1 Introduction

There is a need for science-based, pro-active, co-ordinated and inclusive policies and governance instruments to design, implement and effectively monitor transformative strategies that seek to safeguard biodiversity and protect ecosystems (IPBES 2019a; Ortiz et al. 2021). Such instruments can strengthen strategies and approaches required for maintaining the resilience of the biosphere by giving due cognizance to the intertwined dynamics often arising at the interface of human activity and nature conservation (Bennett et al. 2015; Folke et al. 2021).

The Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (CBD 2021a) is the latest global scale, multi-lateral policy initiative that seeks to catalyse the development of policies and strategies to conserve biodiversity and manage ecosystems in a sustainable manner (CBD 2021a). The Post-2020 GBF was developed following a comprehensive and participatory process between signatory countries to the CBD and other stakeholders (other governments, Indigenous people, local communities, women and youth groups, subnational governments and scientific community to name a few) under the responsibility of the Open-ended Working Group established by the Conference of Parties (COP) to the CBD (CBD 2018) and supported by the Bureau of the COP. The draft Post-2020 GBF was preceded by a zero draft (CBD 2020a) that was also updated as a follow-up to the second meeting of the Working Group (CBD 2020b).

The Post-2020 GBF (CBD 2021a), essentially extends the biodiversity conservation and management strategies stated in the Aichi Biodiversity Targets (ABT)Footnote 1 2011–2020 (https://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/), and was officially discussed during the first phase of the CBD-COP15 in Kunming, China in October 2021 (https://www.cbd.int/conferences/post2020). This is due to be followed by a second meeting in April–May 2022 leading to the finalization and adoption of the framework. Essentially, the Post-2020 GBF follows the partial achievement of only six ABTs by the end of the 2011–2020 decade, as none of the targets was fully achieved globally (CBD 2020c; Diaz et al. 2020). Learning from this experience, the Post-2020 GBF (CBD 2021a) proposes to shift the focus towards clearly defined roles for stakeholders involved in integrated, inclusive and result-oriented conservation strategies to address anthropogenic drivers resulting in the loss of species and ecosystem functions. This Policy Analysis elucidates the architecture of the Post-2020 GBF, including some preliminary highlights from the CBD-COP15 virtual meeting in October, 2021 (CBD 2021a). Furthermore, this Policy Analysis identifies gaps in the framework’s broad scope and reach, and suggests actionable solutions to strengthen it, thus improving global biodiversity governance.

2 Main Features of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework

Structured around the overarching vision of ‘Living in Harmony with Nature by 2050’ and develo** an ‘Ecological Civilization’, the Post-2020 GBF comprises four long-term goals. These goals broadly seek to facilitate the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystem services to ensure planetary sustainability and human health and well-being (CBD 2021a). Goal A addresses the need to maintain ecosystem integrity, reduce species extinction rates and safeguard genetic diversity. Goal B proposes the valuation, preservation and sustainable use of nature’s contribution to people. Goal C strives for the equitable utilization of benefits (monetary and non-monetary) arising from biodiversity resources. Goal D aims at reducing financial and other implementation gaps (scientific, technological, capacity-building) that hinder biodiversity conservation, restoration and recovery actions. Figure 1 further expands upon the ‘Theory of Change’ Framework proposed in the Post-2020 GBF by highlighting that ‘human welfare’ is essentially interwoven with ‘nature conservation’ and not external to it.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Mainstreaming biodiversity conservation in by shifting governance efforts from ‘Nature for People’ to ‘Nature and People’. Policies focusing on this transformative narrative could ensure balance, interdependence and self-regulation within the biosphere by highlighting that human welfare and health are implicitly and directly linked to ecosystem conservation and restoration actions, and the sustainable use of biodiversity. Thus, recovery and gains in biodiversity will positively benefit economic development and vice versa (Dasgupta 2021; IPBES 2019b.

Full size image

To achieve these four long-term goals, the first draft of the GBF proposes the adoption of biodiversity and ecosystem recovery pathways by 2030 through ‘21 action-oriented targets’. Table 1 categorises these targets based on the State-Pressure-Response model (SPRM), with ‘Response Targets’ further sub-categorised as Inputs, Processes, Outputs, Outcomes and Impacts (OECD 2018).

Table 1 Characteristics of the 21 action targets proposed in the first draft of the Post-2020 GBF
Full size table

As Table 1 suggests, the majority of the proposed targets are “action-oriented” (i.e. Response target type), focusing on (and expecting to) generate positive and sustainable impacts by 2030 in sectors depending on and/or affecting biodiversity. Although the target definitions employ unambiguous language and easy-to-comprehend terminology following the recommendations of Butchart et al. (2016), the development of specific, measurable and time-bound indicators (CBD 2010) that are essential for the achievement and effective monitoring of progress still remain a major short-coming associated with target-based governance (Maxwell et al. 2015).

The CBD 2020b already establishes that countries need to develop national targets and indicators based on the Targets outlined in the Post-2020 framework with progress towards them being periodically reviewed. This reflects to some extent the process adopted by the Inter-Agency and Expert Group on Sustainable Development Goal Indicators wherein the Global Indicator Framework developed for monitoring the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) was further agreed to be complemented by regional and national indicators developed by signatory countries (United Nations 2017). The resolution also mandated periodic refinement and review of the indicators to address concerns related to coverage, target alignment and development of metadata (United Nations 2017).

3 Recommendations for Improving the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework

The first phase of the CBD-COP15 resulted in ‘The Kunming Declaration’ that was adopted by around 100 nations, with the discussions focusing on how to “reverse the current loss of biodiversity and ensure that biodiversity is put on a path to recovery by 2030 at the latest, towards the full realization of the 2050 Vision of “Living in Harmony with Nature” (CBD 2021b). The Declaration calls upon the parties to “mainstream” the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in decision-making by recognizing its integral contribution for human wellbeing and health. It stresses the need for urgent and integrated action for transformative changes, across sectors, through policy coherence at all levels and the realization of synergies across relevant multi-lateral conventions and international organizations (CBD 2021c). However, despite the framework’s wide focus on synergizing biodiversity protection with human development, we argue that some aspects of the Post-2020 GBF can be improved.

First, following mounting evidence regarding the strong links between climate change and biodiversity (Trisos et al. 2020; IPBES 2019a),Footnote 2 it is arguably important to better acknowledge and strengthen the inter-related aspects present between climate change adaptation and mitigation, biodiversity conservation and sustainability. One approach could be by further improving Target 8 (Table 1) through global efforts directed towards development of indicators and monitoring strategies that link climate-biodiversity observations (O’Connor et al. 2020). Beyond providing an impetus towards bridging existing research gaps at the interface of climate change, biodiversity loss, and ecosystem degradation (Pörtner et al. 2021), it can lead to more effective development of biodiversity conservation and climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies (Arneth et al. 2020). In this sense, indicators that identify and link species or ecosystem vulnerability to climate change offer worthwhile additions to the Post-2020 GBF, allowing for a better understanding and progress at the aforementioned interface (Pacifici et al. 2015).

Second, it would be worthwhile to improve the overall inclusivity of the Post-2020 GBF through the incorporation of various concepts and terminologies that have gained traction in broader sustainable development discourses and are linked to biodiversity conservation and its sustainable use. Prominent examples that have been refined over years in several academic publications and grey literature include concepts, such as Nature-based Solutions (Cohen-Shacham et al. 2019; Dhyani et al. 2020; IUCN, 2020; Seddon et al. 2020), bio-economy (Luhas et al. 2021; Stark et al. 2022) circular economy (Breure et al. 2018; Priyadarshini and Abhilash 2020), circular bio-economy (Tan and Lamers 2021), planetary health diet (EAT 2019) and inclusive wealth (Dasgupta 2021; Managi and Kumar 2018). Although, there is a mention of ‘trends in circular economy monitoring and practices’ as a monitoring component within Target 14 (CBD 2020d; UNEP-WCMC 2020), up to the writing of this article no mention of the concept is found within CBD (2021d), the document proposing headline indicators for the Post-2020 GBF. Considering the traction and acceptability of such concepts in various diverse practitioner and policy-making communities globally (let alone academic fields), their integration within the framework could both forge broader support for the overall framework and enhance indicator-setting exercises. For example, better accounting of natural assets within economic value chains using inclusive wealth as a measure of quantification in place of GDP (Gross Development Product) (Dasgupta 2021; Priyadarshini et al. 2021) can lead to better accounting of natural capital at the national stratum and in turn benefit biodiversity conservation. Similarly, since unregulated resource extraction is closely linked to habitat destruction and biodiversity loss, development of resource efficiency or circular economy indicators (D’Amato and Korhonen 2021) could positively influence Target 15 of the Post-2020 framework (CBD 2020d; UNEP-WCMC 2020).

Third, while it is positive that Targets 15 and 18 highlight the dependence of economic activity on biodiversity and the negative biodiversity outcomes of current production practices and economic incentives respectively (CBD 2021a), it could be worthwhile to also promote actions/strategies that lead to “positive biodiversity outcomes” or “net biodiversity gains” (Arlidge et al. 2018; Leclère et al. 2020). In this sense, it would be worthwhile to include within the framework biodiversity renewal measures, such as rewilding, urban greening, assisted ecosystem recovery/re-establishment, and ecosystem creation (Milner-Gulland et al. 2021), offering them equal credence alongside habitat restoration, as a means of further preventing ecosystem degradation across the world (Sato and Lindenmeyer 2017). Even though the monitoring of biodiversity offset programs at the country scale has been proposed as an indicator for the Post-2020 GBF (UNEP-WCMC 2020), the development of proactive strategies not limited to the mitigation of project-specific loss/risks to ecosystem can further support the mainstreaming of biodiversity across varied sectors (Milner-Gulland et al. 2021). Therefore, ‘renewal’ could be made more visible, for example, through explicit mentions, within Targets 1–4 of the framework which focus on restoration, recovery and other area-based conservation methods. Additionally, avoiding or mitigating the negative biodiversity trade-offs of green technologies and infrastructure (e.g. renewable energy) (Gasparatos et al. 2021) could also be mentioned within the framework considering their rapid proliferation to meet climate change mitigation objectives. This would further strengthen the aforementioned links between climate change mitigation and biodiversity conservation.

An essential requirement of the framework is the alignment of administrative functions and regulatory measures, through bottom-up approaches (provincial–national–regional–global). Such alignment could foster data generation related to local floral and faunal diversity which could in turn ensure that local-scale adaptation and conservation efforts potentially contribute towards global biodiversity management targets (IUCN 2021). This would simultaneously require knowledge generation using inputs from diverse disciplines and systems (e.g. natural sciences, social sciences, citizen science) (Hagerman et al. 2021) as well as quantitative assessment of biodiversity and ecosystem services at the local scale (state, district or city level) to strengthen efforts at national stratum (Di Marco et al. 2016; Shepherd et al. 2016). Fostering involvement of indigenous communities and their associated traditional and local knowledge (which has been duly acknowledged throughout the framework) can play a pivotal role in this regard by aiding cataloguing of species diversity and services at the ecosystem level (Nitah 2021; Priyadarshini and Abhilash 2019; Dasgupta et al. 2021).

Improvement, simplification and harmonization of country-scale monitoring efforts could also improve assessment of regional-scale progress against the targets. This would have positive ripple effects for measuring progress across all targets. Therefore, it would be valuable to leverage high quality and consistent datasets across the world, or agree on certain key underlying measures. For example, the Group on Earth Observations Biodiversity Observation Network (GEO BON) has proposed a framework of essential biodiversity variables (EBVs) which is emerging for monitoring compositional, structural and functional components of biodiversity. These EBVs form a core set of measurements for capturing biodiversity change and are produced by integrating in-situ monitoring with remote sensing at relevant spectral, spatial and temporal scales (Skidmore et al. 2021). Similarly, the integration of inter-annual and spatial variability indices developed from remotely sensed data can be used for identification of biodiversity hotspot regions requiring conservation (Silveira et al. 2021). Development of such datasets could positively benefit Targets 1–3 of the framework which focus on identification, management and conservation of biodiversity rich landscapes and seascapes (CBD 2021a).

Investments for nature (Seidl et al. 2020) have been given due recognition within many targets of the framework due to their perceived significant role in realising the 2050 Vision for biodiversity, offering several opportunities. For example, in addition to the already proposed headline indicator for Target 19 (i.e. official development assistance for biodiversity) (CBD 2021d) defining indicators related to ecological fiscal transfers (Busch et al. 2021) and payment for ecosystem services and forest concessions (Young and Castro 2021) could help mobilise private finances. This could further strengthen the implementation of the framework by not only generating funds but also increasing the interest of potential stakeholders from the private sector.

Finally, the recent COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the strong links between zoonotic diseases, landscape change, ecosystem degradation and human wellbeing (Morand and Lajaunie 2021; WWF 2020). Therefore, understanding the functional links and pathways connecting biodiversity with human health (Marselle et al. 2021; Hammen and Settele 2019) and the development of related targets and indicators that address them need to be given equal credence alongside targets addressing drivers, pressures and strategies for ecosystem degradation and restoration (McElwee et al. 2020; OECD 2019). This facet was given due consideration in the recently concluded CBD-COP15 virtual discussions and ‘The Kunming Declaration’ and is expected to be more strongly integrated in the Post-2020 framework agreement to be developed by May 2022.

4 Conclusion

The Post-2020 GBF offers the international community of policymakers and other diverse stakeholders an opportunity to mainstream biodiversity within global discourses and decision-making. The framework is strategically important as it will enter implementation with less than a decade remaining under the timeframe of the SDGs (2030) and with the global risks posed by climate change being strongly acknowledged in UNFCCC-COP26. Although it is a big leap forward in terms of global coordinated action for biodiversity conservation and sustainable utilisation, the Post-2020 GBF still requires improvements to the scope, specificity and monitoring process of indicators, as well as the spatial and temporal coverage of several targets. Additionally, further strengthening the interface between climate change mitigation/adaptation and biodiversity, ensuring greater inclusivity by incorporating concepts and terminologies that have gained traction in broader sustainable development discourses (e.g. bio-economy, circular economy), as well as increasing the visibility of biodiversity renewal measures through explicit mentions in relevant targets, is required.