Photo courtesy of Pxhere.com
By Helen Gloege ’23
Staff Writer
A recent leaked United Nations report showed that governments have failed to meet the internationally agreed-upon 2020 goals regarding biodiversity, along with more specific goals to prevent plant and wildlife loss.
In 2010, predating the Paris Accords, the Convention on Biological Diversity was held in Nagoya, Japan. This convention produced the Aichi Targets that consisted of 20 conservation goals to safeguard global biodiversity. Each nation involved was expected to meet the determined objectives by 2020. Another summit was planned for October of this year but pandemic restrictions and COVID-19-related complications forced the summit to be rescheduled for May 2021 in Kunming, China.
Despite that, data currently indicates that the goals have not been fully met. Of 44 sub-targets assessed by the leaked U.N. report, 20 are ranked as poor, 19 as moderate and only five as good. The report is not final, and the full U.N. report will include suggestions on how to move forward with planned COVID-19 recovery packages expected to help meet targets. The next summit will also include a proposal to protect at least 30 percent of the world’s land and seas by 2030. The proposal comes from a coalition led by Costa Rica and France and endorsed by the U.N. secretary-general, the E.U., the U.K. and Canada, among others.
Not meeting the Aichi Targets will have potentially devastating effects. If the 2020 goals are not met, it is highly unlikely that 2030 goals or any subsequent environmental goals will be met. It is also reported that nearly one-third of all emission cuts required to meet the Paris Agreement could come from nature-based solutions, meaning that not taking action in regard to biodiversity would be a significant barrier in hitting the Paris Agreement goals.
Despite this outlook, several solutions could be implemented to boost maintenance of biodiversity efforts, including the encouragement of moderating meat consumption, the greening of urban areas and the protection of freshwater ecosystems.
The U.N. highlights a huge funding gap that would need to be fulfilled for significant action to be taken. It is estimated that the world needs to assemble an additional $600 to $824 billion a year. While this seems like a lot of money, in 2019, international actors such as governments, businesses and philanthropic organizations spent between $124 and $143 billion a year on activities that benefit the environment. The world currently spends less than $100 billion a year on nature conservation, which is equivalent to what people spend on pet food globally, according to the head of the U.N. Development Program, Achim Steiner. $700 billion, the amount in the middle of the two monetary targets, comprises less than 1 percent of the global GDP. In comparison, $5.2 trillion is spent on fossil fuel subsidies each year. A study by the Campaign for Nature discovered that only about $140 billion a year is needed to protect 30 percent of the planet.
The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development has reported that governments spend over four times as much money on agricultural, forestry and fishery subsidies that play a role in the degradation of nature than they spend on protecting nature. It is estimated that $274-542 billion is spent on subsidies for these industries annually, and these would have to be cut by $273.9 billion annually to help close the biodiversity payment gap. The subsidies currently pay for incentives for production by companies and consumption by consumers which exacerbate biodiversity loss.
Individual countries are also committing to biodiversity efforts. Germany’s Minister of Development Gerd Muller said the country is increasing its annual investment of 500 million euros to help protect biodiversity in developing countries. Norway is planning to create a coalition to end tropical deforestation. The U.K. is vowing to double its funding to fight climate change over the next five years and is working to remove subsidies and replace them with a system that rewards environmental progress.
Part of the struggle to meet biodiversity goals is because many studies fail to listen to women’s voices and account for their experiences. For example, a study of 106 small-scale fisheries worldwide ignored women who harvested invertebrates. This means that data on the total catch and species that are targeted by fishers was incomplete, affecting the outcomes of studies and conservation goals constructed from that data. The role of women in conservation and biodiversity has been historically undervalued. Globally, women tend to play key roles in managing land and resources.
In many countries, women are involved in small-scale agriculture and don’t have as much of a voice as large-scale agriculture in the decision-making process of land use and access to resources. Indigenous and rural women especially tend to be marginalized in decision-making processes. Biodiversity loss burdens women and girls because it increases time spent obtaining necessary resources, which equates to time lost in generating income or pursuing an education. Research has shown that women in fishery or forest management groups create better resource governance and conservation outcomes.
There is also the issue of colonial conservation, which impacts who makes decisions and funds initiatives for preserving biodiversity. This refers to the racist misconception that Indigenous peoples cannot be trusted to look over their land. About 80 percent of all of Earth’s biodiversity is in tribal territories. Recently, in Asia and Africa, governments and non-governmental organizations have been taking land from tribal people and local communities claiming it is for conservation purposes.
These global issues of environmental conservation will be discussed for years to come, and with more frequency as the next environmental conventions begin in 2021.