Answer

India’s submission of 23 national targets aligned with the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KM-GBF) marks a significant commitment to biodiversity conservation. However, achieving these targets by 2030 faces numerous challenges, including habitat destruction, financial constraints etc.

Current Challenges in Achieving the 23 National Biodiversity Targets by 2030

• Habitat Destruction and Fragmentation: Rapid urbanization and industrial expansion continue to destroy natural habitats, reducing the space available for biodiversity. Fragmentation of ecosystems weakens their ability to support diverse species.
  For example: Global Forest Watch (GFW) have reported that India lost approximately 23,300 square kilometres of tree cover between 2001 and 2023,
• Invasive Species: The introduction of non-native species, either intentionally or accidentally, threatens indigenous biodiversity by outcompeting or predating local species.
  For example: The introduction of the African catfish (Clarias gariepinus) into India’s freshwater systems has led to the decline of native fish species.
• Pollution: Industrial waste, agricultural runoff, and untreated sewage are polluting air, water, and soil, causing harm to ecosystems and species.
  For example: The Ganga, Yamuna, and other major rivers in India suffer from high pollution levels, which has significantly impacted the biodiversity of aquatic species such as the Ganges dolphin.
• Weak Enforcement of Environmental Laws: While India has a robust legal framework for biodiversity conservation (e.g., Wildlife Protection Act, 1972; Biological Diversity Act, 2002), enforcement remains weak due to institutional inefficiencies and lack of coordination.
• Conflicts Between Development and Conservation: Development projects such as mining, infrastructure expansion, and agricultural intensification often come at the expense of ecosystems and biodiversity.
  For example: The diversion of 400 acres of forest in Hyderabad for urban development underscores the clash between progress and environmental preservation. It risks biodiversity and ecosystems, sparking protests for sustainable alternatives.

Assessments of  institutional capacities

• Financial Constraints and Resource Mobilization: India faces challenges in securing adequate funding for biodiversity conservation, with a shortfall in the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund.
• Data Gaps and Monitoring Challenges: The lack of robust biodiversity data and monitoring systems hampers effective conservation.
  For example: More than 85% of countries miss the UN deadline to submit nature pledges.
• Institutional Capacity and Coordination: Institutional fragmentation and limited local capacity hinder coordination and effective implementation.
  For example: Kerala State Biodiversity Board’s integration efforts highlight the need for stronger local frameworks.
• Socio-Cultural and Livelihood Considerations: Biodiversity strategies must balance conservation with the livelihoods and cultural practices of local communities.
  For example: Traditional knowledge integration is vital for effective conservation.
• Policy Coherence and Governance: Conflicting developmental priorities and governance issues complicate the integration of biodiversity into broader policies.
• Public Engagement and Awareness: Active public involvement in biodiversity conservation is limited due to insufficient awareness and capacity.
  For example: Community-based monitoring faces challenges in terms of local participation.

Way Ahead

• Financial Constraints and Resource Mobilization: Mobilize private sector investments, increase international financial support, and establish innovative funding mechanisms like biodiversity bonds.
  For example: Encourage partnerships with green financing bodies and international climate funds to bridge the financial gap.
• Data Gaps and Monitoring Challenges: Strengthen national data collection mechanisms, adopt advanced monitoring technologies (e.g., satellite imaging), and collaborate with international organizations for data sharing.
  For example: Utilize platforms like the Biodiversity Information System (BIS) to consolidate data and ensure regular reporting.
• Institutional Capacity and Coordination: Strengthen inter-departmental coordination and local government capacities by providing training, resources, and clearer mandates for biodiversity-related roles.
  For example: Establish dedicated biodiversity cells at state and district levels to ensure seamless coordination and implementation. 
• Socio-Cultural and Livelihood Considerations:  Involve local communities and indigenous groups in decision-making processes, ensuring that conservation efforts align with traditional knowledge and livelihoods.
  For example: Implement community-based conservation projects like the Sacred Groves of Kerala, where local knowledge supports biodiversity protection.
• Policy Coherence and Governance: Align biodiversity goals with broader development policies, ensuring that economic growth does not compromise ecological sustainability.
  For example: Integrate biodiversity considerations into the National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) and other policy frameworks.
• Public Engagement and Awareness: Increase public education on biodiversity through media campaigns, school programs, and community-level awareness initiatives.
  For example: Launch national biodiversity awareness campaigns to engage citizens in conservation activities, similar to the “Save the Tiger” campaign.

While India’s commitment to the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework reflects strong intent, achieving the 23 national targets by 2030 demands more than policy declarations. It requires robust institutional coordination, increased funding, effective enforcement, and community participation. Without addressing current gaps in implementation and capacity, the targets risk remaining aspirational. A sustained, inclusive, and science-backed approach is essential to turn this biodiversity vision into reality.

DOWNLOAD PDF