The Global Biodiversity Framework's ecosystem restoration target requires more clarity and careful legal interpretation

Justine Bell-James,Rose Foster,Nicole Shumway,Catherine E. Lovelock,Jaramar Villarreal-Rosas,Christopher J. Brown,Dominic A. Andradi-Brown,Megan I. Saunders,Nathan J. Waltham,James A. Fitzsimons
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-024-02389-6
IF: 19.1
2024-03-23
Nature Ecology & Evolution
Abstract:With the passage of the one-year anniversary of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), substantial effort is still needed to progress Target 2 — the 'restoration target'. The restoration target guides parties to "ensure that by 2030 at least 30 per cent of areas of degraded terrestrial, inland water, and marine and coastal ecosystems are under effective restoration, in order to enhance biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services, ecological integrity and connectivity" 1 . This target is a critical step towards upscaling global restoration, but almost every word of it provides scope for legal and ecological interpretation. This could result in markedly different on-the-ground outcomes for conservation once applied at a national level. Although nebulous targets are a common by-product of the international negotiation process 2 , definitional uncertainty in the meaning of key terms can lead to markedly different models of implementation across different countries and make success difficult to assess and measure 2,3 . More fundamentally, it is crucial that the key elements of Target 2 are interpreted in the spirit of the GBF — that is, to achieve rapid, ambitious and large-scale restoration of global ecosystems, which is a critical goal given the ongoing deterioration of ecosystems globally.
ecology,evolutionary biology
What problem does this paper attempt to address?