생물다양성협약 이행·지원 프로그램 기획·운영(Ⅴ) = Planning and Operation of Support Programs for the Implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Ⅰ. Research Background and Purpose
□ Background
ㅇ The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) entered into force in December 1993, having the following three objectives of ① the conservation of biological diversity, ② the sustainable use of the components of biological diversity, and ③ the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources.24)
- Currently, there are 196 Parties to the CBD, including the Republic of Korea.
ㅇ In the tenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP10), held in 2010 in Nagoya, Japan, the Parties adopted the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020, which includes Aichi Biodiversity Targets.
- The Strategic Plan is a ten-year framework to save biodiversity and enhance its benefits for people (CBD, UNEP, 2011).
- It aims to value, conserve, restore and wisely use biodiversity by 2050 in order to maintain ecosystem services, sustain a healthy planet and deliver benefits essential for all people (CBD, 2010).
- Most of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets under the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 cannot be met on current trajectories, according to the IPBES global assessment report (IPBES, 2019).
ㅇ The Republic of Korea hosted COP12 in the city of Pyeongchang and established the 4th NBSAP (2019-2023), laying out a set of structured biodiversity conservation policies. However, the progress towards meeting the objectives of the Convention is still very limited.
- The implementation of biodiversity conservation and sustainable use policies needs to be improved at the national level through continuous research on national biodiversity policy and international cooperation strategies related to biodiversity.
□ Purpose
ㅇ This study has been conducted to support and promote effective implementation of the CBD since 2015.
- The study in 2019 consisted of four tasks. They were: ① the analysis of key items on the international negotiation agenda under the CBD, ② the evaluation of biodiversity finance and the mechanisms for reforming environmentally harmful subsidies, ③ the promotion of international networks for technological and scientific cooperation related to biodiversity, and ④ the establishment of a policy development platform for biodiversity.
Ⅱ. Key Agenda under the CBD and its Implications
□ Two meetings were held in 2019, including the 23rd meeting of SBSTTA(Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice) and the 1st meeting of OEWG (Open-ended Working Group on post-2020 global biodiversity).
- The Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity adopted a process for the preparation of post-2020 global biodiversity, OEWG, at COP14. The OEWG was launched in 2019 and will continue its operation by COP15 which will be held in Kumming, China.
□ Post-2020 global biodiversity framework
ㅇ At COP15 that will be held in 2020, the CBD will adopt a post-2020 global biodiversity framework (GBF) that will replace the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020. In this regard, the post-2020 GBF agenda is currently of the utmost importance in the negotiation process under the CBD.
ㅇ Possible elements of the GBF and its structure were the key issues discussed at SBSTTA23 and OEWG1.
- Parties basically agreed that the post-2020 GBF should consist of ① 2050 vision, ② 2030 mission and/or apex goals and milestones, ③ goals, targets, sub-targets, and indicators, ④ means of implementation and enabling conditions, ⑤ cross-cutting issues and approaches, ⑥ transparent implementation and a monitoring and reporting mechanism, and ⑦ outreach, awareness and uptake.
- Parties put emphasis on not only goals and targets but also means of implementation and enabling conditions, including financial resources, technological and scientific cooperation and capacity-building as well as a transparent mechanism for monitoring, reporting and reviewing the implementation of goals and targets.
- Parties also stressed that targets should be specific, measurable and achievable but ambitious, results-based, and time-bound (SMART), and indicators should be developed concurrently with targets to ensure their implementation.
ㅇ The issue of fair and equitable access and benefit-sharing (ABS) from the use of genetic resources will be key in deciding the successful adoption of a post-2020 GBF, given that many developing countries such as those in Latin America and Africa particularly emphasize the importance of ABS and would like to see the new framework that reflects these concerns but developed countries are rather reluctant to set specific targets for that issue.
- Aichi Biodiversity Target 16 only requests that the Nagoya Protocol on access to genetic resources and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from their utilization is to be in force and operation, consistent with national legislation by 2015.
ㅇ There was a consensus that a post-2020 GBF should be informed by the scientific and technical evidence. Accordingly, the findings of the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem services of IPBES were stressed by Parties in particular.
□ Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services
ㅇ IPBES (2019) states that the negative trends in biodiversity and ecosystem functions are projected to continue or worsen in many future scenarios, whereas nature can be conserved, restored and used sustainably through transformative changes across economic, social, political and technological factors.
- According to IPBES (2019), most environmental goals such as those embodied by the Aichi biodiversity targets will not be achieved given current trajectories.
- However, the scientific evidence suggests that urgent and concerted efforts fostering transformative change by means of sustainable approaches, such as enabling integrative governance that ensures policy coherence and effectiveness, producing and consuming food sustainably, encouraging effective reform strategies and so on, will redirect negative trends in biodiversity to support the achievement of environmental objectives.
Ⅲ. Biodiversity Finance
□ Domestic expenditures
ㅇ According to expenditure data retrieved from EPER (Environmental Protection Expenditure and Revenue) database, the central government budget for biodiversity in 2017 was 877 billion KRW.
- The sum of local/municipal government budgets in 2017 was 1,972 billion KRW, representing 0.2 to 1.8% of the total local/municipal government budget.
ㅇ The government should take into account the importance of the environmental sector in making decisions for the national budget, and biodiversity expenditure in particular should be increased to implement the objectives of the Convention and its strategies and targets.
□ Biodiversity-relevant charges
ㅇ Biodiversity-relevant charges are one of economic instruments which provides signals to behave in a more environmentally-sustainable way.
- The cooperation charge for ecosystem conservation, the cooperation charge for the conservation of marine ecosystems, the farmland conservation levy, alternative grassland creation expenses, alternative forest resources development expenditure and the greenbelt preservation charges are defined as biodiversity-relevant charges referring to the National Institute of Biological Resources (2014).
□ International financial resource in support of biodiversity
ㅇ International financial resource flows in support of biodiversity can be estimated based on official development assistance (ODA), and total funding provided by the Republic of Korea was estimated to be 31.3 million USD in 2016, an increase of 8% compared to 2015.
- Bilateral ODA targeted biodiversity as a primary objectives stays only at the level of 0.16% among the total ODA, thus, the portion of ODA having a principal objective should be enlarged.
□ Case study of harmful subsidies
ㅇ Based on a literature review of CBD (2014), OECD (2017) and Sainteny et al. (2011), this study suggests a definition for harmful subsidies to biodiversity, provides a listing of them, conducts a case study of subsidy reform, and further provides a research methodology of environmentally harmful subsidies.
- ① Define biodiversity harmful subsidies → ② Identify harmful subsidies → ③ Assess the impacts of harmful subsidies → ④ Prioritize the harmful subsidies requiring most urgent reform → ⑤ Recommend reform measures for harmful subsidies
Ⅳ. Networks and Cooperation for Biodiversity
□ International cooperation
ㅇ KEI launched a joint pilot study with NIES (Nanjing Institute of Environment Sciences) on Ecotourism and Ecosystem Services in Korea and China.
- KEI and NIES shared research progress and experiences of both countries by holding a joint China-Korea seminar on Ecotourism and Ecosystem services assessment.
□ Korean experts and stakeholder networks
ㅇ A site visit to the DMZ and a workshop on environmental management strategies of the Han River estuary were held in 2019.
ㅇ KEI researchers participated in a workshop of environmental experts from cities and provinces to share current research on conservation and the sustainable use of biodiversity.
Ⅴ. Conclusion and Policy Recommendations
□ Strategy to cope with the CBD negotiation
ㅇ Based on an analysis of the IPBES global assessment report published in 2019, it is necessary to forecast possible elements and content of a post-2020 global biodiversity framework.
ㅇ The Korean government needs to specify its position on each issue to be included in the post-2020 global biodiversity framework, outlined in the Annex of the recommendation adopted by the 23rd SBSTTA, to cope with the 2nd OEWG, which will be held in February 2020.
ㅇ It will be useful to identify available indicators for each target topic theme on the basis of existing indicators for Aichi targets and those suggested by IPBES and BIP (Biodiversity Indicators Partnership) to predict possible SMART targets.
□ The way forward for biodiversity finance
ㅇ It is important to increase domestic and international biodiversity expenditures and in particular those targeted primarily for biodiversity.
ㅇ It will be helpful to assess the impacts of economic instruments, including biodiversity-relevant charges, so as to expand biodiversity resources.
ㅇ It is recommended that a study on subsidies harmful to biodiversity in Korea be conducted referencing the information on preliminary research design suggested in this study.
□ Networks and cooperation
ㅇ It is essential to continue research cooperation between Korea and China on ecotourism and ecosystem services, as this topic will continue to play a key role in policy decision-making in terms of the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.
ㅇ It will be useful to seek ways of promoting citizen monitoring of ecosystems in consideration of the recent prevalent use of the method by the Korean government and its potential.