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