Appendices

Kunming–Montreal Global Framework Agreement: a zero strategy for nature protection

As previously described in the Concept of Territories of Full Ecological Tranquility (TFET), the world is facing a massive biodiversity crisis. There are numerous estimates of how much total biomass has been permanently lost over the past 50 years; there are also findings from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), according to which around one million plant and animal species are at risk of extinction. We are talking about what is most valuable in the history of the planet — the genetic diversity of the biosphere. The disappearance of genetic diversity means, above all, the loss of millions of years of Earth’s evolutionary history.

In response to this threat, the international community has adopted a number of agreements intended to halt and reverse biodiversity loss. This shows that positive trends — or at least recognition of the global crisis — do exist after all! One of the central documents intended to address the problem of species extinction was the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), adopted in 2022.

However, already by 2025, it is becoming clear that the goals of the agreement are unattainable. A historic initiative that could have influenced the destruction of the world’s ecosystems has effectively failed.

The Kunming–Montreal agreement was developed under the auspices of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and adopted by nearly 200 countries in 2022. Its goals were ambitious: to conserve and restore the planet’s biodiversity by 2030 through a series of measures:

1. It was assumed that by 2030 each participating state would ensure the “effective restoration” of areas important for biodiversity that had been destroyed by human activity. The plan was to restore at least 30% of degraded territories.

2. To halt the further destruction of key natural areas, including specially protected natural areas (nature reserves and national parks) and marine areas. Thus, under the adopted agreement, states were expected to place at least 30% of terrestrial and marine areas under protection.

According to the plan, countries were expected to unite and present their own strategies and action plans for biodiversity restoration.

However, on February 17, 2025, a scientific review was published in Nature Ecology & Evolution describing the results of the agreement several years after its adoption. The report is titled “Ambitions in national plans do not yet match bold international protection and restoration commitments”

By 2025, only 36 countries — less than one quarter of the participants — had submitted ecosystem restoration plans in accordance with the requirements of the agreement. Among these 36 countries:

• Only 9 clearly specified concrete percentage targets for the restoration of territories, instead of vague wording such as “large areas” or “priority zones.”

• Only 6 countries, including China, Luxembourg, Japan, and several others, genuinely expressed their willingness to achieve the target of restoring 30% of degraded territories.

• At the same time, 14 countries declared their intention to protect at least 30% of their land and marine areas, as required by the agreement.

Thus, the “30%–30%” target — restoration and protection — was supported by only a few countries, while the rest were willing to sign the document but did not even plan to implement it. Moreover, even those that declared their intention to achieve 30% restoration did not present detailed mechanisms guaranteeing the actual quality of the protected territories, including areas of particular importance for biodiversity, habitats of rare species, and so on.

In the scientific report, the researchers identify several factors preventing the successful fulfillment of these commitments:

1. There is no centralization of action or genuine consolidation among states! Only a general framework convention was created, without real mechanisms or methodologies. Each state acts independently and is forced to develop its own restoration methods and find the necessary resources.

2. Many government documents contain vague language and bureaucratic “systemic evasions.” It can be said that even the few states that at least prepared responses under the adopted agreement simply avoided responsibility for restoring nature in documentary form.

3. The Convention does not provide for strict sanctions for non-compliance or mechanisms of encouragement. This means that violating obligations does not result in economic or political consequences. In practice, implementation of the agreement is entirely voluntary. It is merely a recommendation!

4. There is also severe inequality among the parties to the agreement. The situation is very simple: poorer countries with a high degree of environmental degradation do not have the resources needed for restoration, while the scale of destruction there is many times greater than in more developed regions.

Undoubtedly, the Convention and the agreement adopted by the international community carry the right message, but real-world practice demonstrates that states are unable to consolidate and do not possess a unified governance mechanism or strategy. In essence, everyone understands how dangerous the ongoing ecological collapse is, but no one knows what to do or how to influence it. That is why, within the framework of our Concept of Territories of Full Ecological Tranquility (TFET), we call for concrete action to protect Earth’s biosphere.

Unlike the GBF, which is essentially merely a recommendation to states, the TFET Concept is a real project aimed at preventing the further destruction of the world’s ecosystems through the mandatory creation of global wildlife refuges.

Our Concept should become the foundation for projects similar to the agreement adopted under the Convention on Biological Diversity. It offers a precise and understandable mechanism for protecting the world’s ecosystems. The central idea of TFET is the large-scale integration of existing protected areas, including nature reserves and national parks, together with the least disturbed ecosystems, into unified ecological complexes where human intervention is reduced to a minimum.

Unlike the fragmented approach, in which each country chooses the format and level of participation that is “convenient” for it, TFET proposes a centralized control mechanism and strict restrictions.

It should be noted that under the agreement adopted within the Convention on Biological Diversity, states circumvent all possible restrictions through bureaucracy, while economic activity is still permitted in areas that are supposed to be restored.

The TFET Concept, by contrast, provides for the complete exclusion of economic activity, minimizing human impact and giving ecosystems the full conditions necessary for self-regulation and recovery.

In addition, the Concept provides for international legal status and long-term funding capable of protecting TFET territories from the political and economic priorities of individual states.

The GBF is a voluntary commitment under which each state must independently search for ways to solve environmental problems.

TFET means the mandatory creation of natural refuges around the world under the centralized control of the international community.

Thus, the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) attempts to find a compromise between nature conservation and economic development by permitting the “sustainable use” of resources in areas of wildlife undergoing restoration. The Concept of Territories of Full Ecological Tranquility implies a radical rejection of ecosystem exploitation within designated territories.

From a scientific standpoint, under conditions of a deepening ecological crisis, stricter approaches, such as the TFET Concept, offer the greatest chance of preserving critically important species and ecosystems. They eliminate the influence of the human factor and give wildlife the opportunity to fully recover and maintain its natural state.

In conclusion, it should be emphasized that the Convention on Biological Diversity and the GBF agreements represent a significant step forward for the entire world, if only because states publicly and unanimously recognize the global ecocide and the need for urgent action to protect Earth’s biosphere. But when fewer than one quarter of the participating countries have even formally declared action plans, while the majority continue to ignore the terms of the agreement, it becomes clear that a more effective mechanism is needed.

The TFET Concept must be brought to the center of the international agenda and made the foundation and key mechanism of a strategy for protecting the world’s ecosystems. Only then can we expect genuine global change.

Collaboration.

This Concept of Territories of Full Ecological Tranquility was prepared by Russian researcher Pavel Pashkov. The Concept is intended to be supplemented and expanded, and the work also requires comprehensive peer review by the international scientific community.

All updates to the current Concept will be published on the author’s official website at: https://pavel-pashkov.com/concept

As part of our efforts to advance the TFET Concept, we are open to cooperation with the scientific community, governments, organizations, and the public. We are also open to implementing joint projects capable of accelerating the international adoption of the Concept and its practical implementation.

For cooperation inquiries, please send proposals by email to: mission@pavel-pashkov.com

Scientific references

1. Living Planet Report 2018: https://www.wwf.eu/campaigns/living_planet_report_2018

2. Study by Russian scientists on the biotic regulation of climate: https://www.bioticregulation.ru/offprint/eo06.pdf

3. Mutilation of the tree of life via mass extinction of animal genera: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2306987120

4. Mammal diversity will take millions of years to recover from the current biodiversity crisis: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30322924/

5. Global Protected Areas as refuges for amphibians and reptiles under climate change: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-36987-y

6. The synergy between protected area effectiveness and economic growth: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2024.05.044

7. Advancing EDGE Zones to identify spatial conservation priorities of tetrapod evolutionary history: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-51992-5

8. Conservation Imperatives: securing the last unprotected terrestrial sites harboring irreplaceable biodiversity: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/science/articles/10.3389/fsci.2024.1349350/full

9. State of the World’s Plants and Fungi 2023: https://www.kew.org/science/state-of-the-worlds-plants-and-fungi

10. Living Planet Report 2024: https://wwflpr.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/2024-living-planet-report-a-system-in-peril.pdf

11. More than one in three tree species worldwide faces extinction - IUCN Red List: https://iucn.org/press-release/202410/more-one-three-tree-species-worldwide-faces-extinction-iucn-red-list

12. Earth beyond six of nine planetary boundaries: https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adh2458

13. Nature Ecology & Evolution. DOI: 10.1038/s41559-025-02636-4: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-025-02636-4

14. Global human population has surpassed Earth’s sustainable carrying capacity: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ae51aa

15. Intact forest landscapes of Northern European Russia: https://www.wri.org/research/last-intact-forest-landscapes-northern-european-russia