The first version<\/a> of this document had been released prior to the 2010 Aichi Biodiversity Targets. It was following the world\u2019s failure to reach the Aichi targets by the 2020 deadline that countries discussed updating the targets, and established the Kunming-Montreal Framework.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What\u2019s been updated in this version of China\u2019s NBSAP? Where does it shine and where does it fall down? Is it consistent with the goals of the Kunming-Montreal Framework? We asked several experts for their thoughts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The key difference between China\u2019s new NBSAP and the 2010 version is the inclusion of the 30 by 30 goal. This plan puts China into alignment with the Kunming-Montreal Framework. As of 2018, China has established 271 marine protected areas of differing levels and types, protecting around 124,000 sq km, according to official government data<\/a>. Its new NBSAP states that by 2030, the area within marine ecological redlines will be \u201cnot less than 150,000 sq km\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The redlines demarcate areas with important ecological functions, including coastal waters, wetlands, glaciers and forests. The aim is to protect these habitats and their species, while making gains for flood and sandstorm prevention, clean water provision and other ecosystem services.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Redline areas should also include all types of official protected areas, according to the government guidelines<\/a>. Both China\u2019s existing marine protected areas, and its goal on drawing marine ecological redlines, fall short of 30 by 30.<\/p>\n\n\n\n How countries will contribute to 30 by 30 has yet to be decided, Peng Kui, programme manager at the Global Environmental Institute (GEI), a Beijing-based think-tank, told Dialogue Earth. Once all NBSAPs have been submitted, they will need to be analysed to determine whether they are compatible with the initiative\u2019s goal. Such analysis is expected to be a key focus of COP16.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Zhang Yimo, director of WWF Beijing\u2019s Sustainable Blue Economy programme, said that when 30 by 30 was proposed, there was no stipulation as to the proportion of its own marine area each country had to protect. Moreover, he said, China still hasn\u2019t incorporated its ecological conservation redline areas and other areas of conservation significance into Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures (OECMs). In other words, areas that effectively protect biodiversity in the long term, beyond official conservation areas, are not yet included in China\u2019s protected area total.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This refers to areas beyond national parks and other officially protected areas that nonetheless effectively protect biodiversity through various management methods. Formally recognised in 2018 by the Convention on Biological Diversity, OECMs allow for various land and sea uses, such as sustainable agriculture or community-managed forests. They broaden the scope of conservation efforts, offering more flexibility while still preserving biodiversity, ecosystems, and cultural values.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n All types of marine protected areas in China have strict regulations, which restrict surrounding economic and other human activities. Establishing these areas is often difficult, time consuming, and can create socio-economic problems, Zhang Yimo said. He added that it is more feasible to promote a flexible marine ecological conservation redline policy and include it as an OECM measure, than to designate new marine protected areas to increase the overall area.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, the legal basis and regulations of the ecological redline policy still need further clarification, he noted. China has also yet to clearly define the standards for OECMs. \u201cThese are the two key points of [the work] implementing the 30 by 30 goal,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The new NBSAP has significant revisions beyond the inclusion of the 30 by 30 goal. A study<\/a> by the Beijing Greenovation Institute for Public Welfare Development identified three highlights: structural consistency with the Kunming-Montreal Framework; provision of guidance for enterprises and other market players to participate in biodiversity protection; and a key focus on coordinating biodiversity conservation and other work.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The experts Dialogue Earth spoke to support this view. Peng Kui said that the updated NBSAP was highly consistent and almost in accordance with the Kunming-Montreal Framework, though there were differences in expression. For example, the phrase \u201cparticipation of local communities\u201d, as is common in China, is used rather than the \u201cIndigenous rights\u201d preferred internationally.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Kunming-Montreal Framework states that biodiversity conservation is a whole-government and whole-society effort. Peng Kui believes this important stance is reflected in the new plan, which opens with a reference to \u201cmainstreaming biodiversity\u201d. Additionally, he says the NBSAP \u201cmentions conservation through the OECM for the first time, as well as the participation of non-state actors, including businesses and civil society organisations\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Yang Fangyi, former China programme director for IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature), made similar observations. He told Dialogue Earth that the updated NBSAP made significant improvements in green finance, including by encouraging and pushing for financial institutions to take into account biodiversity concerns when making investment and financing decisions, and promoting nature-related corporate disclosure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While green finance features prominently in the NBSAP, broader biodiversity funding remains a challenge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n An early draft of the Kunming-Montreal Framework had called for filling the USD 700 billion annual shortfall in biodiversity funding by 2030. The final draft tried to solve this by mentioning the mobilisation of USD 200 billion from various sources for biodiversity conservation, and \u201csubstantially phasing out\u201d harmful subsidies by at least USD 500 billion a year by then. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The framework additionally calls for increasing the flow of funding to developing countries to at least USD 20 billion a year by 2025, and USD 30 billion a year by 2030. COP15 also adopted a resolution establishing a Global Biodiversity Framework Fund<\/a> (GBF) under the UN\u2019s Global Environment Facility.<\/p>\n\n\n\n GEF manages funds for several international environmental treaties, including the UN conventions on climate change and biodiversity. It was created in 1992 to enable developing countries to take action on urgent environmental challenges.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n While its NBSAP has set no clear funding targets, China announced in October 2021 that it would take the lead in investing CNY 1.5 billion (USD 211 million) to establish the Kunming Biodiversity Fund. Formally launched in May this year, the fund supports biodiversity conservation in developing countries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In a July article<\/a>, Zhang Yujun, director of the environment ministry\u2019s Department of Nature and Ecology Conservation, emphasised that the Kunming Biodiversity Fund is \u201cdifferent from China\u2019s traditional bilateral aid, will adhere to the basic principles of multilateralism and international operation\u201d, and work together with the GBF and other financing measures to increase efficiency. According to Yang Fangyi, the Kunming fund has launched a call for projects, and could reveal before COP16 the first list of specific projects to be funded.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Innovative financing mechanisms for nature conservation, including debt-for-nature swaps, exist globally. Zhang Yimo of the WWF suggested that China could look at ways to increase funding to attract more capital for ecological or marine conservation efforts. China could also introduce incentive policies and actionable tools to entice existing private investment not already involved in conservation into nature-friendly areas, he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Debt-for-nature swaps are a financial tool<\/a> designed to promote environmental protection and sustainable development. The swap is usually a voluntary transaction in which an amount of debt owed by a developing country government is cancelled or reduced by a creditor, in exchange for the debtor making financial commitments to conservation.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n Globally, biodiversity funding faces serious hurdles. This is partly because assessment mechanisms for biodiversity protection have not been optimised, and funder countries may have concerns about tracking funds and evaluating actual impact, said Peng Kui. Assessment mechanisms will be a key point of discussion at COP16, he told Dialogue Earth.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Reducing and reforming subsidies that are harmful to nature is also seen as vital. Some subsidies that support fossil fuels, agriculture, and fishing harm biodiversity by reducing the cost of exploiting natural resources, leading to overexploitation, overcapacity, and ecological destruction, for instance. Reforming and redirecting these subsidies towards ecological conservation and management could plug around half of the funding gap, according to a 2021 study<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\nVague marine protection goals<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Explore Dialogue Earth\u2019s coverage of redlines here<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\nConsistency with the Kunming-Montreal Framework<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Funding challenges<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
![\"Group](\"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/Endangered-Elds-deer_Alamy_AYAPCT-1-scaled-e1727281015463.jpg\")
<\/div>Eliminating harmful subsidies<\/h2>\n\n\n\n