Final published version
Licence: CC BY: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Avoid Cherry‐Picking Targets and Embrace Holistic Conservation to Pursue the Global Biodiversity Framework
AU - Reed, James
AU - Barlow, Jos
AU - Carmenta, Rachel
AU - Fakheran, Sima
AU - Ickowitz, Amy
AU - Sunderland, Terry
PY - 2025/6/2
Y1 - 2025/6/2
N2 - The Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) marked a renewed commitment to addressing the global biodiversity crisis. This framework of four goals and 23 interim targets is intended to guide and accelerate conservation efforts over the next 25 years and is more ambitious than its predecessor, the Aichi 2020 targets. However, the pursuit of multilateral agreements is dependent upon national pledges, and the limited success of the Aichi targets shows that national pledges are of little worth without aligned (sub)national action. We assessed the submitted National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans of several member countries to determine their alignment with the bold ambition of the GBF. We find a lack of alignment between the GBF and country submissions across many targets, with the notable exception of Target 3—commonly interpreted as increasing protected area coverage to 30% by 2030. Reflecting on the submissions, recent developments, and our collective experience, we outline key considerations that could help guide future submissions and implementation strategies. We caution against cherry‐picking specific targets, highlighting that an overemphasis on Target 3 will fail to achieve the overarching vision of living in harmony with nature. This requires a more holistic and inclusive approach to conservation and a focus on the full suite of GBF targets.
AB - The Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) marked a renewed commitment to addressing the global biodiversity crisis. This framework of four goals and 23 interim targets is intended to guide and accelerate conservation efforts over the next 25 years and is more ambitious than its predecessor, the Aichi 2020 targets. However, the pursuit of multilateral agreements is dependent upon national pledges, and the limited success of the Aichi targets shows that national pledges are of little worth without aligned (sub)national action. We assessed the submitted National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans of several member countries to determine their alignment with the bold ambition of the GBF. We find a lack of alignment between the GBF and country submissions across many targets, with the notable exception of Target 3—commonly interpreted as increasing protected area coverage to 30% by 2030. Reflecting on the submissions, recent developments, and our collective experience, we outline key considerations that could help guide future submissions and implementation strategies. We caution against cherry‐picking specific targets, highlighting that an overemphasis on Target 3 will fail to achieve the overarching vision of living in harmony with nature. This requires a more holistic and inclusive approach to conservation and a focus on the full suite of GBF targets.
KW - conservation
KW - global biodiversity framework
KW - biodiversity
KW - convention on biological diversity
KW - environmental governance
U2 - 10.1111/conl.13104
DO - 10.1111/conl.13104
M3 - Journal article
VL - 18
JO - Conservation Letters
JF - Conservation Letters
SN - 1755-263X
IS - 3
M1 - e13104
ER -