In 2022, a landmark moment unfolded in the global effort to conserve biodiversity with the adoption of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF). This ambitious international accord seeks to arrest and reverse the alarming rates of biodiversity loss that have plagued terrestrial and marine ecosystems worldwide. A pivotal commitment outlined within this framework pledges to protect at least 30 percent of the world’s land and ocean areas by 2030, setting an unprecedented conservation target aimed at safeguarding the intricate web of life that underpins ecological stability. Leading marine biodiversity researchers, Dr. Jan-Claas Dajka from the Helmholtz Institute for Functional Marine Biodiversity (HIFMB) in Oldenburg and Dr. Anne Eilrich from Kiel University, have critically evaluated the marine biodiversity targets enshrined in the GBF, finding them to be a substantial advancement over the Aichi Targets developed in 2010.
Marine ecosystems, particularly coral reefs and coastal environments, harbor a kaleidoscope of genetic and species diversity which collectively sustain ecosystem functions and resilience. The updated international targets emanating from the Kunming-Montreal framework mark a decisive shift towards embracing this ecological complexity. Historically, the failure of the 2010 Aichi Targets was largely attributed to their insufficient measurability, which made it difficult to track progress and motivate effective policymaking. The GBF, by contrast, incorporates science-driven, multilayered biodiversity indicators that span genetic, species, and ecosystem levels. This evolution reflects a nuanced understanding that biological diversity cannot be captured by simplistic metrics or single indicators, but requires comprehensive, integrated monitoring approaches to truly evaluate ecosystem health and species viability.
Central to the improved framework’s design is the adoption of Essential Biodiversity Variables (EBVs), a scientific construct that categorizes biodiversity into six primary classes of measurable variables: species distribution, species abundance, genetic diversity, species traits, ecosystem structure, and ecosystem function. These EBVs provide a robust and scalable foundation for quantifying changes across all dimensions of marine biodiversity. Dr. Dajka and his team highlight that adopting EBVs in national implementation strategies is essential to prevent critical biodiversity facets from being overlooked. For instance, tracking changes in genetic diversity within populations is just as vital as measuring spatial species distributions, since genetic variability underpins the adaptive capacity and long-term survival of species facing environmental change.
The study further emphasizes that while secondary variables such as the extent of protected areas or certain ecosystem function metrics gain prominence within global policies, their utility as definitive indicators of ecosystem health is limited. Protecting a large swath of ocean, for example, is a positive step but may not suffice if biodiversity within that space is impoverished. A reef protected in size but dominated by a single coral species remains vulnerable and ecologically fragile. Therefore, the research cautions against an overreliance on such secondary indicators to the detriment of foundational measures including species richness and genetic variation, which more accurately reflect ecosystem integrity and resilience.
One of the significant challenges inherent in biodiversity conservation, as underscored by the researchers, lies in the absence of a unifying target analogous to the 1.5-degree Celsius limit in climate change mitigation. Biodiversity exists on multiple hierarchical levels and operates through complex interactions shaped by environmental, genetic, and ecological factors, rendering it nontrivial to establish simple, universal conservation benchmarks. The GBF’s response to this complexity is to recommend a suite of science-based targets and metrics that can be tailored and implemented nationally to reflect local ecological realities, ensuring adaptability and precision in conservation efforts.
The international research team’s comprehensive literature review, spanning a decade of marine biodiversity research from 2010 to 2020 along with policy evaluations, confirms that the GBF’s incorporation of diverse biodiversity indicators constitutes a marked scientific advancement. By aligning policy goals with the most relevant and effective scientific metrics, the framework equips governments worldwide with an operational roadmap, facilitating informed decision-making and transparent progress tracking in marine biodiversity conservation.
Beyond policy alignment, the research article serves as a critical resource to counter skepticism expressed by some quarters regarding the framework’s feasibility and effectiveness. Dr. Dajka stresses that skepticism is often rooted in misunderstandings surrounding the targets’ scientific basis and applicability. “The targets are solid and well-founded,” he explains, “and our work demonstrates they represent a genuine step forward in capturing the multifaceted nature of marine biodiversity.” The researchers advocate for immediate attention toward developing national indicators derived from the GBF schema, coupled with implementation of evidence-based conservation actions designed to halt biodiversity loss and promote ecosystem recovery.
Technically, the sophistication of the GBF framework stems from its emphasis on multilayered indicators capable of detecting nuanced shifts before they manifest as catastrophic biodiversity declines. Tracking genetic markers within species populations, monitoring shifts in species functional traits, and assessing ecosystem structural changes enable conservationists and policymakers to anticipate problems and tailor interventions promptly. This highly granular approach is vital in marine contexts where rapid environmental changes, driven by climate warming, overfishing, and pollution, can quickly destabilize ecosystems.
Furthermore, the research underscores the necessity of integrated monitoring systems combining in-situ data collection, remote sensing technologies, and genetic analysis tools. Such integrative frameworks enable comprehensive data acquisition that is crucial for effective implementation and cross-national comparability under GBF mandates. The authors foresee the development of globally coordinated biodiversity monitoring networks that adhere to EBV standards, facilitating harmonized data reporting and synthesis to inform international policy reviews and adaptive management cycles.
In conclusion, the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework represents a groundbreaking evolution in the global strategy for marine biodiversity conservation. By embedding scientifically rigorous, multifaceted, measurable targets rooted in the Essential Biodiversity Variables framework, it holds promise not only to rectify the shortcomings of previous targets but also to galvanize actionable policy responses. The research led by Dajka and Eilrich offers a clear endorsement of the framework’s robustness, simultaneously providing targeted advice to policymakers on implementing effective national-level measures. With dedicated commitment and proper resourcing, the GBF’s ambitious goals could significantly reverse the tide of marine biodiversity loss, safeguarding ocean ecosystems that are critical for global environmental health and human well-being.
Subject of Research: Not applicable
Article Title: From science to policy: evolving marine biodiversity targets
News Publication Date: 11-Aug-2025
Web References: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/fee.70000
Image Credits: Jan-Claas Dajka
Keywords: Marine biodiversity, Essential Biodiversity Variables, Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, marine conservation, genetic diversity, species distribution, ecosystem monitoring, biodiversity indicators, global biodiversity targets
