Pushing for biodiverse solutions at COP15
It's a trendy little acronym that means a lot. COP, which is short for “Conference of Parties,” has become slang for a meeting in one of three parallel sequences held to implement the international conventions on biodiversity loss, climate change and desertification.
As global environmental conditions have worsened, different COP meetings are starting to attract more attention. When increased frequency and severity of fires and storms became difficult to ignore, the climate COP meetings became newsworthy. Later, intrusion of serious food shortages and epidemics into daily life raised the profile of the biodiversity COP meetings.
In 2010, the biodiversity COP10 in Japan produced the 20 so-called “Aichi targets” for the United Nations “decade of biodiversity.” As 2020 neared, it became clear that only six of the goals would be even partially met. Thus, COP15, to be held that year in Kunming, China, would produce a post-2020 global biodiversity framework.
Ironically, the COVID-19 pandemic, a symptom of the global biodiversity crisis, changed plans. COP15 finally convened two years later, still hosted by China, but in Montreal, Canada. In addition to negotiating sessions of delegates from the world's national governments, there were parallel sessions of business and biodiversity, nature and culture, subnational governments and science and policy. These included non-governmental organizations.
The California delegation comprised over 50 people, including Resource Secretary Wade Crowfoot, seven state legislators, members of the Hoopa Valley Tribe and scientific, as well as environmental, organizations. It had an important role in the Seventh Summit for Subnational Governments and Cities, which emphasized that local action was essential to meeting the global crisis.
A wide diversity of voices was heard.
Many promoted the “one health” concept, that human and ecosystem health are inseparable. Others advanced the “30+70” formula, rejecting the notion that nature can be “saved” in some places, while people live elsewhere. Indigenous people emphasized that, because 80% of the world's biodiversity is found in the 20% still under their management, the most important steps forward are recognition of indigenous sovereignty and reparations for colonial exploitation. Likewise, women's groups pointed out that women have disproportionately safeguarded biodiversity and suffered from its loss. Youth groups stressed the importance of intergenerational equity and intergenerational debt. Calls for rightsbased approaches linked the rights of nature and the rights of marginalized people.
However, a gap quickly arose between those who wanted action of a scale commensurate with the crisis and those who were seeking the lowest common denominator of political feasibility.
The group of 69 nations from the global south pressed the others (called “overdeveloped” by the Argentine delegate) for strong financial support and recognition of their genetic resources. A group of 350 “green” businesses requested mandatory biodiversity impact reporting. There was strong pushback. The meeting was closed over the protests of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and several African allies.
The final Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework has 23 targets to be reached by 2030 as well as four goals to be reached by 2050. These heighten awareness of many serious problems and give some guidance for solving them.
The best known 2030 targets are to conserve 30% of Earth's land and water surface (called the “30×30” plan) and cut food waste in half.
Unfortunately, the framework may suffer the same fate as the Aichi targets. The agreement is not legally binding and lacks mechanisms to ensure its implementation. There are no penalties for governments who do not comply. There is no responsibility for the actions of corporations. The small funding pledge is not equal to the historic debt incurred. Many called the framework a document that attempts to solve a problem without recognizing its cause.
COP16, already being planned in Turkey for 2024, will evaluate progress of implementation of the framework. We can only hope that this and all the COP meetings will help us avoid global environmental collapse. Yet if they do not, they may serve another function. Should a space alien one day come upon the ruins of our civilization, the COPs at least will provide a good record of what went wrong.