A “Paris Moment” for Biodiversity? Biodiversity and Climate Action After the Montreal Agreement

Boyd points to the combination of explicit human rights language and measurable commitments on conservation, restoration, and harmful subsidies. Together, these provide a stronger basis for mobilizing action and scrutinizing government performance. The decisive question is implementation: whether communities, advocates, researchers, and courts can turn the framework’s ambitions into changes in policy and practice. (Relevant discussion: 08:08)

Boyd highlights how climate litigators have combined authoritative IPCC assessments with human rights arguments to challenge inadequate government action. Biodiversity advocates can draw on IPBES assessments and existing rights protections in similar ways. The speakers also identify a potentially useful difference: some biodiversity harms have direct, localized connections to particular activities and communities, allowing litigators to document impacts and causation more readily. (Relevant discussion: 14:08)

Boyd warns against conservation models that displace people from their territories or exclude them from decisions. He emphasizes Indigenous-led conservation, respect for territorial rights, and meaningful participation by local communities, including pastoralists and peasants. The framework’s Target 3 calls for equitable governance and respect for Indigenous peoples’ and local communities’ rights, making the quality of conservation governance central to implementation. (Relevant discussion: 11:33 and 28:45)

Boyd argues that they can reinforce one another. Drawing on the Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ Advisory Opinion OC-23/17, he explains how the right to a healthy environment can encompass protection of ecosystems for their intrinsic importance. This supports an approach that connects human well-being with the protection of forests, rivers, and other elements of nature, including species without an obvious direct benefit to people. (Relevant discussion: 31:20)

Boyd argues that renewable energy alone cannot resolve the pressures created by resource extraction and excessive material consumption. He discusses “contraction and convergence”: reducing resource demands among affluent populations while improving living conditions for people experiencing poverty. He connects this challenge with circular economy approaches and the Sustainable Development Goals, emphasizing the need to pursue ecological protection and greater equality together. (Relevant discussion: 24:37)

Boyd calls for clear conditions to prevent public and philanthropic funding from supporting conservation activities likely to cause human rights violations. Funding should support rights-respecting governance and create incentives to improve community protections. The framework’s financial ambitions—including mobilizing at least $200 billion annually and reducing harmful incentives by at least $500 billion annually by 2030—make these safeguards particularly consequential. (Relevant discussion: 38:49)

Boyd identifies potential for innovative cases addressing corporate contributions to biodiversity loss, including through agriculture and forestry. He presents this as an emerging area requiring legal creativity, with uncertain prospects of immediate success. The discussion also raises a related research question: whether scientists and lawyers can trace the effects of consumption in wealthy countries to biodiversity harms elsewhere and develop accountability arguments around those connections. (Relevant discussion: 47:14 and 53:48)

The webinar is useful for environmental and human rights litigators, researchers, conservation practitioners, funders, community advocates, and students. It offers concrete questions for assessing conservation initiatives: which rights are implicated, who participates in decisions, what evidence supports accountability, and how funding conditions affect communities. It also identifies areas for further work, including corporate responsibility, cross-border consumption impacts, and the connections between human rights and rights of nature.