Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Correspondence
  • Published:

The Global Biodiversity Framework’s ecosystem restoration target requires more clarity and careful legal interpretation

Nature Ecology & Evolution volume 8, pages 840–841 (2024)Cite this article

Subjects

With the passage of the one-year anniversary of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), substantial effort is still needed to progress Target 2 — the ‘restoration target’. The restoration target guides parties to “ensure that by 2030 at least 30 per cent of areas of degraded terrestrial, inland water, and marine and coastal ecosystems are under effective restoration, in order to enhance biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services, ecological integrity and connectivity”1. This target is a critical step towards upscaling global restoration, but almost every word of it provides scope for legal and ecological interpretation. This could result in markedly different on-the-ground outcomes for conservation once applied at a national level.

Although nebulous targets are a common by-product of the international negotiation process2, definitional uncertainty in the meaning of key terms can lead to markedly different models of implementation across different countries and make success difficult to assess and measure2,3. More fundamentally, it is crucial that the key elements of Target 2 are interpreted in the spirit of the GBF — that is, to achieve rapid, ambitious and large-scale restoration of global ecosystems, which is a critical goal given the ongoing deterioration of ecosystems globally.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Convention on Biological Diversity. Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, CBD/COP/DEC/15/4 (CBD, 2022).

  2. Butchart, S. H. M. et al. Conserv. Lett. 9, 457–468 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Maxwell, S. L. et al. Science 347, 1075–1076 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bayraktarov, E. et al. Ecol. Appl. 26, 1055–1074 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bell-James, J. et al. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 5, e13050 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Mendes, A. et al. Rev. Eur. Comp. Int. Environ. Law. 32, 3–17 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Thompson, I. D. et al. Ecol. Soc. 18, 20 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Pauly, D. Trends Ecol. Evol. 10, 430 (1995).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Duarte, C. M. et al. Nature 580, 39–51 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bell-James, J. J. Environ. Law 35, 419–436 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Secretariat for the Convention on Biological Diversity. Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework Guidance notes: Target 2. cbd.int, https://www.cbd.int/gbf/targets/2/ (CBD, 2023).

  12. Palmer, M. A. & Stewart, G. A. One Earth 3, 661–664 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Wodehouse, D. C. J. & Rayment, M. B. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 222, 91–102 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Convention on Biological Diversity. Report of the Thematic Workshop on Ecosystem Restoration for the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, CBD/POST2020/WS/2019/11/5 (CBD, 2020).

  15. Sandbrook, C. et al. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 7, 784–785 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. TC Beirne School of Law, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

    Justine Bell-James & Rose Foster

  2. Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

    Justine Bell-James, Rose Foster, Nicole Shumway, Catherine E. Lovelock & Megan I. Saunders

  3. Centre for Policy Futures, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

    Rose Foster & Nicole Shumway

  4. School of the Environment, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

    Catherine E. Lovelock

  5. Coastal and Marine Research Centre, Australian Rivers Institute, Griffith University, Nathan, Queensland, Australia

    Jaramar Villarreal-Rosas

  6. Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania, Taroona, Tasmania, Australia

    Christopher J. Brown

  7. Ocean Conservation, World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC, United States of America

    Dominic A. Andradi-Brown

  8. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Hobart, Tasmania, Australia

    Megan I. Saunders

  9. Centre for Tropical Water and Aquatic Ecosystem Research, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia

    Nathan J. Waltham

  10. The Nature Conservancy, Carlton, Victoria, Australia

    James A. Fitzsimons

  11. School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia

    James A. Fitzsimons

  12. School of Law, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia

    James A. Fitzsimons

Authors
  1. Justine Bell-James
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rose Foster
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nicole Shumway
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Catherine E. Lovelock
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jaramar Villarreal-Rosas
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Christopher J. Brown
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Dominic A. Andradi-Brown
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Megan I. Saunders
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Nathan J. Waltham
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  10. James A. Fitzsimons
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Justine Bell-James.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no completing interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Table 1

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bell-James, J., Foster, R., Shumway, N. et al. The Global Biodiversity Framework’s ecosystem restoration target requires more clarity and careful legal interpretation. Nat Ecol Evol 8, 840–841 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-024-02389-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-024-02389-6

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing