The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework: what it does and does not do, and how to improve it

The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) marks one of the most ambitious environmental agreements of the 21st century. Yet despite the ambition, and the considerable change in approach since negotiating its predecessor (the 2025 Vision and Aichi targets), the many pressures, including working through a global pandemic mean that the final agreement, despite several years of delay, is weaker than might have been hoped for. The GBF provides a set of four goals, composed of 23 targets (and a series of supporting annexes) which explore the options for conservation, restoration and sustainable use of biodiversity, and the mobilisation of necessary resources to maintain life on Earth. In this perspective we systematically examine the composition of the GBF, exploring what the targets lack and what weaknesses exist in text. We also detail the link between the targets and the key indicators which can be used to track success toward fulfilling the targets. We offer key recommendations which could help strengthen the application of various targets, and show where the indicators could be improved to provide more detailed information to monitor progress. Furthermore, we discuss the association between targets and their indicators, and detail where indicators may lack the necessary temporal resolution or other elements. Finally, we discuss how various actors might better prepare for the successor to the GBF in 2030 and what has been learnt about the negotiating process, including lessons to help ensure that future agreements can circumnavigate issues which may have weakened the agreement

Potential effects of ongoing and proposed hydropower development on terrestrial biodiversity in the Indian Himalaya

Indian Himalayan basins are earmarked for widespread dam building, but aggregate effects of these dams on terrestrial ecosystems are unknown. We mapped distribution of 292 dams (under construction and proposed) and projected effects of these dams on terrestrial ecosystems under different scenarios of land-cover loss. We analyzed land-cover data of the Himalayan valleys, where dams are located. We estimated dam density on fifth- through seventh-order rivers and compared these estimates with current global figures. We used a species�area relation model (SAR) to predict short- and long-term species extinctions driven by deforestation. We used scatter plots and correlation studies to analyze distribution patterns of species and dams and to reveal potential overlap between species-rich areas and dam sites. We investigated effects of disturbance on community structure of undisturbed forests. Nearly 90% of Indian Himalayan valleys would be affected by dam building and 27% of these dams would affect dense forests. Our model projected that 54,117 ha of forests would be submerged and 114,361 ha would be damaged by dam-related activities. A dam density of 0.3247/1000 km2 would be nearly 62 times greater than current average global figures; the average of 1 dam for every 32 km of river channel would be 1.5 times higher than figures reported for U.S. rivers. Our results show that most dams would be located in species-rich areas of the Himalaya. The SAR model projected that by 2025, deforestation due to dam building would likely result in extinction of 22 angiosperm and 7 vertebrate taxa. Disturbance due to dam building would likely reduce tree species richness by 35%, tree density by 42%, and tree basal cover by 30% in dense forests. These results, combined with relatively weak national environmental impact assessment and implementation, point toward significant loss of species if all proposed dams in the Indian Himalaya are constructed

Integrating local hybrid knowledge and state support for climate change adaptation in the Asian Highlands

New hybrid forms of climate change adaptation combining local and nonlocal/scientific knowledge are emerging across the Asian Highlands region. Yet, while local adaptive capacity can be based on place-based knowledge that governments often lack, communities still need assistance from states to better adjust to climate change and socioeconomic impacts. Using a regional literature review, we evaluate the role of evolving hybrid forms of adaptive knowledge for coping with environmental and social change. The literature is clear that appreciating local knowledge is not enough; enfranchising people with representative decision-making and resource rights and responsibilities is also required so that people can employ that knowledge toward climate adaptation. Into the future, Asian Highland climate change actions must include more targeted state support for locally evolving hybrid knowledge, behaviors and institutions

Building ecosystem resilience for climate change adaptation in the Asian highlands.

The Asian Highlands, the vast mountainous area from Pakistan to China including the Hindu‐Kush Himalaya and Tibetan Plateau, have considerable global importance; they are the source of most of the major rivers of Asia, which sustain billions of downstream dwellers, are part of four Global Biodiversity Hotspots, and support rich cultural diversity. However, climate warming in the Himalaya–Tibetan Plateau has been greater than two times the global average, and regional climate appears to be shifting with potential to trigger large‐scale ecosystem regime shifts (‘landscape traps’). A host of other drivers—urbanization/infrastructure development, land‐use/agricultural practices, upstream/downstream water management and ongoing nation‐state security conflicts—interact with climate signals to produce complex changes across ecological and social systems. In response, highlands people are evolving hybrid forms of adaptive capacity where ‘bottom‐up’ behaviors are mixing with ‘top‐down’ state and market policies. To increase ecosystem and livelihood resilience to future change, there is a need to link upstream and downstream conservation action with local climate adaptation. While the key problem is that institutional and government capacity for coordination is low, we present four general strategies to move forward: application of cross‐sector coordinated planning, strategic integration of science‐based conservation with developing local‐level hybrid knowledge, recognition of the critical role of governance in support of change, and increased emphasis on environmental security. We discuss these strategies for each driver of change in the region. WIREs Clim Change 2014, 5:709–718. doi: 10.1002/wcc.30