Context of the UNFCCC-CBD nexus

The adoption of GBF at 15^th CBD Conference of Parties (COP) reinforced this call for alignment—committing to reverse biodiversity loss by 2030 with a specific goal (Target 8) that connects climate action with biodiversity conservation [2]. Further, at the UNFCCC 28^th COP, biodiversity was recognized in the first Global Stocktake, underscoring the GBF [3].

Although the GBF’s predecessor, the 2011–2020 Strategic Plan for Biodiversity and its Aichi Targets, linked ecosystem health to climate action with an aim to restore 15% of degraded ecosystems (Aichi Target 15), it has been criticized for falling short [4]. In 2020, the UNFCCC COP26 Glasgow Pact highlighted the crucial role of maintaining ecosystem integrity in meeting the climate objectives, and the final decisions at COP27 and COP28 underscored the urgent need to comprehensively and synergistically tackle the intertwined global crises of climate change and biodiversity loss [5].

As international negotiations on biodiversity and climate continue to overlap and intertwine themes [6], it becomes even more vital to find ways at the UNFCCC-CBD nexus to create legal innovation for climate and biodiversity action—specifically unpacking how commitments for compliance to the Paris Agreement bring coherence to commitments under the CBD [7]. For instance, there are provisions that are common to both including commitments on finance, technology, capacity-building, and public education.

UNFCCC-CBD nexus in NDCs

Integral to the Paris Agreement is a requirement for each Party to submit their NDCs (Article 4, par. 2), which must not only be “ambitious” (Article 4, par. 3) but must be updated in 2020 and every five years thereafter (“5-year NDC cycle”) (Article 4, par. 9) and inclusive of information necessary for clarity, transparency and understanding (or “ICTU”) of their NDCs (Article 4. Par. 8) outlined in Annex I of Decision 4/CMA.1 [8].

Let us look at NDC reports that were included in the 2023 NDC Synthesis Report [9] from twelve countries that either incorporated Annex 1 of Decision 4/CMA.1 in their reports or used this annex as a template in their reports (Australia, Dominica, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Namibia, Singapore, Thailand, Türkiye, Tuvalu, UAE, Vanuatu, and Viet Nam). These countries were selected from the original 28 countries listed in the UNFCCC Registry reports.

At face value, these Parties recognized the nexus between their NDCs and biodiversity in at least three ways:

1. Some (65%) provided information on measures for raising public awareness, e.g., developing communication strategies and disseminating knowledge for specific sectors such as biodiversity.
2. Almost all of them (91%) described in their adaptation components how climate change impacts affect vulnerable sectors such as terrestrial biodiversity,
3. Slightly more than a quarter of the Parties (27% in the new or updated NDCs) identified synergies between adaptation and mitigation, particularly in the terrestrial and marine ecosystems and biodiversity, agriculture, energy, water resources and human health sectors.

International progress and the complete range of NDCs submitted by Paris Agreement Parties to the UNFCCC Secretariat provide a comprehensive and systematic overview of climate action across various legal jurisdictions [10].

A critical analysis of the NDC reports by some of those Parties shows at least four strategies, which highlight the need to “legalize” (so to speak) climate actions, not only to reverse biodiversity loss but also to ensure biodiversity conservation. These include:

1. Adopting a “Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan” (Vanuatu),
2. Establishing a Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water for a more holistic approach to the climate and biodiversity crisis (Australia),
3. Implementing maritime and coastal sector development that will increase carbon sink potential of ocean biodiversity (Kiribati), and
4. Formulating a “co-benefit catalogue” of actions that provide both mitigation and adaptation for different sectors, i.e. energy, transport, water resources, agriculture, biodiversity, waste and health (Turkiye), such as improving soil carbon in land restored areas through removal of encroaching bush for biodiversity conservation and food security (Namibia) and providing technical support to promote community participation in the preservation and conservation of natural resources, ecosystems and biodiversity (Thailand). As a further example, Vanuatu commits to conserve at least 17% of important biodiversity areas, at least 30% of natural forest, at least 10% of wetlands areas, and 10% of marine areas through effective community and government management measures by 2030.

In their most recently updated NDCs, only three Parties highlighted the application of the CBD in implementing their commitments either as part of the “other contextual aspirations and priorities acknowledged when joining the Paris Agreement (UAE and Singapore) or a component on adaption to climate (Kazakhstan). (To understand further, see Para. 4 (a) (ii) c on planning processes of Annex 1 of Decision 4/CMA.1 and Para. 8 ‘for adaptation to climate’.)

On the other hand, a quick review of the national reports of CBD Parties shows that 47 out of 100 reporting countries incorporated Target 8 in their National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) [11], 64% of which reflect their CBD commitments in their NDC submissions include. However, only the United Kingdom highlighted its commitment to “fulfill its responsibilities under the CBD” through a domestic biodiversity policy, the 25 Year Environment Plan, which aims to support nature recovery and restore historical losses. The 25 Year Environment Plan includes legislation (notably, the Environment Act of 2021) which provides for a legally binding and world-leading target to be set to halt the decline in species abundance by 2030 whilst setting at least one long-term legally binding target for biodiversity [12].