Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework - 2030 Targets

Who’s read the Convention on Biological Diversity’s 23 action-oriented targets for urgent action over the coming decade to 2030 - ie, the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework?

I know this sentence alone will probably elicit a yawn with many, but that’s the intent. Don’t worry - I read them so you don’t have to.

The intro goes as per below -

In brief, the 23 action-oriented targets break into 3 categories;

1. Reducing threats to biodiversity

2. Meeting people’s needs through sustainable use and benefit-sharing

3. Tools and solutions for implementation and mainstreaming

But - as per usual - what’s of worry is more what they don’t outline, as opposed to what they do. And by this I mean not just the consequences of the pushing these through, but also the apparatus which is currently being assembled to slot into this plan, outlining our future living in slavery.

And before diving in, I would request you read my article on the Ecosystem Approach, because much of this ties into the planned, hierarchical organisational structure they seek to push through — which is nothing short of a return to feudalism, where you will own nothing and be happy. Or not. Whatever. As if they care.

The Ecosystem Approach

-

Part 1: Reducing threats to biodiversity

We kick off with a bad one, target 1, because what they in effect say, is that the entire world will need to adopt their ‘management’ scheme, be it land or sea. There is simply no escape, so forget all about buying a plot of land in Montana and waiting for this to blow over. It’s global.

Spatial planning is another of those coded terms, because on land, you could likewise call it the ‘Landscape Approach’ or ‘Integrated Landscape Management’, though this does comprise the seas. Spatial means it’s arbitrary, and could be used to describe your house, your plot, your neighbourhood, your nation, or even your continent. It’s absolutely arbitraty, and those calling the shots in terms of definition will… certainly not be you. Enter the stakeholder.

The primary issue here - beyond land owner rights being stripped wholesale - relates to the ‘stakeholder’ management system they seek to push through - detailed in my article on the Ecosystem Approach linked above.

We’ve seen the same percentaget repeatedly throughout high-level outputs, courtesy of the most powerful institutions, or connected initiatives on the planet. 30% by 2030.

Here’s HRH Prince Charles and the Terra Carta of 2021 -

'... protection and restoration of a minimum of 30% of biodiversity, on land and below water, by 2030 and 50% by 2050.'

And to address the potential issue of that document being unrelated (because it for absolutely certain is not) -

‘3. The aims of the Terra Carta will be met by:

1. Furthering, and where possible exceeding, the goals and targets outlined in the Paris Climate Agreement, the Sustainable Development Goals, the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention to Combat Desertification and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.‘

And for those who think this cuts through evenly -

'... it is recognized that actions outlined by the Terra Carta will not apply equally to all...'

And finally, considering this plan in general -

'The Terra Carta is to be a living document that will be reported on and updated annually... Broadening the definition of sustainability...‘

It’s a ‘global transition’, after all, though they may have to change the rules of the game mid-way, should you find a way to prosper.

There’s a level of overlap between targets 2 and 3, as well as the planned Ecosystem Approach management system, which should be ‘conserved and managed through ecologically representative, well-connected and equitably governed systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures’. Ie, certainly not you.

Further, there’s a reference to ‘ecosystem functions and services‘. This is highly important, but goes more naturally with a later target which we will get to soon.

Target 4 in short lets you know that this isn’t one of those plans which will kick in 30 years down the line. This will be rushed in soon - and frankly, the scale of crisis required to cover up the passing of this document… we’ll get to that soon enough - this also ties in with target 3’s ‘ecosystem functions and services’ above.

We are the again reminded in target 5 that - make no mistake - this is about applying the Ecosystem Approach.

This, of course, will be blamed on you, and your irresponsible trip to Mallorca with your family every year in July. The only solution is for you to stop travelling, full stop.

This message was delivered to you via one of Bill Gates’s four private lear jets.

All pollution must go, states target 7; ‘reducing excess nutrients lost to the environment’ clearly refers to chemical fertiliser use by agriculture, meaning lower food production yields, and hence higher prices for the prole. They then repeat this message, by outlining ‘pesticides and highly hazardous chemicals’, again used by agriculture. For the record, what constitutes a ‘hazardous chemicals’… well, let’s just put it this way - there’s no democratic process behind the maintenance of this list, and you have absolutely no control over what will be added next, meaning it could describe quite literally anything.

Even chemical fertiliser - the addition of which would yield a total ban. Sort of like what happened on Sri Lanka in 2021, but this time, globally.

And once again, we’re back to preaching at the high altar of ‘biodiversity’, which only an utter fool or heinously corrupt kleptocrat could think he would ever master - though I’m not so sure the latter doesn’t do this just for sakes of global governance only.

-

Part 2: Meeting people’s needs through sustainable use and benefit-sharing

Target 9 pertains to the ecosystem services, and the ‘sustainable’ use of wildlife biodiversity resources. More on that later.

This message carries on in target 10, looping in agriculture, fisheries, and forestry, demands the application of ‘biodiversity friendly practices’, and specifically include the ‘ecosystem functions and services’ part otherwise implied.

Target 11 opens up for methods of implementation, and obviously, this will go through the legal system, calling for ‘regulation of air, water and climate, soil health, pollination and………….. reduction of disease risk‘. Naturally, this will be achieved through ‘ecosystem-based approaches‘.

It’s at this stage I will casually include a link to the CITES output; ‘ROLE OF CITES IN REDUCING RISK OF FUTURE ZOONOTIC DISEASE EMERGENCE ASSOCIATED WITH INTERNATIONAL WILDLIFE TRADE‘ -

Let’s skip straight to page 20 of the document -

‘The fifth edition of the Global Biodiversity Outlook (GBO-5) launched in September 2020 includes a section on *The Biodiversity-inclusive One Health Transition* - one of eight areas of transition that may be needed to achieve living in harmony with nature.

More recently, the adoption of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF) also brings up the link between sustainable and safe wildlife management and disease prevention.‘

… not only does this refer to the document at hand, but it also loops in One Health, meaning you along with all the other animals…

Target 12 means they’ll increase the media/education onslaught of quasi-scientific outputs, ‘educating’ you about the importance of lowering your living standards to eventually… zero.

To protect you.

One of the more worrying phrases in the document can be located in target 13; ‘digital sequence information on genetic resources‘, because although very difficult to document in detail, what I personally think they’ll do is incomprehensibly creepy and disgusting through and through, and should once and for all display how little regard they have for your ‘right’ to ‘privacy’. Which in their eyes is none.

Welcome to the field of next-gen sequencing. It’s a longer topic, on which I invite you to read up, as it’s outside the scope of this article.

But the trouble is that the storage required to store every human genome is prohibitively large - so consider the topic of DNA Data Storage, which - for the record - is funded by the likes of DARPA.

The document goes on to state that a full genome takes around 715mb of data, which clearly makes it completely impractical for current generation storage technologies

It also details that each bit is stored in 14 atoms only, meaning a single gram of DNA storage can store 215 petabytes. We’re not just talking about this being miles ahead of contemporary SSD’s, we’re talking about this being in a completely different solar system.

But, hey, that’s just fantasy, right? That’ll never happen. Well, about that… and announced January 15, 2020, too. Golly. Just in time for all those scamdemic swabs.

-

Part 3: Tools and solutions for implementation and mainstreaming

What’s of importance here is that you will not be asked. The legislative changes will permeate every law, every regulation, and you will not be allowed to build that extension unless you save at least 22.7 biodiversities in the process. Or bribe someone, who will then fabricate the paperwork for you. Not that you’ll own the land anyway. Or even be able to afford building an extension. Or be allowed to chop down trees for building material.

And this affects private as well as public ownership. It slots in with target 1 above, really, because this is the enforcement mechanism being outlines.

And don’t be so bloody foolish to think that voting labour instead of conservative will fix the issue. They are both compliant.

Target 15 repeats the measures from target 14, but also loops in large corporate entities, which require monitoring, assessment, and risk disclosure. This, of course, can easily be used to drive any enterprise out of business in no time whatsoever through the Social License to Operate, and arbitrary ESG regulation.

And before you know this will be extended to medium sized enterprise - likely through demanding anyone doing business with large enterprise fill in equivalent paperwork, which basically means every enterprise out there.

Target 16 extends the scope to education, and seeks for us to ‘reduce the global footprint of consumption in an equitable manner’, where said consumption ultimately will be measured in carbon emissions.

It’s at this stage I suggest you look into the Global Footprint Network, and its founder and acting CEO, who incidentally just happens to be a Club of Rome member.

Target 17 outline specifics relating to biosafety measures, and likely creating the loophole for biotechnology research and hence DoD involvement. Add GEIS, and you have the Department of Defense having access to live global surveillance. Details can be located here, and though military operation isn’t explicitly linked, the alleged Gain of Function debate should make you realise how this might well be relevant -

Target 18 looks innocuous, but it’s anything but. Because what it fails to mention is to which incentives and subsidies it refers.

Thankfully, that’s where Hank Paulson comes to the rescue. In this document - Financing Nature - he outlines exactly which ‘harmful subsidies’ which should be ‘reformed’ - and, in general, they will all result in massive price increases across the board in areas such as energy and food.

Unashamedly, he adds that this will ‘allow for healthier diets and improved food security’, which in reality means that you will not be able to afford meat. It reeks of the colossal dishonesty so prevalent in 2008 when we saw the subprime crash, leading to the financial sector taxpayer bailout to the tune of $700bn… as engineered by Hank Paulson.

The document, for the record, is extremely interesting, and one to which we will return in a future article on Blended Finance.

The worst target of the lot - though there’s competition - is target 19. And why? Because they describe a function facilitating a colossal transfer of wealth to the top 0.001%, the likes of which has never been seen before in world history. It’s the sort, which only insanely corrupt, malfeasant, callous, hyper-arrogant, would-be tyrants would even have the guts to put down on paper.

But there’s too much to go into detail here, but let’s just say that this is likely a way to structure world finances in a way, that should even a moderate collapse take place, all assets will likely be transferred to the private ‘investors’ in the blended finance deals, meaning that the public taxpayer - ie, you - will be left holding the bag in a very similar way to the way Hank Paulson and his fellow raiders ultimately stole from retirement accounts through tranched capital ‘investments’ in the run-up to 2008.

Without anyone going to jail for it.

Boy that Timberwolf was one shitty deal.

I will go through this in detail in a future article on Blended Finance.

Technology transfer allows the middle-man financial rewards, of course, and ultimately, should an invention be deemed a ‘public good’, it can be taken from anyone without any level of fair compensation. David E Martin, for the record, has been involved in technology transfer, I do believe.

Target 21 adds the typical verbiage about ‘best available science’ (as produced by SCOPE and the ICSU), but also casually throws in ‘strengthen communication’ (which of course means centralisation and censorship), ‘education’ (brainwashing), and ‘monitoring’ which in reality means GBIOS - global surveillance including live satellite feeds to ‘monitor’ you for sakes of ‘protecting biodiversity’.

Read my articles on GEOSS if you should have any question in this regard.

Target 22 might initially appear puzzling, because why protect ‘environmental human rights defenders’, until you realise that those absolute fools running around pouring paint on famous paintings never appear to be sentenced.

‘Access to justice’ and ‘information related to biodiversity‘ simply means handing people information about which legal emission targets their governments are in breech, so that they can force the courts and judges to push through reckless and damaging reductions to emissions. My article on INFOTERRA outlines this in detail.

And finally, target 23 details how women and children have ‘equal rights and access to land and natural resources’ which essentially means none.

But hey, finally men and women will be equal, right?

-

It’s at this stage someone will claim that the GBF is not legally binding. Here - have Wikipedia’s article on the matter.

The devil’s in the detail. Sure, the GBF itself will not be legally binding.

But the national targets will.