On September 30, 2020, countries from around the world convened for the UN Biodiversity Summit. Following on the heels of the #NatureForLife Hub, hosted by the UNDP, UNEP and the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, and taking place just weeks after the 5th Global Biodiversity Outlook was released, the theme of the Summit was Urgent Action on Biodiversity for Sustainable Development. This theme was presented as a way for global leaders to present ambitious commitments for biodiversity ahead of the adoption of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, which will focus on action - the strategies and financial requirements needed to turn these commitments into realities.
During this day-long meeting, our team tuned in. We watched eagerly, awaiting the big commitments we were promised. We listened hopefully, for commitments to justice, for recognition of the work of frontline communities, and for invitations to youth to join in the decision making and action planning about our future.
Now, we want to share some of our reflections with you. Below, you will find reflections from our Global Ambassadors about the commitments made - and not made - by their countries at the UN Biodiversity Summit.
Did you watch the Summit? What did your country commit to? What do you think of their commitments? Let us know!
Brazil
Reflections from Gaby Baesse
When the subject is biodiversity and climate change, Brazil is a country to keep an eye on, being the most biologically diverse country in the world, and at the same time having a climate denialist government. Jair Bolsonaro, the current Brazilian President, gave a speech full of misinformation. He said that his government is adopting environmental protection policies, however, he has always defended the agribusiness sector. Since he assumed the presidency, environmental agencies and councils are being weakened, and several deregulations on environmental policies are being made. All this has been causing the increase of deforestation and the flexibility of former environmental laws that are fragilizing all Brazilian nature. In his discourse he also said that environmental NGOs were responsible for the environmental crime - even though they are the ones protecting nature - this is not new, his government is known for persecuting the civil society and indigenous leadership. Bolsonaro said that agriculture and cattle raising has a negligible impact on nature, but it accounts for 80% of current deforestation, and the land use together with agriculture and cattle raising is responsible for almost 70% of Brazilian greenhouse gas emissions (SEEG, 2018). Bolsonaro’s discourse tries to picture a scenario that isn’t real in Brazil, although he’s right in one thing, biopiracy is a problem in Brazil since many countries have patented Brazilian species. Even so, it doesn’t take away all the harm that Bolsonaro is doing in Brazilian forests, wetlands, rivers, and all biomes. It does not matter what he says in international summits if his actions in Brazil don't reflect that.
Canada
Reflections from Marina Melanidis, supported by Caroline Merner and Rachel Boere
While it is encouraging to hear Prime Minister Trudeau share the investments Canada has made for nature over the past year, and the conservation targets that Canada aims to achieve by 2030, we can’t help but notice the deafening silence when it comes to divesting from activities that are directly responsible for biodiversity loss and injustice. Canada spends approximately 3.3 billion per year subsidizing the fossil fuel industry, which has direct impacts on biodiversity loss. Canada also continues to hold mining contracts in Latin America, which are tied to human rights violations, environmental degradation, and pollution. Not to mention the violation of Indigenous rights and territories that occurs within what is currently called Canada - it was hard not to think of the 60+ Indigenous communities who are under boil water advisories when the Prime Minister mentioned the importance of clean water in his intervention.
We also continue to be concerned with Canada’s plan to plant two billion trees under the name of climate action. While tree-planting is important and necessary, we have yet to see evidence that this plan will (a) align with biodiversity science (no monoculture plantations!), (b) uphold free, prior, and informed consent when planting on Indigenous territories, (c) ensure that all planted trees are adequately monitored and cared for so they survive to maturity, and (d) is accompanied by an ambitious plan to reduce emissions in line with 1.5 degree targets to reduce the chance that any trees planted will burn in climate crisis-aggravated wildfires that are becoming more common.
Prime Minister Trudeau claims that Canada is striving to be a leader for biodiversity and nature conservation. We want to believe him. But all the protected areas in the world won’t mean anything if we continue to extract fossil fuels, violate human and Indigenous rights, and make vague commitments.
Nigeria
Reflections from Ibrahim Inusa
Nigeria is among the most vulnerable countries in sub-Saharan Africa, suffering from lots of violence, conflict and uprising. This conflict has left the impact of climate change more intense on its populist living in poverty and experiencing unemployment, including more than 60 million young people. Nigeria needs clear and concise targets and goals that can simultaneously better the lives of those young people and children on the street while accelerating restoration efforts.
United Kingdom
Reflections from Emily Bohobo N’Dombaxe Dola
The address from the UK’s Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, focused extensively on highlighting the ongoing decline of species and future threats to both flora and fauna populations. In particular, it was good to see Johnson emphasize how upsetting the “delicate balance of nature” has detrimental effects on “the economy, climate, food security, public health and all the SDGs”, adopting a systemic and holistic view. In addition, the UK’s commitment to seize its roles in 2021 as G7 president and COP26 co-president to put nature in the spotlight are welcome. Removing deforestation from both local and global supply chains, and shifting subsidies that promote harmful land-use, particularly in agriculture, should definitely be priorities for countries with the capability and resources to transition.
Nevertheless, notably absent from the Prime Minister’s speech was an explicit mention of the drivers of biodiversity loss and the threats to nature. The strongest reference was a caution of the dangers of “[we] [continuing] down this road”, but the road remained unnamed except for briefly pointing at tackling deforestation and harmful subsidies. If the diagnosis of the problem has systemic implications, as correctly highlighted by the Prime Minister, chances are the problem is also of systemic nature. As an industrialised country which played a major role in shaping the contemporary world, the UK has a historical responsibility to acknowledge and confront how the mainstream model of intensive production, a prized culture of hyperconsumerism, and an “economy-first” quest for growth, are at odds with conserving, restoring and protecting nature. The IPCC’s land report was clear on the urgency for “effective land-use regulations, less resource-intensive production, low-GHG food systems, and environmentally-friendly technology and lifestyles”, among other measures.
Having a holistic analysis of the problem comes with adopting a holistic approach to tackling it, rather than the usual laissez-faire and technocratic rhetoric. There is no point in setting targets that will not be met, as has been the case in the UK: the government’s own self-assessment has shown that the country has failed to meet 14 out of 20 of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets under the Convention of Biological Diversity. Furthermore, Johnson’s emphasis on supporting marine protected areas (MPAs) as a solution is short-sighted given that 1) intensive industrial fishing still takes place in most of the UK’s MPAs, and 2) environmentally-destructive developments like HS2 continue on the UK’s land. All in all, the UK’s global “leadership” for nature and climate must go beyond hosting international meetings: real leadership must begin at home through systemic approaches, justly transitioning away from “business-as-usual” production and consumption models.