1. ✴ Back to News
   

 

30 December 2022

COP15 on biodiversity: a welcome but insufficient agreement

Media headlines stress the “historical agreement” reached in Montréal on December 18, 2022, sometimes qualified as a “peace agreement with nature” (as if humanity were not part of nature…). They generally highlight the conservation objective of protecting 30% of Earth by 2030 with the view of securing the long-term survival of humanity. Some also mention the frequent reference to the need for recognizing the rights of indigenous peoples [read].

Luckily for humanity, the agreement reached during COP15 is not limited to that, as it would have meant conserving part of the world, while accepting that humans are free to destroy the rest of the planet from which they actually draw most of their subsistence, particularly food [read].

In fact, the Agreement [see p. 8 and the following] and its “Kunming-Montréal Global Goals for 2050” envision four much broader long-term goals:

1. •“All ecosystems are maintained, enhanced, or restored”, halting species extinction and maintaining “genetic diversity within populations of wild and domesticated species”, thus safeguarding their adaptive potential.
   

2. •“Ecosystem functions and services, are valued, maintained and enhanced, with those currently in decline being restored.”
   

3. •“The monetary and non-monetary benefits from the utilization of genetic resources, and digital sequence information on genetic resources, and of traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources … are shared fairly and equitably, including … with indigenous peoples and local communities, … while ensuring traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources is appropriately protected.”
   

4. •“Financial resources, capacity building, technical and scientific cooperation, and access to and transfer of technology to fully implement the [agreement] are secured and equitably accessible to all Parties.”
   

Specific objectives to achieve these goals include, among others:

1. •Bringing “the loss of areas of high biodiversity importance … close to zero by 2030” through participatory processes “respecting the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities” (Target 1).
   

2. •“At least 30% of areas of degraded terrestrial, inland water, and coastal and marine ecosystems are under effective restoration” by 2030 (Target 2).
   

3. •“At least 30% of terrestrial, inland water, and of coastal and marine areas … are effectively conserved and managed” (Target 3).
   

4. •Ensure “actions to halt human induced extinction of known threatened species and for the recovery and conservation of species … to significantly reduce extinction risk” (Target 4).
   

5. •“Reduce pollution risks and the negative impact of pollution from all sources, by 2030, to levels that are not harmful to biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services … including … risk from pesticides and highly hazardous chemicals by at least half … and working towards eliminating plastic pollution” (Target 7).
   

6. •“Ensure that areas under agriculture, aquaculture, fisheries and forestry are managed sustainably” (Target 10).
   

7. •“Take … measures … to ensure that large and transnational companies and financial institutions … monitor, assess, and transparently disclose their risks, dependencies and impacts on biodiversity”, inform consumers to enable them to consume more sustainably and comply with benefit-sharing rules (Target 15).
   

8. •“Identify by 2025, and eliminate, phase out or reform incentives, including subsidies, harmful for biodiversity … substantially and progressively reducing them by at least 500 billion United States dollars per year by 2030” (Target 18).
   

9. •“Substantially and progressively increase the level of financial resources … to implement national biodiversity strategies and action plans, by 2030 mobilizing at least 200 billion United States dollars per year” of which 20 billion aid to poor countries from 2025 to reach 30 billion by 2030, managed by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) (Target 19.) This level, however, is much less than the 100 billion initially sought.
   

The Agreement also envisions the need for planning, monitoring, reporting and review mechanisms.

All this, of course, is worded using a sufficiently vague language to build a consensus among countries with very diversified interests, views and perspectives. Frequently used words include the usual terms found in international agreements, such as ensure, enable, strengthen, minimize, reduce, effective, urgent, sustainable, significant, inclusive, gender-responsive, responsible, transparent, action, measures, etc.

The Agreement is a step in the right direction, but it is far from what would be required to “effectively” halt the process of biodiversity destruction.

It would have been useful to agree on a precise size of the areas in which restoration of degraded ecosystems should take place, as there is no general consensus on when ecosystems are considered to be degraded. Also, more details are needed on pesticide reduction and on specific measures for achieving various targets. The lack of these details generates a fear that ambiguity could be the mother of inaction.

One may regret that too much emphasis is given to conservation and management of reserves, when from a strategic point of view for survival, what is happening outside of protected areas that is at least as important, if not more. How to ensure that the ecosystems services provided by biodiversity that are indispensable for our life - particularly for producing our food - are available sustainably in the future? Indeed, many birds, insects and microorganisms are absolutely required for plants to thrive and produce what makes our subsistence. They are required in every place where food production is happening, not just in protected areas.

That, hopefully, will be dealt with more thoroughly next time, … before it is too late. It would be a pity to have 30% of the Earth protected and available for tourists, while the mass of world population is starving because food production dramatically plummeted!

That is our concern, at hungerexplained.org, conscious that some of our most powerful ‘longtermist’ elites could not care less about possible global cataclysms and their hundreds of millions of victims, as long as the so-called ‘potential’ of humanity is preserved [read].

----------------------

Note

1. our highlighting.

————————————-

To know more :

1. •UNEP, COP15 ends with landmark biodiversity agreement, 2022.
   

2. •Greenfield P. and P. Weston, Cop15: key points of the nature deal at a glance, The Guardian, 2022.
   

3. •COP25 on Biological Diversity, Kunming-Montreal Global biodiversity framework - Draft decision submitted by the President, Convention on Biological Diversity, 2022.
   

4. •Torres É. P, Against longtermism, Eon, 2021.
   

Selection of past articles on hungerexplained.org related to the topic:

1. •Pollinators are declining rapidly - Rather than protecting them, some are getting mobilized (and invest) for replacing them! 2022.
   

2. •Protecting biodiversity: beautiful pictures concealing a reality made of violence and ineffectiveness, 2022.
   

3. •The global food crunch: myth or reality? 2018.