Enhancing Biodiversity MEA Synergies to Tackle Fragmentation

Climate change and unsustainable land and water practices are driving drought conditions across the world.

The governance of nature and biodiversity has evolved from early 20th-century treaties on hunting and migratory species to today’s complex web of multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs).

Initial efforts, such as the 1902 Convention for the Protection of Birds Useful to Agriculture, reflected utilitarian concerns. By the 1970s, global awareness of extinction and habitat loss led to more systemic instruments, including the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands (1971) and the Washington Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (1973).

The 1992 Rio Earth Summit marked a turning point with the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the first treaty to address biodiversity at genetic, species, and ecosystem levels, supported by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) as a financial mechanism.

Since then, biodiversity governance has expanded through additional conventions, protocols, and scientific platforms such as the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), but it has also become increasingly fragmented.

Global biodiversity loss continues at alarming rates despite this dense architecture of internationally agreed rules and institutions. Biodiversity-related MEAs span terrestrial, freshwater, and marine realms; regulate access to genetic resources and trade in species; set site-based protections; and address drivers of land degradation and desertification. Yet implementation remains hampered by institutional fragmentation, duplicative reporting burdens, and misaligned financial flows.

Against this backdrop, the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF) provides a shared vision for 2030 and 2050. Converting that vision into action requires not merely more resources but better coordination—within and across MEAs, and between MEAs and broader sustainable development processes.

This article (i) maps the mandates and legal obligations of principal biodiversity-related MEAs, (ii) analyzes governance fragmentation and financial constraints, (iii) explores political dynamics among key actors, and (iv) proposes realistic, equity-centred pathways for strategic coherence, with comparisons to the more integrated chemicals and waste cluster.

1. Mandates, Legal Functions, and Obligations of Key Biodiversity-Related MEAs

1.1 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and Protocols

The CBD’s tripartite objective—conservation, sustainable use, and fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from genetic resources—is codified in Article 1. Parties must prepare and implement National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) and report at regular intervals.

The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety establishes precautionary and risk-assessment procedures for the transboundary movement of Living Modified Organisms (LMOs), while the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits arising from their Utilization operationalizes Access and Benefit-Sharing (ABS) by requiring national frameworks for access permits, benefit sharing, and compliance measures. The KMGBF provides a global goal and target structure to guide CBD implementation.

1.2 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)

CITES regulates international trade through a system of appendices and permits, supported by compliance review and trade-related measures. Its focus is targeted—ensuring trade does not threaten species’ survival—complementing broader conservation duties under CBD. CITES decisions and periodic reviews create quasi-regulatory effects at national borders, typically enforced by customs and wildlife authorities.

1.3 Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS)

CMS requires range states to cooperate to conserve migratory species and their habitats, often via MoUs and specialized regional agreements. Its ‘umbrella’ function has catalyzed multiple instruments and action plans across taxa and flyways.

1.4 Ramsar Convention on Wetlands

Ramsar obliges Parties to designate wetlands of international importance and promote their ‘wise use.’ Its compliance approach is facilitative and cooperative—anchored in site listing, monitoring, and the Montreux Record—rather than punitive.

1.5 World Heritage Convention (WHC)

The WHC, administered by UNESCO, integrates natural and cultural heritage through site nomination, protection, and monitoring. While enforcement is largely reputational, it has proven influential in safeguarding globally significant ecosystems and landscapes.

1.6 International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA)

ITPGRFA establishes a Multilateral System of Access and Benefit-Sharing (MLS) for key crops and forages essential to food security. The system finances on-the-ground projects sustaining agrobiodiversity and farmer resilience. It complements CBD/Nagoya by providing sector-specific ABS.

1.7 United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD)

UNCCD aims to combat desertification and mitigate drought effects through national action programmes and regional cooperation. Its land-use focus links directly to biodiversity and climate agendas.

1.8 Agreement under UNCLOS on Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ)

The BBNJ Agreement, yet to enter into force, addresses marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Its pillars include marine genetic resources (with benefit sharing), area-based management tools (including marine protected areas), environmental impact assessments, and capacity building/technology transfer. It complements the CBD, which is limited to areas under national jurisdiction.

The Agreement foresees a COP, subsidiary scientific/technical bodies, a secretariat, and compliance arrangements, along with benefit-sharing modalities and a voluntary trust fund to support participation and early implementation.

2. Governance Fragmentation and Institutional Complexity

Biodiversity governance is dispersed across UNEP (CBD, CITES, CMS), FAO (ITPGRFA), UNESCO (WHC), IUCN-hosted secretariats (Ramsar), UNGA (UNCCD), and the UNCLOS system (BBNJ). This dispersion yields divergent rules, reporting schedules, compliance approaches, and scientific interfaces.

By contrast, the chemicals and waste cluster, linked uniformly to UNEP, has institutionalized synergies—shared services, coordinated COPs—producing clearer authority and operational economies of scale.

2.1 UNEP and the Environment Management Group (EMG)

UNEP provides a convening platform and hosts several biodiversity secretariats. Through EMG, it seeks UN system-wide coherence, though neither has binding authority over treaty bodies. Effectiveness hinges on political buy-in, voluntary coordination, and financing. Past reviews caution against proliferating stand-alone secretariats and encourage shared services and clustering where mandates allow.

2.2 Science–Policy Interfaces

IPBES strengthens the knowledge base for biodiversity policy, but links to individual MEAs vary. Unlike the chemicals and waste cluster, which benefits from standing scientific committees (e.g., POPRC, CRC), biodiversity MEAs rely on a patchwork of SBSTTAs, technical working groups, and ad hoc expert committees. A more connected science interface would support cross-MEA target setting, monitoring, and methodological alignment.

2.3 Legal and Operational Overlaps

Overlaps exist in ABS (CBD/Nagoya, ITPGRFA, BBNJ), site-based conservation (Ramsar, WHC, CBD), and species measures (CITES, CMS, CBD). Countries face capacity overload from multiple national focal points and asynchronous reporting cycles. Harmonized reporting and data platforms, such as the CBD-led Data Reporting Tool for MEAs (DaRT), could reduce this burden if widely adopted.

3. Financial Mechanisms and Constraints

Finance is critical to synergy. CITES, Ramsar, and CMS lack dedicated financial mechanisms, relying on ad hoc external funding, including from the GEF. The GEF also supports CBD and its Protocols, UNCCD, and is expected to back BBNJ actions after its entry into force. Despite allocating over USD 22 billion in grants, funding flows through siloed windows aligned to individual MEAs, complicating multi-convention projects.

3.1 Beyond GEF: Complementary Funds

ITPGRFA MLS provides resources to farmer-led conservation and breeding initiatives. Ramsar and WHC rely heavily on voluntary contributions, creating chronic underfunding for site management and monitoring. The BBNJ Agreement includes a voluntary trust fund to facilitate early implementation and participation by developing countries.

3.2 Persistent Gaps and Fragmentation

Despite growth in biodiversity finance, CBD COP15 noted continuing gaps between ambition and available resources, alongside barriers to access. Integrated programming for cross-MEA outcomes remains limited. By comparison, the chemicals and waste cluster uses joint services and synchronized COPs to align budgeting, capacity building, and technical assistance, creating a more coherent support pipeline.

4. Political Dynamics and Major Actor Positions

Political economy shapes what institutional designs can achieve. Secretariats protect their autonomy; governments weigh sovereignty, trade, and development priorities; equity concerns remain salient. Contentions around digital sequence information (DSI) and ABS illustrate divergent interests across MEAs.

4.1 Major Actors

United States: outside CBD and Nagoya; active in CITES and sectoral bodies; cautious on multilateral ABS.

China: strong role in CBD/KMGBF; supportive of capacity building; cautious on far-reaching benefit sharing under BBNJ.

India and Brazil: emphasize equity, technology transfer, and fair benefit sharing; wary of burdens without support.

European Union: cohesive advocate for biodiversity ambition and cross-MEA coordination, though internal trade-offs persist.

African Group: focused on additional financial resources and dedicated mechanisms.

4.2 Ocean Governance Politics

BBNJ must navigate interactions with sectoral and regional bodies, notably RFMOs. Debates over institutional hierarchy, benefit sharing of MGRs (including DSI), and standards for ABMTs/EIAs reflect geopolitics and North–South equity concerns.

5. Comparative Insights and Pathways Toward Strategic Coherence

5.1 Lessons from the Chemicals and Waste Cluster

BRS Conventions operationalize synergies through joint services, back-to-back COPs, harmonized technical assistance, and standing scientific committees. Mandates remain distinct, but coordination yields efficiencies in budgeting, technical support, and compliance assistance.

5.2 A Practical Synergy Agenda for Biodiversity MEAs

Joint Work Plans under KMGBF

Harmonized Reporting and Data Architecture

Integrated Funding Windows

Coordinated Capacity Building

Science Interface Linkages

UNEP/EMG and UNEA Leadership

National-Level Integration

5.3 Guardrails for Equity and Effectiveness

Synergy must not burden developing countries without resources. Equity guardrails include predictable finance, technology cooperation, fair access to genetic resources and DSI benefits, and attention to indigenous and local community rights. Political buy-in improves when integration reduces workload and mobilizes additional finance.

6. Conclusion

Biodiversity MEAs provide a comprehensive rulebook, but fragmentation blunts their impact. KMGBF offers a unifying roadmap; BBNJ extends governance to global commons. Institutionalizing joint work, harmonizing reporting and data, integrating finance, and strengthening science and coordination can replicate practical synergies from the chemicals and waste cluster while emphasizing equity and capacity. Without this, inefficiency and missed outcomes will persist during a critical decade for nature.

Hugo-Maria Schally is former Head of the Multilateral Environmental Cooperation Unit at the Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission.