, by 2020, “invasive alien species and pathways are identified and prioritised, priority species are controlled or eradicated and measures are in place to manage pathways to prevent their introduction and establishment”.
The decision text on invasive alien species also “requests” a peer-review process to be organised by the CBD executive secretary to solicit advice on several aspects of invasive species management. These should include, the text says, cost-benefit analyses, issues arising from e-commerce, the intersection of risks with climate change and natural disasters and consequences for cultural values.
Progress on these issues is to be reported to the meeting of the subsidiary body on scientific, technical and technological advice (SBSTTA) before COP16 in 2024.
As isolated habitats, islands are particularly vulnerable to the problem of invasive species. At the summit, many island nations pushed for specific language highlighting this heightened vulnerability. The final target does give nod to this need, calling for “eradicating or controlling invasive alien species especially in priority sites, such as islands”.
The reference to priority sites was one of the key signals of ambition that experts were watching for in Montreal. Another was the need to target priority invasive species for action, Genovesi said. He told Carbon Brief:
“So let’s say that we know that there is a limited number of invasive species that are really harmful to the environment. If there is a strong commitment to really reduce or avoid the impact of these species, this will give a strong mandate to countries to regulate the species and to eradicate them whenever feasible.”
In 2023, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) is set to release its assessment on invasive species, as well as strategies and practices for controlling their populations. Experts told Carbon Brief that this will be an important tool to help national governments translate the ambition in the GBF into tangible action moving forward.
Genovesi highlighted to Carbon Brief the unique opportunity in addressing invasive species risk. He said:
“Differently to other threats, invasive alien species are a problem that could be put under control with adequate resources and adequate political will. So I think this is one component of the global problem we see on biodiversity that with adequate efforts could be put under control. It could become a model also for addressing other issues.”
Around the COP
Chinese presidency
Coming soon
Lacking world leaders
Notable omissions from COP15 were nearly every world leader – they were reportedly not invited to attend the summit in Montreal.
Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau spoke at the opening ceremony of the meeting on 6 December, where he was interrupted by Indigenous protesters, and again on 7 December, where he pledged C$800m (£483.3m) for Indigenous-led conservation projects over the next seven years.
Dalton Tagelagi, the premier of Niue, was the only head of state to attend the high-level segment of the summit. Addressing the plenary room, he told his fellow delegates:
“You might ask why I choose to attend this meeting, especially so close to Christmas and so far away from home. Let me tell you this: I am here because this is fundamentally important to me, my government and the people of my country and the Pacific region.”
The premier of Niue – the only head of government in attendance – tells the room of the urgent need to recognize the connection between climate change and biodiversity loss.
“Let’s not fail to deliver because we cannot agree…Be innovative. Be bold,” he urges pic.twitter.com/W0sQAkbX4I
— Giuliana A. Viglione, PhD (@GAViglione) December 15, 2022
Xi Jinping, the president of China, addressed the high-level segment via video recording. In his speech, he highlighted the “active efforts” China has made towards ecological conservation and stressed the importance of recognising humanity’s “shared future”. He added:
“Solidarity and cooperation is the only effective way to address global challenges.”
UK prime minister Rishi Sunak also made a virtual intervention during the summit. And French president Emmanuel Macron wrote a Twitter thread appealing to countries to work towards an ambitious agreement.
But campaign group Avaaz called out Macron for attending the FIFA men’s World Cup semi-final and final in Qatar rather than the biodiversity talks. France is one of the leaders of the High-Ambition Coalition that was behind the push for 30×30 at the COP.
.@Avaaz has taken out an ad in multiple newspapers calling on Emmanuel Macron to cancel his trip to Qatar for the world cup and come to Montreal instead.
Oscar Soria, campaign director, says that so-called nature leaders need to show up and prove that they’re more than talk https://t.co/7uTVtIui29 pic.twitter.com/BGUgaHwWzD
— Giuliana A. Viglione, PhD (@GAViglione) December 14, 2022
Ministers’ speeches
coming soon
Protests
Protests both inside and outside the venue were scattered throughout the two weeks of the summit.
During the meeting’s opening ceremony on 6 December, a group of Indigenous youth interrupted Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau’s address.
PM Justin Trudeau’s speech at #COP15 interrupted by a group of Indigenous youth from Canada’s west coast pic.twitter.com/UBdq1Ito41
— Jack Graham (@jacktgraham) December 6, 2022
On the following day, access to the venue was temporarily blocked by protests around the venue.
The major protest took place on Saturday 10 December in sub-zero temperatures. Once again, Indigenous youth were on the front line. A banner read, in French: “We are one with nature, protect it!” Chants and signs called for, among other things, land back (a movement to return control of lands in North America to Indigenous peoples), ending “ecocide” (the mass destruction of ecosystems) and halting the Line 5 pipeline, which carries petroleum across Canada via the US.
Indigenous groups leading the march for nature through Montreal today. Big turnout despite -5C temps. #COP15 🦭🦍🐘🐺 pic.twitter.com/072IUPCXwO
— Daisy Dunne (@daisydunnesci) December 10, 2022
Protesters also interrupted a speech by Bezos Earth Fund chief executive Andrew Steer during the second week of the summit.
As Bezos Earth Fund CEO Andrew Steer speaks at #COP15, protesters stand in front of him with signs saying the “the wrong Amazon is burning.” pic.twitter.com/rYffx2scuu
— Benji Jones (@BenjiSJones) December 15, 2022
Greenwashing
Much like at the UN climate summit COP27 last month in Egypt, there were fears from some observers that representatives from industries harmful to nature, such as large pharmaceutical and fossil-fuel companies, were having undue influence around the summit and on the negotiations.
A report by the NGO Friends of the Earth International accused “industry” of trying to “turn nature into a business” and placed the blame on “the welcoming attitude of the UN system [to businesses] in general, especially the CBD”.
The report added that industry representatives often appear at UN biodiversity talks under “promisingly green-sounding names” and advocate or lobby for the inclusion of terms such as “no net loss”, “net gain”, “nature positive” and “nature-based solutions”. (To note, a reference to “nature positive” was cut from the final text of the GBF, whereas the “nature-based solutions” was included.)
It comes as the Guardian reported that an employee of BP attended COP15 as a delegate for Ipieca, the global oil-and gas-industry association for environmental issues. He was part of an International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) working group focused on the phrase “nature positive”.
It is worth noting that the CBD denied multiple requests to provide a full delegates list and, thus, it is not known how many industry representatives attended COP15. (In contrast, the UN does publish delegate lists for the climate COPs.)
Reaction
coming soon
The road to COP16
Unlike the UN’s corresponding climate conferences, CBD COPs meet every other year.
COP16 will be held in the “last half” of 2024 in Turkey, while the CBD has called for countries from central and eastern Europe to submit bids to host COP17 and countries from Latin America and the Caribbean to offer up their nations as hosts for COP18.
In between now and then, the subsidiary bodies of the convention – the SBSTTA and the SBI – will continue to meet to refine the scientific and monitoring foundation upon which the framework is built. The CBD schedule for 2023 had not been released at the time of publication of this article.
Now that the new framework has been approved, parties to the convention will be expected to revise their National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) – country-by-country plans for how each nation will fulfil their obligations under the convention – to align them with the targets set out in the GBF.
Work on national planning needs to get started right away, said Bernadette Fischler Hooper, WWF UK’s head of international advocacy. She told Carbon Brief:
“We also need to see implementation happening, so countries need to get down to business right away. No Christmas break for them. Immediately, we need to go into implementation, not least because we’re already two years late. This is a 10-year framework and we have eight years left to implement it.”
According to CBD information officer David Ainsworth, the ad-hoc technical group on the monitoring framework will also work on how to translate headline indicators into national-level targets.
Hooper added that it is “very possible” that the agreement will result in a movement to put national-level legislation into place towards helping countries achieve the targets and goals of the GBF, similar to the wave of national legislation passed to implement the Paris Agreement.
The NBSAP Accelerator Partnership, announced by Germany and Colombia during the high-level segment of COP15, will aim to aid countries in developing and implementing national action plans for biodiversity. The German government pledged €29m to support the launch of the accelerator programme.
Meanwhile, the Global Environment Facility (GEF) assembly will be moving forward to create a new biodiversity-specific trust fund, as outlined in the final agreement.
The pessimistic air during the Montreal meeting had previously led some people to wonder whether the CBD was serving its purpose. One observer told Carbon Brief that in the wake of COP15, the CBD would “need to think very carefully about their institutional identity”.
But Li Shuo, a policy advisor with Greenpeace East Asia, said that the agreement of the GBF was a “much-needed boost to the CBD”. He told Carbon Brief:
“The spirit of cooperation at COP15 should move countries forward in their immediate implementation of this package.”
Other key meetings on the road to COP16 can be found in the table below:
Date | Milestone |
---|---|
1-2 February 2023 | Global Ocean Biodiversity Initiative symposium, Vancouver, Canada |
3-9 February 2023 | 5th International Marine Protected Areas congress, Vancouver, Canada |
Late February/Early March 2023 | Negotiations on the treaty on Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (“high seas” treaty) |
10-16 April 2023 | 10th plenary of IPBES |
Sharelines from this story
- SEO Powered Content & PR Distribution. Get Amplified Today.
- Platoblockchain. Web3 Metaverse Intelligence. Knowledge Amplified. Access Here.
- Source: https://www.carbonbrief.org/cop15-key-outcomes-agreed-at-the-un-biodiversity-conference-in-montreal/
- 1
- 10
- 100
- 11
- 116
- 2%
- 2018
- 2019
- 2020
- 2021
- 2022
- 2024
- 7
- 9
- a
- ability
- About
- about IT
- above
- abundance
- AC
- accelerator
- Accept
- access
- According
- Account
- Accounting
- Accounts
- accurate
- accused
- Achieve
- achieved
- across
- Action
- actions
- active
- activists
- activities
- actually
- Ad
- adapt
- added
- addition
- Additional
- address
- addresses
- addressing
- Adds
- administered
- administration
- adopted
- Adoption
- advance
- advice
- advisor
- advisory
- advocacy
- advocate
- africa
- African
- After
- against
- Agreement
- agreements
- Agricultural
- agriculture
- Agriculture Department
- ahead
- Aid
- aims
- AIR
- alarm
- alien
- aligned
- All
- Alliance
- allows
- alone
- already
- Although
- always
- Amazon
- Ambiguity
- ambition
- ambitions
- ambitious
- america
- among
- analysis
- and
- animals
- announced
- Another
- Antigua
- appealing
- appear
- appeared
- Application
- appointed
- approach
- approaches
- approved
- April
- AREA
- areas
- Argentina
- around
- arrival
- article
- articles
- asia
- aspect
- aspects
- Assembly
- assessed
- assessment
- Assistance
- associated
- Association
- assurance
- attend
- attendance
- attending
- attention
- Australia
- Authorities
- authority
- available
- back
- backed
- banner
- Barbuda
- barriers
- Baseline
- Bear
- because
- become
- before
- began
- behind
- behind the scenes
- being
- believe
- below
- benefit
- benefits
- Better
- between
- Beyond
- bezos
- Big
- bigger
- Biggest
- Billion
- billions
- Bit
- Block
- blocked
- Blog
- Bloomberg
- body
- bold
- BONE
- boost
- boosting
- BP
- Brazil
- Break
- BRIDGE
- Briefing
- briefly
- bring
- budget
- build
- Building
- built
- burden
- business
- businesses
- cache
- call
- called
- calling
- Calls
- Campaign
- Can Get
- Canada
- Canadian
- cannot
- capabilities
- carbon
- carefully
- Caribbean
- Cause
- cautiously
- cbd
- celebrated
- central
- ceo
- certain
- chains
- Chair
- challenge
- challenged
- challenges
- change
- Charity
- chief
- China
- chinese
- choices
- Choose
- chosen
- Christmas
- claimed
- classified
- clear
- Climate
- Climate change
- Close
- closely
- closing
- Co-Chair
- Coast
- collaboration
- collectively
- Colombia
- COM
- combat
- come
- coming
- commission
- commitment
- committed
- Common
- commonly
- communicating
- Communications
- Communities
- Companies
- compared
- Complement
- complex
- complicated
- component
- components
- Concentrated
- concept
- Concern
- Concerns
- Conduct
- Conference
- conferences
- Confirm
- conflated
- Congo
- Congress
- connection
- Consensus
- consent
- Consequences
- CONSERVATION
- Consider
- considerations
- considered
- consultations
- Consumers
- consumption
- contact
- Container
- contains
- content
- context
- continue
- continued
- continuing
- contrast
- contribute
- contribution
- contributions
- control
- controlled
- controlling
- controversial
- Convention
- cooperation
- Corresponding
- COSTA RICA
- could
- countries
- country
- course
- covered
- COVID-19
- COVID-19 pandemic
- create
- created
- Creating
- creation
- crisis
- critical
- crops
- crucial
- cultural
- Cup
- Currently
- Cut
- cuts
- czech republic
- data
- Date
- Dates
- David
- day
- Days
- deal
- Deals
- debate
- Debt
- decade
- December
- decision
- Decision Making
- Declines
- Declining
- dedicated
- Defenders
- delay
- delegates
- delight
- deliver
- Demand
- demanded
- democratic
- Denmark
- Department
- dependence
- deployed
- deputy
- describe
- description
- designation
- Despite
- detail
- details
- developed
- developing
- Developing Countries
- Development
- developments
- DID
- difference
- differences
- different
- differentiated
- difficult
- direct
- Direct access
- directly
- Director
- disasters
- Disclose
- disclosure
- discussed
- discussion
- discussions
- distinct
- diverse
- Diversity
- divided
- document
- documents
- Doesn’t
- doing
- Domestic
- Dont
- double
- down
- dozens
- draft
- drawing
- drive
- drivers
- dropped
- during
- e-commerce
- each
- Earlier
- Early
- earned
- earth
- easier
- East
- eastern
- eastern europe
- Ecological
- Economic
- economies
- ecosystem
- Ecosystems
- Education
- Effective
- effectively
- efforts
- Egypt
- either
- elements
- eliminated
- eliminating
- elsewhere
- embedded
- emerged
- Emissions
- Emmanuel Macron
- emphasis
- Employee
- enable
- encompasses
- encouraged
- energy
- engagement
- enhancing
- enough
- ensure
- ensuring
- Environment
- environmental
- equality
- equally
- equity
- Equivalent
- especially
- essential
- essential services
- establish
- established
- establishing
- establishment
- estimated
- Ether (ETH)
- EU
- Europa
- Europe
- European
- european commission
- Even
- Event
- eventual
- eventually
- everything
- example
- exclusively
- executive
- Exercise
- existing
- Expand
- expected
- experts
- explained
- Explains
- expressed
- extend
- extinction
- Eyes
- Face
- Facility
- facing
- factors
- FAIL
- Failed
- Failure
- fair
- Fall
- farmers
- fast-tracked
- faster
- fears
- feasible
- Feature
- featured
- fellow
- Fields
- fierce
- FIFA
- Figure
- Figures
- final
- finance
- financial
- financing
- Find
- firmly
- First
- first time
- flagship
- Flows
- Focus
- focused
- following
- follows
- food
- Food and Agriculture
- Footprint
- Force
- forest
- form
- Formally
- Forum
- Forward
- fossil fuels
- found
- Foundation
- Fourth
- fraction
- Framework
- frameworks
- France
- Free
- French
- friendly
- from
- front
- full
- fully
- functions
- fund
- fundamentally
- funding
- funds
- further
- further development
- future
- game
- gap
- GAS
- GDP
- Gender
- General
- generally
- Geneva
- geographic
- German
- German government
- Germany
- get
- getting
- girls
- Give
- Global
- global pandemic
- Globally
- Go
- goal
- Goals
- going
- good
- governance
- Government
- Governments
- governs
- grade
- grants
- great
- greater
- Greenpeace
- Group
- Group’s
- Grow
- halting
- Halving
- happened
- harmful
- Harmony
- harvest
- having
- head
- headline
- healthy
- heightened
- Held
- help
- helping
- here
- High
- high-level
- higher
- Highlighted
- highlighting
- highly
- historically
- hold
- Holland
- Home
- hope
- hopes
- hoping
- host
- HOURS
- households
- How
- How To
- However
- HTML
- HTTPS
- human
- human rights
- Humans
- hunger
- Hybrid
- hybrid event
- hybrid model
- Iceland
- idea
- Identification
- identified
- identify
- Illegal
- immediate
- immediately
- Impact
- Impacts
- implement
- implementation
- implemented
- implementing
- implications
- importance
- important
- improve
- improved
- improving
- in
- Incentives
- include
- included
- Including
- inclusion
- Incorporated
- incorporating
- Increase
- increased
- Increases
- increasing
- independent
- india
- Indicators
- Indonesia
- industries
- industry
- influence
- information
- informed
- initially
- Initiative
- innovative
- instead
- Institute
- Institutional
- integrated
- interesting
- internal
- International
- interrupted
- intersection
- introduced
- Introduction
- Invest
- island
- Islands
- isolated
- issue
- Issued
- issues
- IT
- itself
- jack
- January
- January 2021
- Japan
- Jobs
- join
- Journalists
- jurisdiction
- jurisdictions
- Justin
- Justin Trudeau
- Keep
- Key
- Kind
- Know
- Knowing
- knowledge
- known
- korea
- Labour
- Lack
- Land
- landmark
- lands
- language
- large
- largely
- Last
- Last Year
- Late
- Latin
- latin america
- launch
- launched
- lead
- leader
- leaders
- leading
- Leads
- leaving
- Led
- Legal
- Legislation
- Legislative
- letter
- Level
- levels
- Lifted
- like-minded
- LIMIT
- Limited
- Line
- List
- Lists
- little
- live
- living
- Lobby
- local
- Long
- Look
- looking
- LOOKS
- loss
- Lot
- Low
- made
- Main
- maintain
- major
- make
- Malaysia
- manage
- managed
- management
- mandate
- mandatory
- many
- March
- Mass
- max-width
- means
- measures
- measuring
- mechanism
- Media
- Meet
- meeting
- meetings
- member
- Members
- Men
- mentioned
- mentions
- message
- Mexico
- might
- million
- minimal
- minimise
- Mining
- Mining Companies
- ministers
- minor
- mirror
- Mission
- mitigating
- model
- monaco
- Monday
- Monitor
- monitoring
- Month
- more
- morning
- most
- mother
- move
- movement
- moving
- multilateral
- multiple
- nation
- National
- Nations
- Natural
- Nature
- Near
- nearly
- necessary
- Need
- needs
- negative
- negotiations
- net
- network
- New
- New Zealand
- Newsletters
- Newspapers
- next
- Ngo
- NGOs
- Nigeria
- North
- north america
- Norway
- notable
- noted
- Notion
- November
- number
- number 1
- objectives
- obligations
- ocean
- october
- offer
- offered
- offering
- Officer
- official
- ONE
- ongoing
- online
- opening
- operational
- Opportunity
- opposed
- Options
- order
- organisation
- Organisations
- originally
- Other
- Others
- otherwise
- outline
- outlined
- outside
- overall
- own
- owned
- ownership
- Pacific
- package
- pandemic
- panel
- Paper
- papers
- Paraguay
- Parallel
- paris
- Paris Agreement
- part
- participating
- participation
- particular
- particularly
- parties
- party
- passed
- past
- peer
- People
- perform
- perspective
- pessimistic
- Petroleum
- Pharmaceutical
- phase
- philanthropic
- Philippines
- pivotal
- Place
- Places
- plan
- planet
- planned
- planning
- plans
- platform
- plato
- Plato Data Intelligence
- PlatoData
- Play
- pleased
- plus
- Point
- points
- policies
- policy
- Policy Advisor
- political
- Politicians
- Pollution
- pool
- population
- populations
- position
- positions
- positive
- possibility
- possible
- potential
- power
- practice
- practices
- predecessor
- Predictable
- prefer
- premier
- prepared
- present
- president
- press
- pressure
- prevent
- preventing
- previous
- previously
- Prime
- prime minister
- Principal
- principle
- principles
- Prior
- priority
- private
- private sector
- Problem
- process
- processes
- processing
- produce
- Production
- Products
- programme
- Progress
- progressively
- Prohibition
- projects
- promised
- promises
- promote
- Promoted
- promotes
- promoting
- proposal
- proposed
- protect
- protected
- protecting
- protection
- protest
- Protests
- Prove
- provide
- public
- Publication
- publicly
- published
- purpose
- Push
- pushed
- Pushing
- put
- Qatar
- quantitative
- Quarter
- question
- Questions
- raised
- range
- rapid
- Rate
- Rates
- reach
- reached
- Read
- reaffirmed
- real
- Reality
- receive
- received
- recognising
- recognition
- recognize
- recording
- recovery
- redirect
- reduce
- Reduced
- reducing
- references
- referred
- reflected
- reform
- regarding
- region
- regional
- regions
- Regulate
- Regulation
- regulations
- regulatory
- related
- relatively
- release
- released
- relevance
- relevant
- reliable
- remained
- remaining
- remains
- Removed
- removing
- reopen
- repeated
- REPEATEDLY
- report
- Reported
- Reporting
- Reports
- represent
- representative
- Representatives
- represented
- Republic
- requests
- require
- required
- requirement
- requires
- resilience
- resolving
- resource
- Resources
- respected
- respecting
- responsibility
- responsible
- REST
- restoration
- restoring
- restrictions
- result
- retail
- return
- reverse
- review
- reviewing
- Reviews
- revisions
- Rich
- rights
- RISHI SUNAK
- Risk
- risks
- road
- Role
- roles
- Room
- Rooms
- roughly
- ROW
- rules
- running
- russian
- Said
- sailing
- same
- satisfied
- satisfied with
- SBI
- Scale
- scattered
- schedule
- scheduled
- Science
- scientists
- SEA
- Second
- Section
- sector
- sector-specific
- Sectors
- security
- Seeks
- seems
- segment
- selected
- sentiment
- September
- Sequence
- service
- Services
- serving
- set
- Sets
- setting
- seven
- several
- sharing
- should
- show
- showcase
- Shows
- sign
- signals
- significant
- signing
- Signs
- similar
- since
- single
- Sites
- Sitting
- situation
- small
- So
- so Far
- Social
- Society
- solution
- Solutions
- SOLVE
- some
- something
- Source
- Sources
- South
- South Africa
- South Korea
- Spatial
- speaking
- Speaks
- special
- specialist
- specific
- specifically
- speech
- SPELL
- spend
- spirit
- stable
- Stage
- stakeholders
- stand
- stands
- start
- started
- State
- Statement
- States
- Step
- Steps
- Stewardship
- Still
- store
- strategies
- Strategy
- strengthening
- strong
- stronger
- strongly
- submit
- subsidiary
- subsidy
- substantial
- succeed
- success
- such
- suffering
- sufficient
- Summit
- support
- Supported
- supporters
- Supporting
- supportive
- supposed
- Surface
- survive
- Sustainability
- sustainable
- switzerland
- Symposium
- system
- Systems
- table
- tactics
- Take
- Talk
- talking
- Talks
- Target
- targeted
- targets
- Taxes
- team
- Technical
- technological
- tells
- terms
- terrestrial
- The
- The Philippines
- The State
- the UK
- the world
- their
- things
- Third
- this year
- thought
- threats
- three
- Through
- throughout
- Tied
- time
- times
- Title
- to
- today
- Tony
- too
- tool
- topic
- Topics
- Total
- towards
- track
- traction
- traditional
- traditionally
- transition
- transitioning
- translate
- transnational
- transport
- trip
- Triple
- Trudeau
- Trust
- Turkey
- TURN
- Turned
- Uganda
- Uk
- UK government
- Ultimately
- umbrella
- UN
- under
- underlying
- understands
- union
- unique
- United
- united nations
- Update
- urgency
- urgent
- urges
- us
- use
- value
- Values
- version
- via
- Video
- vision
- Voice
- voluntarily
- vulnerability
- Vulnerable
- Wake
- walked
- wanted
- wanting
- Waste
- watching
- Water
- Wave
- ways
- week
- Weeks
- welcome
- welcomed
- welcoming
- West
- What
- whether
- which
- while
- WHO
- widely
- wider
- Wikipedia
- Wild
- will
- win
- Winter
- within
- without
- Women
- words
- Work
- worked
- working
- Working Group
- world
- World Cup
- World Food
- world’s
- worried
- worth
- would
- Wrong
- year
- years
- Your
- youth
- Zealand
- zephyrnet