Global Conservation Needs Reliable Funding

The interview with Jan-Niclas Gesenhues was conducted by Kristin Funke.

Kristin Funke: Why is the biodiversity conference important to you, and what are your expectations as you head to Yerevan?

Jan-Niclas Gesenhues: The CBD demonstrates that international law and multilateralism are alive and well. I think that’s extremely important in these times, when people like Trump are trampling on international law. The biodiversity COPs have consistently shown that the international community can reach agreement on issues. Conservation can serve as a unifying force, especially now, to protect our shared home.

And conservation is not just an end in itself: Health, food security for many people worldwide, and the economy are at stake here. Pollination by insects, birds, and other animals secures agricultural yields worldwide worth up to nearly 600 billion US dollars per year. This is not something that can be replaced by technical solutions. 

At the same time, conservation helps prevent pandemics and is a key to disease control. About 70 percent of cancer drugs, for example, are derived from natural substances or are modeled after them. In addition, there is the huge impact on climate protection. So there are plenty of good reasons to better protect our global biodiversity, and the COPs are the tool for doing so.

What specific demands are you taking with you to COP17? What are the most important points from your perspective?

One of the most important tasks is to secure global funding for biodiversity conservation. Industrialized countries have pledged 30 billion dollars per year through 2030 to so-called developing countries, but so far we are still far from reaching that target. This is a major issue of credibility, especially with regard to our partners in the Global South. I expect the German government to honor its commitments to provide 6 billion euros in climate finance and 1.5 billion euros in biodiversity finance per year. But a few days ago, it came to light that Germany is currently breaking its promises. In doing so, the government is severely damaging Germany’s credibility around the world.

A second key demand is that we make real progress toward achieving the 30x30 goal and protect 30 percent of land and marine areas by 2030. A new study by Campaign for Nature and Together for the Ocean says that if we truly implement the existing pledges made by individual countries, we can reach 27 percent by 2030. This is a great sign, especially in these times, that goals agreed upon under international law are achievable. That’s exactly what the CBD COP demonstrates. I believe it is absolutely essential to support implementation in Yerevan. 

The third important point, in my view, is that the Cali Fund becomes operational and is implemented, because this is a matter of justice. It’s unacceptable that European or American pharmaceutical or cosmetic companies earn billions by exploiting biodiversity while Indigenous peoples and local communities are left empty-handed. The Cali Fund is intended to receive contributions from industry, pharmaceutical companies and cosmetics companies, with the funds specifically allocated to supporting the countries and communities from which these resources originate. This global benefit-sharing system must work. This is a fundamental question of justice, and the Yerevan COP must follow through on it.

Progress toward achieving the targets of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), which was adopted in 2022, is still very limited. We are now halfway to 2030. Where do we need to act on a global level to achieve these goals? 

If we do not meet the targets by 2030, the cost of necessary measures to combat biodiversity loss will double. At the same time, food is becoming more expensive, extreme weather events are becoming more severe, and diseases and crop failures are becoming more frequent. That’s why it’s so important that we follow through on our global goals now. Things are looking pretty good for the 30x30 goal on land, but not so much in the oceans. Yet the oceans are an extremely important source of food and a treasure trove of biodiversity. That’s why it’s crucial that the upcoming first Conference of the Parties to the BBNJ Agreement – the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction – be a success, so that we can achieve the 30x30 goal in the oceans as well.

The second issue here is the severe pollution caused by chemicals and plastic, which is one of the main drivers of biodiversity loss. There is an important goal in the GBF that aims to halve the harmful effects of toxic inputs on the natural environment. The international community needs to make progress in this area, and Europe, for example, can now deliver concrete results with the process to ban certain PFAS – the so-called “forever chemicals”. 

Another important goal is the elimination of environmentally harmful subsidies. One thing I would abolish immediately would be tax breaks for gas and oil in plastic production. These are extremely harmful to the environment. These three points – reducing toxic impacts, phasing out environmentally harmful subsidies and protecting marine biodiversity – are important GBF goals where I expect progress from the COP.

You have already mentioned the fossil fuel industry as a driver of biodiversity loss; who else do you see playing a role here? How can we counteract these drivers, both globally and here in Germany? 

The main causes of biodiversity loss are habitat loss and toxic substances in the environment. Habitat loss is largely due to the extraction of raw materials and industrialized agriculture. That’s why, in my view, these are the areas where we need to focus our efforts. We must stop extracting raw materials from nature, using them once, and then disposing of them back into nature. That’s simply not sustainable. What’s needed globally is a true circular economy; this is extremely important for biodiversity. So, we need to replace raw material extraction with a true circular economy, and replace industrialized agriculture with small-scale, organic farming, accompanied by a more sustainable diet and a reduction in pesticide use. 

Another point: Conservation alone is no longer enough. In addition to designating protected areas, the most important thing is that we now embark on a decade of restoration. This doesn’t even necessarily have to result in protected areas. The goal would be to restore developed waterways to a more natural state, remove paving from sealed areas, and restore forests to a state closer to nature. That is at least as important as designating protected areas.

What are Alliance 90/The Greens’ policy proposals regarding conservation and biodiversity in Germany? 

In my view, our most important demand is that the German government honor its international financial commitments: one billion euros for the TFFF global rainforest fund, 6 billion euros in climate finance, and 1.5 billion euros in biodiversity finance. The government is falling short, and that is why we are pushing for this to be corrected and for the promises to be kept. We have just submitted a major motion to the Bundestag in which we list, in very specific terms and by budget line, where funding needs to be increased – particularly in the budget of the Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), because that is where most of the funds for global climate and biodiversity finance are allocated. And we are doing everything we can to ensure that the CDU does not succeed in blocking TFFF funding.

The second demand is that the government follow through on and strengthen the implementation of the national biodiversity strategy. Germany must also meet the 30 percent target, but it is still 17 percent short of the required land area. The government must also consistently implement the EU Nature Restoration Regulation – that is, the Nature Restoration Law. 80 percent of Europe’s ecosystems are in poor condition. In Germany, more than 95 percent of the bogs and wetlands have been destroyed and drained. What is needed here is a broad-based restoration program, as well as a significant increase in funding for the Federal Action Plan on Nature-based Solutions for Climate and Biodiversity (ANK) and the nature conservation fund. This would also benefit local communities and farms, as it would lead to better water management on their land and greater soil biodiversity, which ultimately helps ensure good harvests. Restoration is not only about nature conservation; it also benefits agriculture, flood protection, public health, and the quality of life in our cities. In this regard, the government needs to do much more than it has so far.

Projects at the municipal or regional level clearly demonstrate that this can work. There are already a number of successful examples.

Yes, I’m really happy to see that. When we were in the federal government, we fought hard to get the ANK passed despite massive opposition, and now it’s here. My heart fills with joy every time I see the Aasee being restored to its natural state back home in Ibbenbüren. Or that 75 ANK projects were implemented in Bremen – a number that is far disproportionate to the state’s size and financial resources. From formerly paved areas where urban gardening and neighborhood initiatives have now found a home, to large-scale wetland restoration projects and species conservation programs in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, where the lesser spotted eagle population is finally stabilizing again and, at the same time, many wonderful natural areas and habitats are being restored – that’s where I see the fruits of our hard work. Seeing that the political decisions we’ve made actually lead to tangible results – and don’t just remain abstract – is so valuable and really feels good. 

In the policy paper you recently co-authored with Green Party co-leader Felix Banaszak, you advocate a new conservation agenda and argue that large-scale private investment, innovative businesses and new business models are also needed to drive major conservation projects. How can this work when previous experience with biodiversity banks, certificates, offset credits, and other financial market-based instruments shows that they are fraught with risks and inherent contradictions and have not yielded any significant successes in biodiversity conservation? 

The GBF makes it very clear that we simply cannot cover this enormous funding requirement for biodiversity conservation with tax revenue alone. Governments don’t have enough money for that. We need public funds, philanthropic foundations, but also funding from the private sector. On the one hand, there are mandatory contributions – through the Cali Fund, for example – to compensate countries and Indigenous communities when companies profit from biodiversity. 

On the other, there are incentives for companies to invest in biodiversity. We can’t do it without these resources, which is why I find the idea of seeking out allies for biodiversity conservation – ones that are perhaps not immediately obvious – quite exciting. Food retailers, for example, who say, “We don’t want dubious carbon credits; we want to offset our carbon footprint through peatland restoration in Europe.” Or chocolate and rubber producers who know that they must invest in biodiversity throughout their supply chains because their business models depend on it. There are various approaches. Some companies are investing in the resilience of their supply chains. Others ask how conservation work can create enough buzz to boost sales. One example is the significant economic impact of national parks around the world. Especially in lower-income countries, nature-based tourism generates revenue and creates jobs. I don’t have a problem with companies making money from birdwatching trips – as long as nature benefits from it and the local community is involved.

Finally, and this is something forward-thinking companies are telling us, too, we need regulatory frameworks. We cannot allow the Green Deal to be rolled back now, thereby penalizing the very companies that are leading the way. We need supply chain resilience, biodiversity-centered business models, and regulatory frameworks that enhance the competitive position of companies at the forefront of biodiversity efforts. In my opinion, those are the three components we need. If the right incentives and regulatory framework are in place, the private sector can also be an important player – at least those parts of the private sector that are no longer willing to base their business models solely on the destruction of nature, but have recognized that they can sustain their businesses only by taking action to protect biodiversity. We should stand behind business leaders who are calling for the Deforestation Directive, the Supply Chain Act, and the Restoration Regulation to remain in place.

Apart from the CBD, which international forums and initiatives do you consider relevant or promising for the protection of biodiversity? 

First, I’d like to mention two more multilateral processes, because they’re absolutely crucial. First, the BBNJ Agreement, which addresses the conservation of marine biodiversity in the high seas, because it appears to have the strongest enforcement mechanisms of any global agreement and is the only one that designates specific protected areas. The parties to it can make decisions by a qualified majority; unanimity is not required. I have high hopes for the BBNJ Agreement. Second, I expect the German government to make a new attempt to advance global negotiations on a plastic reduction agreement. In my view, qualified majorities are the way to go here as well. We cannot allow ourselves to be held hostage by individual oil-producing countries with fossil-fuel-based business models. 

But aside from the multilateral forums, I would like to highlight the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity. It’s holding its own global gathering of Indigenous peoples and local communities, focusing on issues such as reconciling the strengthening of Indigenous land rights and biodiversity conservation. I think that’s extremely relevant. 

Another thing to keep an eye on is the annual meetings of IPBES – the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services – because a lot has happened there. I find it really exciting that IPBES has now teamed up with social scientists, because they’ve recognized that scientific knowledge alone isn’t enough – we also need a political plan for implementation. Who are our allies? Who are the key players? When is the timing right? It’s almost a cliché by now, but the issue isn’t a lack of scientific knowledge, we just need to put what we know into practice. 

My favorite instruments are actually the bilateral biodiversity partnerships, or NBSAP Accelerator Partnerships. When I was parliamentary state secretary, I traveled to Cali and Rome with founding documents and, together with 10 to 15 countries – from Armenia to Colombia to Somalia – launched such biodiversity partnerships. There’s an incredible amount of potential here, because it really comes down to this: How do we put this into practice? Where do I designate a protected area? What does a protected area ordinance look like? What other programs can I establish? What kind of capacity building do I need for this? How do I involve local communities? That’s where conservation really comes into play, and I believe that we in Germany have a lot to offer with our expertise in protected area management – but conversely, there is also an incredible amount that we can learn. That’s where national park rangers from Rwanda and Germany get together and exchange practical insights as equals. That’s what I think is so brilliant about this instrument. It’s something we urgently need to strengthen and expand.