From Global Promise to Local Action: What the Kunming–Montreal Biodiversity Framework Means for Madagascar and Africa

The world has made an ambitious promise to halt and reverse the loss of biodiversity. But for countries such as Madagascar, where extraordinary biodiversity exists alongside persistent economic and development pressures, the real test will not be the promises made in international conference rooms. It will be whether those commitments can translate into meaningful action on the ground.

Adopted in December 2022 at the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity’s COP15 in Montreal, the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) established a global roadmap for protecting and restoring nature. The framework contains four long-term goals for 2050 and 23 targets to be pursued by 2030.

Its ambition is significant: governments agreed to work towards a world in which biodiversity is valued, conserved, restored and sustainably used, while ensuring that the benefits arising from biodiversity are shared fairly.

We know ask a fundamental question: how will these global commitments be implemented at national and local levels?

Beyond the “30 by 30” promise

Perhaps the best-known element of the framework is its Target 3, which calls for at least 30 percent of the world's terrestrial, inland water, coastal and marine areas to be effectively conserved and managed by 2030.

Often referred to as “30 by 30,” the target has become a central reference point in international biodiversity discussions.

But the framework goes much further than protected areas.

It calls for the restoration of at least 30 percent of degraded terrestrial, inland water, coastal and marine ecosystems by 2030. It also addresses pollution, invasive species, sustainable agriculture and fisheries, harmful subsidies, business impacts on biodiversity, access to genetic resources and benefit-sharing, financing, gender equality, and the participation of Indigenous peoples and local communities.

This broader approach matters for countries like Madagascar.

Protecting a forest on paper is not necessarily the same as protecting it in reality. Conservation measures must also consider the people who depend on forests, wetlands, fisheries and agricultural landscapes for their livelihoods.

Madagascar's biodiversity opportunity — and challenge

Madagascar is one of the world's most distinctive biodiversity hotspots, with species found nowhere else on Earth. Its forests, wetlands, coastal ecosystems and marine environments are not only important for global conservation efforts; they are also essential to communities whose livelihoods depend on natural resources.

This creates a difficult balance.

How can Madagascar protect ecosystems while addressing poverty, food security, employment and economic development?

The Kunming–Montreal framework recognizes that biodiversity action cannot be separated from the social and economic realities of countries. Target 1, for example, calls for participatory and integrated spatial planning while respecting the rights of Indigenous peoples and local communities.

For Madagascar and other biodiversity-rich developing countries, this principle is particularly important.

Conservation cannot simply mean establishing protected areas and expecting communities to bear the costs. The people living closest to biodiversity need to have a meaningful voice in decisions affecting their lands and resources.

Who will pay for biodiversity protection?

One of the most important questions surrounding the framework is finance.

Developing countries face a significant challenge: many of the world's remaining biodiversity-rich ecosystems are located in countries with limited financial resources.

The framework therefore calls for countries to mobilize at least $200 billion per year for biodiversity by 2030, including increased international financial resources for developing countries. It also calls for harmful incentives and subsidies to be reduced by at least $500 billion per year by 2030.

For African countries, financing is not a secondary issue. It is central to implementation.

A government may adopt an ambitious biodiversity strategy, but without funding, technical capacity, reliable data and institutions capable of enforcing environmental laws, implementation can remain limited.

This raises a difficult question for the international community: Will biodiversity finance reach the communities and countries where conservation is actually taking place?

From international commitments to national action

The GBF requires countries to develop national targets and biodiversity strategies and action plans aligned with the framework.

This is where the distance between international negotiations and local realities becomes particularly important.

A global target can be clear and measurable. But implementation depends on national institutions, local governments, scientists, civil society, communities and the private sector.

The framework therefore includes a system for planning, monitoring, reporting and reviewing progress. Countries are expected to report on their progress, while global assessments are intended to show how the world is collectively performing.

For journalists, this creates an important opportunity.

Instead of reporting only on international commitments, journalists can ask:

What has actually changed?

Are forests being restored?

Are communities benefiting from conservation?

Is biodiversity finance reaching local projects?

Are protected areas effectively managed?

Are governments reducing environmentally harmful subsidies?

Are women, young people and local communities participating in biodiversity decisions?

These questions can turn an international framework into stories that matter to ordinary people.

The voices of communities matter

Another important dimension of the framework is participation.

Biodiversity conservation has historically sometimes been approached primarily as a scientific or government issue. Yet communities living in and around ecosystems often possess detailed knowledge about their environment.

The GBF recognizes the importance of Indigenous peoples and local communities, including their participation in decision-making and their rights and traditional knowledge. Target 22 calls for full, equitable and effective participation in biodiversity-related decision-making, alongside access to justice and information.

For Madagascar, where local communities interact closely with forests, coastal areas, agricultural lands and marine ecosystems, this question deserves particular attention.

A successful biodiversity strategy should not simply ask how communities can help implement conservation. It should also ask how conservation policies can work with communities and for communities.

A framework is only as strong as its implementation

The Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework represents an important global commitment. But its success will ultimately be measured not by the language of the agreement, but by what happens beyond international meetings.

For Madagascar and other African countries, implementation will require financing, scientific and technical support, stronger institutions and meaningful participation by local communities.

It will also require governments and international partners to recognize that biodiversity protection is not separate from development.

A healthy forest can support livelihoods. Healthy oceans can sustain fisheries. Healthy ecosystems can contribute to food security, climate resilience and human well-being.

The challenge is therefore not simply to protect nature from people, but to build systems in which people and nature can thrive together.

The Kunming–Montreal framework has established the global direction. The harder task is now turning that direction into action.

For countries like Madagascar, the question is no longer whether biodiversity matters.

The question is whether the world will provide the political commitment, resources and local action needed to protect it.

Raveloaritiana Mamisoa