2020 was meant to be the year of biodiversity. This was the year in which, at the 15th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, world leaders would gather in Kunming, and reflect on the past decade – a decade characterised by inaction, and a suite of targets related to halting the loss of biodiversity that have been spectacularly missed. In spite of my 35 years working in conservation, I had allowed myself some optimism that coming out if this reckoning, we might see a different approach. Perhaps some measurable, binding targets for all those governments that have so readily embraced ownership of their genetic resources but not the responsibility that goes with that sovereignty. Or perhaps biodiversity funding mechanisms that support civil society, which does so much of the heavy lifting when it comes to actual conservation action.

Unfortunately, none of this has come to pass. Instead, 2020 is the year of COVID-19 – the tiniest fraction of genetic diversity you can imagine, but with an impact that was previously unimaginable. Once the COVID pandemic started, I had hoped that people might recognise it as an example or even a metaphor for the way that we interact with biodiversity – with little respect or understanding – and that maybe something good for biodiversity might emerge from this. However, the truth is that governments and society are currently just in survival mode, reacting to concurrent crises and hoping we learn something in the process. It takes me back to a time a decade ago when I was involved in policy consultations being conducted by the Department of Environment here in the UK. The panel I was on wanted to ensure that long term climate adaptation strategies were put in place based on long term research. The problem was that government budgets always seemed to be allocated to whatever the current crisis was – ash dieback disease, flood defences – basically wherever Ministers found themselves neck deep in trouble, and needing to show that something was being done. The fact that no government saw COVID-19 coming hardly fills me with confidence. So, if not governments – largely elected on short term electoral cycles – who is doing this long term thinking, and how is this kind of thinking incorporated into policy and budgets? If you know, please let me know, and if you can think of a government that engages in long term planning, please also send me immigration instructions.

In the meantime, I’d like to draw your attention to the value of logical, long term, strategic frameworks with clear, easily understood, measurable targets and milestones. One such strategy is the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation, which our global community of plant conservationists has enthusiastically adopted and followed for the past 20 years. Next month, on September 15th, BGCI will publish the ‘Plant Conservation Report 2020’, a supplement to Global Biodiversity Outlook 5 and, believe it or not, it contains some good news for biodiversity. Significant progress has been made against nearly all of the targets, for example: World Flora Online (Target 1); Global Tree Assessment (Target 2); important areas for plant diversity protected (Target 5); threatened plants protected in situ (Target 7), and ex situ (Target 8); no species of wild flora endangered by international trade (Target 11), and; communication of the importance of plant diversity (Target 14). While the botanical community has embraced the GSPC, including many government institutions, national governments have been more reluctant to do so. With the honourable exception of mega-diverse countries such as Brazil, China, Colombia, Indonesia, Mexico, Philippines and South Africa, the GSPC has not yet gained enough traction to unlock the personnel and funding we need to prevent the mass extinction of plants. Dare we hope that the example set by the GSPC might catalyse a different kind of post 2020 biodiversity framework? Watch this space.