Key takeaways:
- National Target Alignment: Over 160 countries have successfully integrated the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF) into domestic national targets, mirroring the approach of the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) climate targets under the Paris Agreement.
- Moving Beyond “30 by 30”: While expanding protected areas is necessary, a singular focus on territorial metrics risks neglecting management equity, indigenous inclusion, and the systemic drivers of biodiversity loss.
- Strategic Ocean Governance: China’s bid to host the secretariat of the Agreement on Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ), alongside its engagements in the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and plastics negotiations, signals a transition toward proactive environmental leadership.
- A Forward-Looking Research Agenda: CCICED’s upcoming 5-year research phase covering 2027-2031, must champion frameworks that go “beyond GDP”—such as Gross Ecosystem Product (GEP)—while evaluating the water and energy footprints of emerging technologies like AI.
Three years into the implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF), over 160 nations have aligned their domestic targets with global biodiversity goals. Yet, significant challenges remain. In this exclusive interview, David Cooper, CCICED Special Advisor, Visiting Fellow at the Oxford Martin School, and the former Acting Executive Secretary of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), emphasizes the need to look beyond the much-discussed “30 by 30” target under the KMGBF to address the systemic macroeconomic drivers of ecosystem loss.
Cooper explores how China can leverage its domestic successes—such as Ecological Conservation Red Lines—to champion global ocean governance via the so-called High Seas Treaty, while advising how CCICED’s upcoming 5-year research phase can address emerging environmental demands like the resource footprints of artificial intelligence (AI).
1. It has been over three years since the historic adoption of the KMGBF. From your vantage point, where are you seeing the strongest momentum—both within China and internationally—and what remain the greatest hurdles to meeting these global targets?
We are seeing substantial momentum, beginning with the foundational role China played in securing the historic agreement. The KMGBF is a deeply significant document because it balances scientific ambition with a mandate that extends beyond conservation circles to promote a “whole-of-government, whole-of-society” approach. Since its adoption, we have witnessed more engagement from businesses, civil society, and Indigenous Peoples.
On a structural level, the progress is clear: over 160 countries have domesticated the KMGBF by adopting aligned national targets, functioning similarly to the NDC climate targets under the Paris Agreement. Over 130 countries have also provided national reports on their implementation progress. Achieving this level of engagement against a complicated geopolitical backdrop is highly encouraging.
“The negotiation was exceptionally tough, but the outcome was solid. However, as we noted at the moment of adoption, the challenge of implementation is vastly greater.”
Something that is both really positive but also a little bit limiting is the focus that we tend to see by media and non-governmental organizations on the “30 by 30” target. Protected areas and indigenous-conserved lands are incredibly important for conservation and for securing the goals of the GBF, but alone they are not enough. We made great strides in expanding protected areas under the previous Aichi targets, yet we failed to meet the targets overall. We cannot risk repeating that error.
“An over-focus on land area alone is problematic. We must focus equally on management effectiveness and equity—ensuring Indigenous Peoples and local communities are genuinely included.”
Beyond that, we must tackle the direct drivers of biodiversity loss: land-use change, climate change, and widespread pollution from agriculture, cities, and plastics. While environment and agricultural ministries are stepping up, we still need stronger leadership at the head-of-government level to truly mainstream these actions. Mobilizing finance and reshaping the broader financial system to support nature conservation remains a key challenge.
2. China recently submitted a formal bid to host the BBNJ secretariat. Given your experience with the CBD Secretariat, how could this bid strengthen China’s role in delivering on the KMGBF targets and advancing environmental multilateralism?
The BBNJ Agreement was finalized just weeks after the KMGBF, and the momentum from Kunming-Montreal undoubtedly helped push it over the finish line. The treaty directly reinforces the KMGBF—including Target 3 (the so-called “30×30” target)—by establishing a legal framework for marine protected areas in regions beyond national jurisdiction. It also complements the CBD when it comes to sharing the benefits derived from the use of genetic resources and now digital sequence information.
Having China apply its institutional weight and commitment to the BBNJ process is an excellent development. China holds influential leverage as talks resume both in the International Maritime Organization regarding shipping emissions, and for the global plastics agreement. Demonstrating proactive leadership across these interconnected processes could strengthen China’s case to host the Secretariat.
“Given the broader geopolitical situation, China should play an even more proactive role in multilateral processes, building directly upon its excellent work with the CBD.”
3. As CCICED prepares for its next 5-year research phase, covering 2027-2031, how can the Council’s research and policy recommendations concretely support China’s domestic goals, including its “dual carbon” targets?
Every nation faces the central dilemma of fostering socio-economic development while preserving its natural resource base. China has encapsulated this beautifully through its philosophy of “Ecological Civilization”—the realization that lucid waters and lush mountains are invaluable assets. Yet, decoupling economic growth from environmental degradation remains a profound challenge everywhere.
“This is precisely where CCICED can focus its upcoming phase: analyzing how to manage modern economies to align human well-being with environmental sustainability. “
This means building upon pioneering work such as green accounting, Green GDP, and Gross Ecosystem Product (GEP) to look “beyond GDP” when planning and assessing its development.
Regarding China’s “dual carbon” goals, increasing carbon efficiency and charting the path to net-zero is fundamental. However, we must view these plans through the lens of emerging global trends. For example, the rapid expansion of AI is driving a massive spike in global energy and water demands, even as AI could help with efficiencies in energy production and use. CCICED’s next research phase should evaluate these modern trends and trade-offs to support holistic governance.
4. Looking at the next few years, which specific areas of environmental science and policy offer the most strategic opportunities for lasting cooperation between China and the international community?
Agricultural science and nutrient management are particularly ripe for meaningful collaboration. Globally, we face severe emissions and widespread biodiversity loss in freshwater and coastal ecosystems due to excess nitrogen runoff.
“We urgently need scientific cooperation to de-link fertilizer production from fossil fuels and transition to a truly circular nutrient economy. “
Another vital arena is integrated land- and sea-use planning. The international community can learn from China’s domestic application of Ecological Conservation Red Lines and agricultural red lines. The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) is currently developing a global assessment on spatial planning tools such as these, which will provide an excellent scientific baseline for shared policy development.
Finally, we must pursue policy research on how to sustain multilateralism within our global trading and financial frameworks. This includes examining how export economies adapt to tools like the UK and EU carbon border adjustment taxes, or restructuring the global financial architecture to expand fiscal space for developing countries investing in nature. Both require a more just and inclusive architecture of global governance.
CCICED can build on the IPBES’s recently published Nexus Report—exploring the vital connections between biodiversity, food, water, health, and climate—and their Transformative Change Report. The latter directly addresses the systemic, underlying causes of ecological decline, such as short-term economic planning, consumerism, and the concentration of wealth and power. While challenging, in its next research phase, CCICED could design practical policies to confront these structural drivers.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are those of the interviewee and not necessarily those of CCICED.