A major international report led by University of New England (UNE) Professor Paul Martin has revealed a critical need to improve global implementation of the United Nations’ Convention on Biodiversity 1992 (CBD), after a seven-year long research project found Australia, Brazil, China, South African and New Zealand were not upholding their commitments to the treaty.
Published last week by the ICUN Academy of Environmental Law and endorsed by the World Commission on Environmental Law, the report outlines a new recommended methodology that countries should adopt to improve enactment of environmental policies.
“Australia is among the 196 countries that agreed to implement the CBD,” says Prof Martin, Director of the Australian Centre for Agriculture and Law within the UNE School of Law.
“Despite the elapse of more than 30 years, the objective evidence reported in this study indicates serious under-performance in implementation of the principles to which these countries agreed.”
The CBD is the framework that guides policy makers, governments, and legal practitioners on the actions that should be taken to secure a sustainable future, however, due to the unique species, natural systems, political, constitutional and legal institutions of each country, the application of CBD principles varies between different jurisdictions.
“Though each country has taken a unique approach to implementation, there is an overriding pattern of achievement in creating legal instruments, under-performance in implementation, and serious failings in actual biodiversity protection,” says Prof Martin.
“Among the main shortcomings in different countries were imbalances of economic and political power for (or against) biodiversity protection, weak national commitments that affect the vigour of implementation, under-investment and insufficient continuity in public programs, and a lack of international accountability and transparency arrangements that could drive implementation of the original CBD commitments.”
Our report shows that for that reform to work, significant supporting institutional changes need to happen.
The researchers suggest strategies to improve the situation, including increased community engagement, more effective translation of international legal obligations into domestic policies and legal instruments, and more rigorous international accountability for implementation of national commitments.
The study has been applauded by key players in the field, including Chair of the IUCN World Commission on Environmental Law, Professor Christine Voigt from the University of Oslo.
“The study highlights challenges and causes of under-implementation and lack of effectiveness,” she states in the report. “In particular, it points to a systemic failure to focus on implementation, and the lack of a strong meta-governance system to ensure accountability and transparency. The insights from this study provide valuable information for the implementation of the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework under the Convention - a Framework designed to put the world on track with ‘Living in Harmony with Nature’ by 2050.”
On a national level, Prof Martin says the study demonstrates the need for significant institutional change.
“In 2021, the results of the Samuel Review were released, which was an evaluation of Australia’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. This review revealed an urgent need to update Australia’s environmental laws,” he says. “Our report shows that for that reform to work, significant supporting institutional changes need to happen. Not least, it will require a new business model for stewardship, and strong integrity mechanisms to ensure implementation of biodiversity laws and policy.”
