生物多样性 ›› 2026, Vol. 34 ›› Issue (6): 26086.  DOI: 10.17520/biods.2026086  cstr: 32101.14.biods.2026086

• 保护与治理对策 • 上一篇    下一篇

《昆明-蒙特利尔全球生物多样性框架》全球目标与执行尺度差异及解决路径

田瑜1, 耿宜佳2, 李俊生1*, 李明1   

  1. 1. 自然资源部中国地质调查局自然资源综合调查指挥中心, 北京 100055; 2. 中国环境科学研究院国家环境保护区域生态过程与功能评估重点实验室, 北京 100012
  • 收稿日期:2026-03-15 修回日期:2026-06-09 出版日期:2026-06-20 发布日期:2026-07-30
  • 通讯作者: 李俊生
  • 基金资助:
    地质调查项目:自然资源统一调查评价试点(DD202607202915)

Scale discrepancies between global goals and implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and pathways to resolution

Yu Tian1, Yijia Geng2, Junsheng Li1*, Ming Li1   

  1. 1 Command Center for Comprehensive Survey of Natural Resources, China Geological Survey Bureau, Ministry of Natural Resources of the People’s Republic of China, Beijing 100055, China 

    2 State Environmental Protection Key Laboratory of Regional Eco-process and Function Assessment, Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences, Beijing 100012, China

  • Received:2026-03-15 Revised:2026-06-09 Online:2026-06-20 Published:2026-07-30
  • Contact: Junsheng Li

摘要: 生物多样性丧失已成为当前全球面临的三大环境挑战之一。本文聚焦《昆明-蒙特利尔全球生物多样性框架》(简称《昆蒙框架》)全球目标与国家/地方执行的系统性尺度差异, 从政策与时间、监测与指标、空间与地理、资源与功能4个维度展开分析。结果发现, 全球愿景在向本土转化过程中面临多重挑战, 政策层面存在“承诺快、行动慢”的时间滞后; 监测指标存在“分辨率不足”问题; 空间治理存在行政边界与生态完整性冲突; 资源层面存在约7,000亿美元资金缺口及“保护1美元、破坏30美元”的投入失衡。进一步指出, 差异成因包括政策更新行政成本高、数据能力不均衡、空间治理碎片化及经济激励机制错位。为弥合尺度鸿沟, 本文提出多尺度协同治理路径: 政策上嵌入国家法律与预算体系; 技术上构建“卫星–社区”多层监测体系; 空间上推广其他有效的区域保护措施(other effective area-based conservation measures, OECMs)与跨国保护区网络; 资源上推动有害补贴改革与创新金融工具。本文认为, 解决尺度差异的核心在于构建弹性治理范式, 需全球治理关注地方生态质量、国家执行强化生物多样性宏观约束、资源动员重构负向金融流向, 以实现2030年生物多样性保护愿景。

关键词: 昆明-蒙特利尔全球生物多样性框架, 尺度错配, 监测框架, 资源动员, 尺度差异

Abstract

Background & Aims: Biodiversity loss has become one of the three major global environmental challenges. This paper focuses on the systematic discrepancies between the global goals of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF) and the implementation scales at national/local levels, analyzing them from four dimensions: policy and timing, monitoring and indicators, space and geography, and resources and functions. 

Results: The translation of global visions into local action faces multiple challenges: a time lag of “rapid commitment, slow action” at the policy level; insufficient resolution in monitoring indicators; conflicts between administrative boundaries and ecological integrity in spatial governance; and a resource gap of approximately 700 billion USD coupled with an investment imbalance where “1 USD is invested in protection while 30 USD is spent on destruction.” The research indicates that the causes of these discrepancies include high administrative costs for policy updates, uneven data capabilities, fragmented spatial governance, and misaligned economic incentives. 

Conclusion & Recommendation: To bridge the scale gap, we propose a multi-scale collaborative governance pathway: embedding policies into national legal and budgetary systems; building a multi-layered “satellite-community” monitoring system technologically; promoting other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) and transboundary protected area networks spatially; and promoting the reform of harmful subsidies and innovative financial instruments in the resource sector. This paper argues that the key to resolving scale discrepancies lies in constructing a resilient governance paradigm, requiring global governance to focus on local ecological quality, national implementation to strengthen macro constraints on biodiversity, and resource mobilization to redirect negative financial flows, thereby achieving the 2030 biodiversity conservation vision.

Key words: Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, scale mismatch, monitoring framework, resource mobilization, scale discrepancies