Why in News

The 17th Conference of the Parties (COP-17) to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) concluded in Yerevan, Armenia. It adopted the Yerevan Pathway to accelerate action under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF). India stressed that developing countries need adequate, predictable finance and technology transfer from developed nations for effective KMGBF implementation.

Key Outcomes of CBD COP-17

1. Yerevan Pathway

  • The first global review of the KMGBF showed insufficient progress.
  • In response, nations adopted the Yerevan Pathway to accelerate implementation ahead of the 2030 deadline.
  • It calls on members to:
  • Align national budgets and economic decisions with biodiversity goals.
  • Reform harmful subsidies.
  • Strengthen monitoring mechanisms.

2. Sevan Guidelines for Indigenous Peoples

  • Nations adopted the Sevan Guidelines to set operational rules for a new permanent subsidiary body under Article 8(j) of the CBD.
  • These voluntary guidelines empower Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs).
  • They aim to structurally integrate IPLC rights, roles, and traditional ecological knowledge into global biodiversity policy and decision-making.

3. New Biodiversity Funding Pledges

  • Nearly USD 2 billion in new biodiversity funding was announced.
  • This includes:
  • USD 560 million under the Global Environment Facility's (GEF) latest replenishment. GEF was established at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit.
  • USD 500 million through the Species Recovery Alliance.
  • The Asian Development Bank launched a biodiversity bond and investment incubator to promote nature-related investment.

4. Diluted Stance on Harmful Subsidies

  • Reforming subsidies harmful to nature was highly contentious.
  • Strong language to 'urge' countries to scale up elimination of harmful subsidies was opposed by nations including Saudi Arabia, Russia, and India.
  • The final text was softened to merely 'encourage' countries to accelerate reform 'in accordance with national circumstances'.

5. Digital Sequence Information and the Cali Fund

  • Negotiations continued on benefit-sharing for genetic data through the Cali Fund, operationalized at COP-16 in 2024.
  • Technical disagreements prevented a definitive resolution.
  • A pilot phase was agreed, allowing the Steering Committee to issue certificates to companies making voluntary contributions.

6. Pending Decisions

  • COP-17 left unresolved several institutional and financing questions:
  • Governance aspects of the Article 8(j) body.
  • Future biodiversity-finance mechanism.
  • Full implementation arrangements of the Cali Fund.
  • These were deferred to COP18, scheduled in Quito, Ecuador, in 2028.

India's National Statement at CBD COP-17

Demand for Equity

  • India stressed that KMGBF implementation must align with sovereign national priorities.
  • It must be backed by predictable finance, capacity building, and technology transfer from developed to developing nations.

Support for the Cali Fund

  • India backed the multilateral benefit-sharing mechanism for Digital Sequence Information (DSI) on genetic resources.
  • It supported utilizing the newly operationalized Cali Fund.

Biosafety and Synthetic Biology

  • India advocated a strictly science-based, risk-proportionate, and precautionary approach towards synthetic biology.

Vast Conservation Network

India highlighted its expanding ecological footprint:

  • 1,134 Protected Areas
  • 103 Ramsar Sites
  • 57 Biodiversity Heritage Sites
  • 18 Biosphere Reserves, including 13 in the UNESCO MAB network

Decentralized Governance

  • India emphasized aligning domestic laws with the CBD through village-level Biodiversity Management Committees (BMCs).
  • This ensures grassroots Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS).

Flagship Ecological Schemes Showcased

  • MISHTI: For mangrove ecosystem restoration.
  • Amrit Dharohar: For sustainable wetland conservation.
  • International Big Cat Alliance (IBCA): Global cooperation to protect seven big cat species.
  • Mission LiFE and Ek Ped Maa Ke Naam: Citizen-led environmental stewardship.

Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF)

About

  • The KMGBF is an international agreement adopted in 2022 at CBD COP-15.
  • It is the global roadmap to halt and reverse nature loss.
  • It replaced the earlier Aichi Biodiversity Targets (2011-2020).

Vision and Mission

  • 2030 Mission: Take urgent action to halt and reverse biodiversity loss, aiming for a 'nature-positive' world by 2030.
  • 2050 Vision: A world where humanity is 'living in harmony with nature'.

Structure

  • The framework has 4 overarching Goals for 2050 and 23 action-oriented Targets for 2030.

Implementation and Funding

  • Not legally binding: Like the Paris Agreement, the KMGBF relies on voluntary national commitments, though it sets a strong political and moral baseline.
  • National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans (NBSAPs): Countries must update domestic NBSAPs to align with the 23 global targets.
  • Global Biodiversity Framework Fund (GBFF): A dedicated fund hosted by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) to finance KMGBF implementation, with focus on developing nations, Small Island Developing States (SIDS), and Indigenous communities.

India's National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP)

About

  • India's NBSAP was first launched in 1999 and updated in 2008, 2014, and 2024.
  • The updated NBSAP 2024-2030 adopts a Whole-of-Government and Whole-of-Society approach, aligned with the KMGBF.
  • India harbours nearly 8% of the world's known plant and animal species, including 9.24% of global plant species.

Key Priorities

  • 30% Restoration Target: Effective restoration of at least 30% of degraded terrestrial, inland water, and marine and coastal ecosystems.
  • Threat Reduction: 8 of the 23 targets focus on mitigating direct threats such as land and sea use change, pollution, climate change, and species overexploitation.
  • Socio-Ecological Challenges: The NBSAP addresses food insecurity, water scarcity, unsustainable livelihoods, human-wildlife conflicts, and disaster risks.
  • Financial Mobilization: The projected annual average biodiversity expenditure for 2024-25 to 2029-30 is estimated at Rs 81,664 crore, highlighting the need for comprehensive financial assessments and global support.

Significance for India and Governance

  • Finance and technology transfer remain central to India's negotiating position, reflecting the principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR) in environmental governance.
  • The Cali Fund and DSI debate are important for India as a biodiversity-rich country with genetic resources and traditional knowledge.
  • BMC-led ABS is a grassroots model linking biodiversity conservation with livelihood and benefit-sharing.
  • The diluted subsidy language shows the tension between conservation ambition and national policy space.
  • India's updated NBSAP provides a domestic roadmap for ecosystem restoration, threat reduction, and biodiversity finance.

Related Legal and Institutional Framework

  • Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), 1992: India is a party; the CBD recognizes sovereign rights over biological resources.
  • Article 8(j) of CBD: Deals with traditional knowledge, innovations, and practices of indigenous and local communities.
  • Nagoya Protocol: Provides the international framework for Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS).
  • Biological Diversity Act, 2002: Establishes a three-tier structure of National Biodiversity Authority (NBA), State Biodiversity Boards (SBBs), and Biodiversity Management Committees (BMCs).
  • Global Environment Facility (GEF): Serves as a financial mechanism for CBD and other environmental conventions.

Conclusion

Achieving the KMGBF targets requires predictable finance, technology transfer, and equitable cooperation. India must strengthen community-led conservation through BMCs and NBSAP implementation to secure a nature-positive future by 2030 and harmony with nature by 2050.

Mains Question: Examine the major outcomes of CBD COP-17 held in Yerevan, Armenia. To what extent can the Yerevan Pathway accelerate the achievement of global biodiversity targets by 2030?