What do you think needs to be done so that the LTAM works as an effective tool to implement the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework? What, if any, are key elements still missing?

For fostering effective implementation, the European Union would like to propose the following:

The LTAM should focus not only on cross-sectoral, horizontal matters, but also explicitly address the most relevant sectors as identified in the IPBES Global Biodiversity Assessment 2019 and previous COP-decisions, and as they were meant to be included in the glossary for the GBF.

The LTAM should support and encourage implementation not only through CBD processes and ministries of Environment, but also through other relevant processes and forums, including by involving ministries other than those for environment, as well as sectoral organisations and business federations. Duplications should be avoided. Cross-linking relevant communities of practitioners should be encouraged. To this purpose, it would be useful to have an up-to-date online calendar with relevant events at global and regional scale, as well as moderating and feeding a ‘community of practitioners’. The LTAM, or the CBD COP Decision on the LTAM, could request CBD Secretariat to undertake such activities.

Since the LTAM helps implementing the GBF, implementation of the LTAM should be fully covered by / linked to the CBD processes for planning, monitoring, reporting and review, including the further development of the monitoring framework, revision of NBSAPs, submissions of national targets, national reports and the global assessment of implementation.

Spain sees the LTAM as a supporting tool for Parties and other stakeholders to implement all of the goals and targets of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (especially the targets serving as supporting tools for implementation such as targets 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, the targets on reducing threats to biodiversity such as targets 1, 5 and 7 and on sustainable use such as targets 9, 10, 11 and 12).
We stress that the mid-term review of the implementation and monitoring of the LTAM, its action areas and headline actions, as well as its Voluntary Action Plan should be consistent and integrated within the foreseen planning for reporting, monitoring and review of the KMGBF in line with CBD COP Decision 15/6, including the revision of NBSAPs and the submission of national targets.
We would propose to add a section in the LTAM which addresses the most relevant sectors for mainstreaming of biodiversity in line with the IPBES Global Biodiversity Assessment 2019 and previous COP decisions, in order to establish a clear link with the relevant targets, including target 14, and clearly point out the sectors agreed to be part of the Glossary at COP15.
We would ask the Secretariat to do the exercise of analyzing the convergence and differences between the LTAM and the KMGBF, including the alignment with a global resource mobilization strategy that also takes into account the necessary alignment of financial flows.

The LTAM should support and encourage implementation also through processes and forums beyond the CBD, including by involving ministries other than those for environment, as well as sectoral organisations and business federations, in line with the whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach enshrined in the GBF.
Since the LTAM supports the implementation of the GBF, the LTAM should be fully integrated into (and not parallel to) the CBD processes for planning, monitoring, reporting and review, including the further development of the monitoring framework, revision of NBSAPs, submissions of national targets, national reports and the global assessment of implementation.
In order to avoid duplications it is important to stress the mutual supportiveness with other frameworks. Therefore, in terms of mainstreaming biodiversity the LTAM should follow up on synergies for instance with FAOs Action Plan for the implementation of the Strategy on Mainstreaming Biodiversity across Agricultural Sectors (https://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/cb5515en), the Framework for Action on Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture (https://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/cb8338en) and the recently launched Biodiversity Knowledge Hub (https://www.fao.org/biodiversity/knowledge-hub/en). The Hub will provide tools and resources to member states to strengthen their capacity to mainstream biodiversity and assist national stakeholders to implement and monitor the KM-GBF.

First, as mentioned in the previous questions, the tools and guidance resources from notification 2023-120 should be integrated, or at the least referred to in the Action Plan as the work is complementary to the content of the LTAM and Action Plan.  Secondly, we suggest that the LTAM identify targets that are supported by the actions suggested.  These measures would help to bolster the actions proposed and encourage Parties to implement the actions, as they will be able to see how these activities could be an efficient way to address multiple targets simultaneously.  Finally, certain deadlines that are in the Action Plan (e.g. milestone for 1.2.4) will need to be adjusted and/or updated to reflect the decisions from COP15 and KM-GBF.

The LTAM needs to be redrafted and Parties and Observers from civil society, IPLCs, women, small farmers must play a far more active role in its redevelopment.

Key elements still missing from the LTAM
In order to stop the accelerating destruction of biodiversity, what is required is strong regulation at all levels, national, regional and global, and perhaps the most extraordinary thing about the draft LTAM and Action Plan (and also the current GBF draft, especially targets 14-16) is that nowhere is regulation mentioned directly. Yet strong government regulation at national, regional and international level is the only way we can make the mainstreaming of biodiversity meaningful and Parties urgently need to collaborate to develop such regulation.

We also need to decide who will independently examine and verify claims made by business that they are protecting biodiversity and how this will be done.

Another problem with the draft LTAM and Action Plan (also true again of targets 14-16 of the GBF) is that they treat government, business and society separately, without addressing the relationships and power imbalances between them. We urgently need to regulate business and finance effectively in order to reduce their damaging impacts on biodiversity, climate and people – and also on the authority and powers of governments.

Furthermore, the LTAM currently does not properly address the underlying drivers of biodiversity destruction (named by IPBES as: production and consumption patterns, human population dynamics and trends, trade, technological innovations and local through global governance). These drivers are basic to our current economic system that requires endless growth in production, exploitation and consumption.

The aim of the LTAM should be to change the current discourse so that the vital importance of biodiversity,  the interrelationships between biodiversity loss and climate change, and the vital role of biodiversity in providing some protection against the worst impacts of climate change, are central to it.

The LTAM should also indicate clearly that major changes are needed to our current economic system based on growth if the planet is to be habitable for future generations.

Internationally, we hear climate change cited constantly but biodiversity far less so. The discourse about both and their interconnectedness needs to be central and effective within the policies of governments and the global debate. This also demands explanation to all levels of society to show how fundamental biodiversity and healthy and resilient ecosystems are to all aspects of our lives and those of future generations.

The CBD must lead the way to make this happen. This is what biodiversity mainstreaming should mean.

Belgium agrees with comments from the EU, Spain and Germany regarding the need to ensure that the LTAM explicitly addresses the most relevant sectors for implementation of the GBF and does so in a way that ‘speaks’ to those sectors, making it relevant to them and helping Parties and other stakeholders to better understand sectoral implementation of all the goals and targets of the GBF.  

Belgium supports the points raised by Spain regarding the need to coordinate the mid-term review of implementation of the LTAM and its Action Plan with the reporting, monitoring and review process for the GBF to avoid creating additional and potentially duplicative burdens.

We also agree with Spain that it would be helpful to ensure alignment of the LTAM with the resource mobilization strategy to ensure that the necessary alignment of financial flows is also taken into account.

To ensure the effectiveness of LTAM, we think the following three steps should be considered:

1. Integrating LTAM and its Action Plan into the CBD Guidance on GBF Targets and in the CBD Guidance on NBSAPs.
2. Integrating LTAM and its Action Plan into (and not parallel to) the CBD processes for planning, monitoring, reporting and review, including the further development of the monitoring framework, revision of NBSAPs, submissions of national targets, national reports and the global assessment of implementation.
3. Updating LTAM and its Action Plan, to ensure full alignment with the agreed GBF. (Recognizing that this step might need updates on step 2 and 3. However, in order not to lose time, we suggest to start with steps 1 and 2 immediately)

FOEI warns that the current LTAM relies too much upon voluntary measures by corporations. State regulation of business impact on biodiversity is largely missing.
Yet, coordinated regulation between states globally makes it possible to limit the impacts on corporations. As long as states play the card of “attracting investment” through a low degree of regulation, this affects not only the environment in that country but also pushes other countries into the same negative spiral.

Breaking through this spiral can only happen when regulation is coordinated globally. The CBD has a vital role to play in organising this. It should also alert where institutions – such as the World Bank, IMF or other development banks- push global policies in the wrong direction.
The LTAM should include pathways that institutionalise this role of global coordination of biodiversity-related regulation.

The LTAM should also institutionalise the revision of the measures it is promoting. There are severe concerns that several of the measures currently included in the LTAM will negatively impact biodiversity and IPLCs who guard biodiversity.

- Regular revision if the measures implemented improve biodiversity and the rights of IPLCs, who are the best guardians of biodiversity.
- continuous follow-up on the implementation in the countries, with specific emphasis on the policy elements implemented by governments
- follow-up on the effectiveness of measures implemented in previous mainstreaming decisions, particularly for the sectors identified by IPBES as having a high impact on biodiversity. In those sectors where the impact has increased over the last five years:
o evaluate if the approved measures were implemented,
o evaluate if the implementation did have the intended effects
o evaluate whether implementation needs to go up or measures need to be changed.

The Netherlands aligns with the submissions of the EU Commission, Spain, Germany and Belgium.
A strong link between the LTAM and the goals and targets of the KMGBF is key to provide tools for implementation. Therefore, the LTAM should be updated in this regard, taking into account the mainstreaming targets and the mainstreaming elements in other targets. The sectors with the highest impact on biodiversity, as identified in the IPBES Global Biodiversity Assessment 2019 and previous COP-decisions, that were agreed to be included in the glossary for the GBF should be addressed.
Furthermore, the Netherlands agrees with Germany that the LTAM should facilitate the whole of government and whole of society approach, involving relevant actors and stakeholders to increase the uptake and use of the LTAM once agreed.
Monitoring should be aligned with the LTAM should be integrated into the CBD processes for planning, monitoring, reporting and review and not have a separate, parallel, process.
The Netherlands also agrees with Spain and Belgium that it would be helpful to ensure alignment of the LTAM with the resource mobilization strategy to ensure that the necessary alignment of financial flows is also taken into account.