Why this year’s biodiversity goals are different
There may still be reason to be optimistic about the latest biodiversity pledges.
The natural world is unraveling, and it’s all our fault.
“Humanity is waging war on nature,” said United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres, at Wednesday’s U.N. Summit on Biodiversity.
Two studies out in the last month show just how bad it is. One report estimates that 40% of the world’s plants are at risk of extinction. Another found that in the last half-century, wildlife populations have declined 68%.
Meanwhile, COVID-19, which likely emerged from the destruction of nature, has killed one million people, tanked the global economy, and compounded climate disasters, all while disproportionately hurting already vulnerable populations.
Against this backdrop, countries convened virtually at the U.N. Summit on Biodiversity to chart a path forward. Unfortunately for the Planet, these countries have pretty terrible track records when it comes to following through with commitments: A recent U.N. report found that countries failed to meet even one of the 20 biodiversity goals they set in 2010.
But this time might be different.
Ahead of the summit, Leaders penned an ambitious commitment, essentially pledging to reverse biodiversity loss by 2030. The Leaders’ Pledge for Nature outlines 10 urgent actions to complete in the next 10 years, and it garnered the signatures of 64 global leaders, including Emmanuel Macron, Angela Merkel, and Boris Johnson.
Talk, of course, is cheap — especially given the world’s inability to hit the goals of another international pledge, the Paris Agreement. It may be smarter to heed the words of Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg, who recently tweeted, “It’s so easy to pledge. Everyone wants to save nature and save the climate. When it comes to real action however, they fail every single time.”
But there may still be reason to be optimistic about the latest biodiversity pledges — not because we should expect it to differ this time around, but because 2020 feels like the breaking point and (here’s the big leap) hopefully a catalyst for change.
The pandemic, combined with obvious climate impacts, should force us to rethink how we do, well, everything. The pandemic has exposed inequalities and vulnerabilities, as well as how unprepared we are to face compounding global crises. It also has shown how interconnected society’s problems are.
“Degradation of nature is not purely an environmental issue,” said Guterres. “It spans economics, health, social justice, and human rights. Neglecting our precious resources can exacerbate geopolitical tensions and conflicts.”
As tragic as it has been, COVID-19 is an opportunity for many countries to hit the reset button and address not only climate, but systematic injustice and inequality, as well as infrastructure and the economy. Green recoveries, after all, can put people back to work while mitigating future climate and health threats.
And with our backs up against the wall, we don’t have many other choices, according to Elizabeth Maruma Mrema, assistant secretary general for the United Nations, in an interview with NPR.
“We either conserve and protect that nature, biodiversity, or it will make us suffer as we do now.”
The science outlines the overarching need for a green recovery that addresses all these environmental problems. And leaders have outlined this clearly in recent commitments. Everything points to an international effort to restore nature — it makes too much sense not to.
But, as with all things climate, we’ve been burned before.