A landmark global goal to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030 is close to slipping beyond reach – and may have not been achievable when it was set in 2022, according to a former UK lead negotiator.
Will Lockhart OBE represented the UK in UN nature negotiations from 2021 until the end of COP16 talks in Rome in February of this year.
He tells Carbon Brief that the agreement of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) in Canada in 2022 was a “huge personal highlight” that made nature “frontpage news”.
But when asked about whether it is possible to reverse the rapid decline of biodiversity in just five years – the headline “mission” of the GBF, commonly referred to as the “Paris Agreement for nature” – he says:
“The trajectory right now would suggest, no, it’s looking incredibly hard to achieve. But…with exactly the right interventions at exactly the right scale, it might still be possible.
“A fair question might be was it ever possible?…There has always been a contested evidence base about whether it could ever have been achieved.”
Shortly after the GBF was agreed in 2022, Carbon Brief spoke to a range of biologists who expressed doubt that it would be possible to totally reverse the decline of nature over such a timescale.
Earlier this year, Carbon Brief and the Guardian published an investigation finding that more than half of countries who have submitted plans to the UN failed to commit to protecting 30% of their territories for nature – one of the key levers for reversing biodiversity loss.
Countries have never fully met any target to help nature since the UN biodiversity convention was established in the 1990s.
The world’s biodiversity is declining at a faster rate than at any other time in recorded history. Around one million animal and plant species already face extinction.
Aiming high
The GBF is a global agreement with an aim to “halt and reverse biodiversity loss” by 2030 and achieve “harmony with nature” by 2050.
To help achieve its aims, the GBF sets out 23 targets for countries covering a wide range of topics, from protecting and restoring ecosystems to slashing subsidies for activities harmful to nature and providing funding to developing countries.
The GBF follows the Aichi targets, the previous set of UN goals for tackling nature loss by 2020 that ended in collective failure.
Towards the end of the 2010s – as it became clear that the Aichi targets were likely to fail – a flurry of research papers were published examining what it would take to “bend the curve” on biodiversity loss.
Among the most influential was a 2018 commentary in Nature Sustainability, led by the late pioneering biodiversity scientist Prof Georgina Mace. It urged countries to “clearly specify the goal for biodiversity recovery” in their post-2020 agreement for nature, “analogous to the [UN climate change] 1.5-2C target”.
On biodiversity loss, Mace and her team wrote:
“This declining trend must not only be halted, but also reversed.”
The post-2020 agreement for nature – covering the decade from 2021 to 2030 – was meant to be finalised in 2020. However, the Covid-19 pandemic caused the COP15 biodiversity summit to be postponed several times, before it was eventually held in two parts, starting in October 2021 and concluding in December 2022.
When negotiators met in Montreal to decide the details of their post-2020 agreement, the idea of halting and reversing biodiversity loss within a few years was already viewed as a steep challenge, Lockhart says:
“The important thing is that people spent a lot of time thinking about why we were setting certain kinds of targets…We wanted them to be specific, measurable and achieveable. What does achievable mean? What does ambitious mean? What message are we trying to send? This is politics; this isn’t necessarily science.
“If the answer is that it was never possible in the first place, then the question is: ‘Why did the world agree to it?’ And the answer to that is: ‘Because it matters that we try.’”
When Carbon Brief spoke to biologists about the feasibility of the goal in 2023, they expressed similar sentiments.
Dr David Obura, founding director of Coastal Oceans Research and Development, Indian Ocean (CORDIO) East Africa and current chair of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), told Carbon Brief in 2023:
“As a scientist, whether we can achieve halting and reversing by 2030, I’m highly doubtful.
“[But] for a political document like this, there has to be a time-bound [element]. So, in that sense, I think halt and reverse by 2030 is the right language to have, for sure.”
The future of COPs
But whether setting a lofty target truly spurred sufficient action on biodiversity loss remains an open question.
Following on from the agreement of the GBF in 2022, countries were asked to submit new national plans for how they will meet its goal. These are known as national biodiversity strategies and action plans (NBSAPs).
In October 2024, Carbon Brief and the Guardian reported jointly that 85% of nations had missed the deadline for submitting their NBSAPs.
As of June 2025, only 26% of parties have submitted new NBSAPs. (Separately, 67% of parties have submitted shorter – and less detailed – national targets.)
Further Carbon Brief and Guardian reporting found that, of countries that have submitted nature plans, more than half do not commit to protecting 30% of their territories for nature by 2030, which was billed as one of the headline targets of the GBF.
And research published in Nature Ecology and Evolution found that countries that have submitted nature plans have broadly failed to commit to another GBF target to restore 30% of degraded ecosystems by 2030.
Following on from a set of fractious UN environmental negotiations last year, some experts have called for “reforms” to the way that these summits – known as COPs – work.
Lockhart tells Carbon Brief that, following his time representing the UK at the highest level at COPs, he still carries hope for the future of these summits. But, he says, he also has questions about how the world views the role of these negotiations in addressing environmental problems:
“A question that everyone has to bear in mind is: ‘What [is the] value the [of] COPs?’
“You pour a huge amount of time and resource into a global dialogue, which results in a very, very carefully negotiated outcome. It’s extremely important, in my view, that you have a space where the whole world can come together in a room and agree that it wants to do something.
“The question is, where does the world locate that process?”
He said that he fears the “world is simultaneously asking too much and too little of COPs”, continuing:
“It’s asking too much in the sense that there’s so much coverage and intense scrutiny of ‘this person’s arrived’, ‘this comma has moved’…There’s an extraordinary media circus. [There is] extreme expectation on each individual meeting.
“And, at the same time, it’s simultaneously asking too little of them. It’s like: ‘Great, this word was in so it was a good COP’, or ‘this word was out so it was a bad COP’. And, of course, COPs are just one tiny part of this huge global process that needs to happen if we’re going to tackle these problems. I rather worry – and I know that colleagues feel the same – they’re just viewed as ends in themselves.”
COPs were “always” meant to be just one “part of the jigsaw puzzle”, he adds:
“We agree stuff. It doesn’t get delivered, by and large. It doesn’t get delivered because the implementation processes aren’t in place back at home in different government departments.
“The reasons that the implementation processes aren’t in place varies based on political factors, capability factors, jurisdictional factors, all sorts of different things. The problem is that by focussing on COPs as an end to themselves, we risk missing the wood for the trees.”
Lockhart is now working as the director of climate and energy at Apolitical, an online platform offering training and support for governments globally.
The post World might have set itself an unachievable nature target, says former UK negotiator appeared first on Carbon Brief.
World might have set itself an unachievable nature target, says former UK negotiator
Climate Change
‘This is a fossil fuel crisis’, Greenpeace tells Senate gas tax Inquiry, citing homegrown renewables as path to energy security
CANBERRA, Tuesday 21 April 2026 — Greenpeace Australia Pacific has slammed gas corporation war profiteering and environmental damage in a scathing Senate hearing today as part of the Select Committee on the Taxation of Gas Resources, urging fair taxation of gas corporations and the transition to secure, homegrown renewable energy to protect Australian households and the economy from future energy shocks.
Speaking at the hearing, Greenpeace said the US and Israel’s illegal war on Iran has laid bare the fundamental flaws of an energy system built on fossil fuel extraction, geopolitical power plays and corporate greed, and will be a defining moment for how the world thinks about energy security.
Greenpeace’s submission and full opening remarks can be found here.
Joe Rafalowicz, Head of Climate and Energy at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said:
“This is not an energy crisis, it’s a fossil fuel crisis. The crisis we’re all facing lays bare the dangers of fossil fuel dependence, for our energy security, our communities, and for global peace and stability.
“Gas corporations like Woodside, Santos, Shell and Chevron — the same companies whose CEOs refused to front this Inquiry — are making obscene war profits, using the illegal war on Iran to price gouge, profiteer and push for more gas we don’t need — while people and our environment pay the price.
“Australians are getting smashed by soaring bills and the impacts of climate disasters — gas corporations should be paying their fair share to help this country, instead of sending billions offshore, tax-free.
“But we’re at a turning point — while gas corporations cynically push to open up more of our oceans and land to drilling for fossil fuels, our allies like the UK are doubling down on renewables in response to the fossil fuel crisis. Our trading partners in Asia are making the same reassessment of fossil fuels.
“Which is why the hearing today is crucial: an effective and well-designed tax on the gas industry’s obscene war time profits is a chance to channel funds to people and communities, fast-track the rollout of clean, secure homegrown wind and solar energy, while holding polluters accountable.
“Our dependence on fossil fuels leave us overexposed to the whims of tyrants like Trump — it’s in Australia’s national interest to end the fossil fuel chokehold for good and usher in the era of clean energy security.”
-ENDS-
Media contact
Kate O’Callaghan on 0406 231 892 or kate.ocallaghan@greenpeace.org
HOW WOODSIDE’S BROWSE GAS PROPOSAL THREATENS SCOTT REEF’S GREEN TURTLES AND PYGMY BLUE WHALES
Woodside’s Browse to NWS gas project is under assessment by the WA and Federal Governments right now. This is a project that involved drilling up to 50 gas wells around Scott Reef off the coast of WA. Gas would be extracted directly underneath Scott Reef and Sandy Islet and pumped through a 900-kilometre subsea pipeline to the NWS gas processing facility.
Woodside’s Browse gas project’s impact on Scott Reef’s marine habitats?
Scott Reef is one of Australia’s most ecologically significant marine environments, where green turtles breed, pygmy blue whales feed, and an array of at-risk species, including sharks, dolphins, whale sharks, rays, sawfish and sea snakes thrive. It is home to many threatened species, including some found nowhere else on Earth or in genetically isolated groups, magnifying its importance from a conservation perspective.
This delicate reef’s ecosystem faces multiple threats if Woodside’s Proposed Project goes ahead, including seismic blasting, gas flaring, noise pollution, artificial lighting, pipe laying and fast-moving vessels. The reef also faces the risk of a gas well blowout, which could have catastrophic and irreversible consequences for the region’s reefs and marine parks.
Woodside’s woeful marine impacts management plan
To secure their approvals, Woodside had to develop a plan for how they would manage the significant risks to threatened green turtles and endangered pygmy blue whales if the project proceeds. We’ve had two independent scientists provide a technical assessment of Woodsides management plan for whales and turtles and their findings are gobsmacking.
Their assessment found that Woodsides management plans for these species misrepresents or does not assess the risks the Browse project poses to Scott Reef’s pygmy blue whales and green turtles. They’ve also surmised that if the project goes ahead the impacts contradict the Australian government’s own recovery plan for turtles and Conservation Management Plan (CMP) for Blue Whales.
The State and Federal Governments now have the opportunity to define their legacies on nature protection and save Scott Reef from Woodside’s dirty gas.
Technical Assessment of Woodside’s Browse Pygmy Blue Whale Management Plan
Prepared for Greenpeace Australia Pacific by Dr Ben Fitzpatrick of Oceanwise Australia with Dr Olaf Meynecke of Griffith University.
The full technical assessment is available HERE
Scott Reef is a vital feeding, foraging and resting habitat for pygmy blue whales.
Pygmy blue whales feed, forage and rest in the Scott Reef region every year. Scott Reef is recognised as a Biologically Important Area for the pygmy blue whale and is an important stop-over on their annual migration.
Woodside’s Browse gas project could delay or prevent the population recovery of the endangered pygmy blue whales that rely on Scott Reef, heightening their extinction risk.
- Woodside’s management plan claims of “no credible threat of significant impacts” are not supported by scientific evidence.
- The management plan relies on outdated whale population information.
- Woodside has claimed it is unclear whether Scott Reef is a foraging habitat for pygmy blue whales, despite the presence of pygmy blue whales and significant concentrations of krill being documented in the area.
- The PBWMP ignores the impacts of industrial noise on whale-to-whale communication. This is especially concerning as mother-calf pairs migrate through the Scott Reef Biologically Important Area shortly after calves are born. Mother-calf pairs rely on continuous, uninterrupted communications to maintain their connection.
Woodside’s Browse gas project could delay or prevent the population recovery of the endangered pygmy blue whales that rely on Scott Reef, heightening their extinction risk.
Technical Assessment of Woodside’s Browse Turtle Management Plan
Prepared for Greenpeace Australia Pacific by Dr Ben Fitzpatrick of Oceanwise Australia.
The full technical assessment is available HERE
Scott Reef is a vital nesting ground for unique green turtles.
The green turtles that nest at Scott Reef’s low-lying Sandy Islet sand cay and nearby Browse Island are genetically unique and are classified as ‘Extremely Vulnerable’ in Australia’s Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles.
Woodside’s Browse gas project could make Scott Reef’s unique green turtles extinct.
- The Browse project would operate within 20 kilometres of nesting habitat that’s critical to the survival of Scott Reef’s genetically unique and vulnerable green turtle population.
- Woodside’s Browse Turtle Management Plan (TMP) misrepresents the risks the Browse project poses to Scott Reef’s green turtles.
- Claims in Woodside’s TMP about Scott Reef’s green turtle population size, nesting success and hatchling numbers are not backed by scientific evidence.
- The TMP proposes gathering updated data after the Browse project is approved.
- Woodside’s TMP proposes adding sand sourced elsewhere to Sandy Islet to counter subsidence and erosion, but fails to properly assess the associated risks.
To save Scott Reef and protect our oceans and animals, the State and Federal Governments must reject Browse.
Technical Assessment of Woodside’s Browse Pygmy Blue Whale Management Plan
To secure their approvals, Woodside had to develop a plan for how they would manage the significant risks to threatened green turtles if the project proceeds. We’ve had two independent scientists provide a technical assessment of Woodside’s management plan for whales and turtles and their findings are gobsmacking.
Woodside’s Browse gas project could make Scott Reef’s unique green turtles extinct.
Woodside’s Browse gas project could delay or prevent the population recovery of the endangered pygmy blue whales that rely on Scott Reef, heightening their extinction risk.
-
Climate Change8 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases8 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Renewable Energy6 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits