2020 is a critical year for nature. From forests to oceans, fields to skies, science has shown that the interconnected ecosystems which sustain life on earth are on the brink of collapse. However, amid deepening environmental and biodiversity crises, governments around the world have the opportunity to act.

Since the 1990s, the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) has brought together governments to establish global strategies for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. The CBD’s 2011-2020 framework for action set out 20 “Aichi targets” — which, unfortunately, have not been achieved.

In 2020, the CBD will establish a new global action plan, known as the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. The countries will meet in October for the 15th Conference of the Parties (CBD COP15). This “Paris-style summit for biodiversity” represents a landmark moment to make the transformative changes urgently needed to stay within planetary boundaries.

In the lead up to CBD COP15, negotiations to develop the Post-2020 Framework are undertaken by a dedicated open-ended working group, who will meet several times throughout the year. Friends of the Earth International is monitoring and contributing to these negotiations. We observed that their first draft, although showing a promising start, lacked ambition and details.

So, what would a Post-2020 Framework that can achieve genuine change and protection of nature look like? Alongside allied organisations in the CBD Alliance, we have drawn up a list of ‘Dos and Don’ts’ for a successful framework.

What DO we want in the framework? Our demands include:

  • A rights-based approach, full and equal participation for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities, global equity and financing.
  • Mainstreaming of biodiversity across the “whole government” at national level.
  • Accountability, compliance and enforcement measures
  • Promotion of agroecology and community-based solutions, integrated into proper conservation plans.

What DON’T we want in the framework?

  • Voluntary commitments or room for regression from the Aichi targets.
  • Conflict of interest with corporations, and promotion of “false solutions”, such as offsetting, voluntary certification and corporate social responsibility schemes.
  • Finance for environmentally destructive projects
  • Purely technological solutions