[ad_1]
- Deforestation, climate change and pollution are part of a planetary crisis and reinforce each other’s effects.
- The realization that half of the world’s economic value is based on nature has led to increased awareness among the business community.
- Adoption of the Cummings-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework emphasizes the need for a comprehensive approach involving all sectors of society.
- Biodiversity loss and failure to act on climate change can lead to real-life consequences such as extreme weather events and economic impacts such as rising food prices and declining GDP.
- Conserving and restoring nature brings economic value and engaging the private sector to support sustainability goals is critical.
Elizabeth Maruma Merema, Assistant Secretary-General and Deputy Director-General of the United Nations Environment Program and former Secretary-General of the Convention on Biological Diversity, in a world challenged by biodiversity loss, climate change and pollution.
Highlighting the deep connections between these crises, Emrema demonstrates the dire consequences of inaction and underscores the strength of collective action. On this International Day of Biological Diversity, Mrema urged governments, businesses and individuals to unite in protecting our planet’s priceless ecosystems. Her vision inspires conservation, restoration and sustainability, paving the way for a future where nature thrives and humanity adapts to our environment.
What are the main reasons for not improving biodiversity conservation and sustainable use and how can we overcome these obstacles to take more effective action?
Until recently, biodiversity conservation in governments was considered a matter of protected areas and protected species, best left to environmental ministries.
Following the 2019 IPBES Global Assessment of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services – an unprecedented loss of biodiversity in human history, with an estimated 1 million species at risk of extinction – and a range of publications, including food production, water supply, industrial resilience and infrastructure stability There is growing recognition of the importance of biodiversity and nature.
This also came with the recognition that nature loss, climate change and pollution are aspects of a planetary crisis. Droughts and water shortages, drastic declines in fish stocks, and the worldwide loss of forests, wetlands, mangroves, and coral habitats are driving climate change and making it even more likely. Waste and pollution are poisoning terrestrial and marine ecosystems.
Edited by Elizabeth Maruma
Then in the year In 2020, the World Economic Forum confirmed that nearly half of the world’s annual economic value generation is based on nature and the services it provides. This created a huge stir in the business community and we are now seeing global economic policy leaders such as the G7 and G20 finance ministers recognize the importance of nature as the collective capital that underpins our economy.
The Cummings-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), adopted at COP15 in December last year, is a landmark agreement recognizing the need for a whole-of-government and community-wide approach to addressing the global biodiversity crisis.
To meet GBF’s 23 targets to protect 30% of the world’s biodiversity hotspots and restore 30% of degraded areas by 2030, all while reducing pressure on nature and creating sustainable use, we have no time to equitably share the benefits of biodiversity.
I want to be optimistic. Awareness is increasing rapidly, and we now have a global framework for practical and swift action.
But there are many challenges to overcome. First, nature and its links to climate must be included in countries’ policy priorities. Nature is not only a matter of environmental protection. Budgetary action from the Ministries of Economy and Finance will change the policy environment and create tangible changes in financial flows towards nature restoration and conservation.
What will be the consequences of inaction to address biodiversity loss in the next few years and how can we motivate stakeholders to take urgent and meaningful action on this issue?
We don’t even need a seven-year horizon to see the consequences of not doing so – we only need to look around us at 2023 and the years to come. Droughts, floods, heatwaves and wildfires in recent years across the globe—from Argentina and the Horn of Africa to the Americas, Europe to China—are the real-life consequences of biodiversity loss and failure to address climate change.
Therefore, the cost of action in the next seven years is worsening of those events, with the social and economic consequences that we are feeling: the rising prices of food products will disproportionately affect the more vulnerable people in society and poor countries, water use. Conflicts, large-scale destruction of property, to name a few.
The unsustainable use of plants and animals not only threatens the survival of one million species worldwide; It also affects the livelihoods of billions of people who rely on wildlife for food, fuel and income. The more we lose nature, the less opportunity we have to mitigate and adapt to climate change. In the year A $2.7 trillion reduction in GDP is expected by 2030 due to natural losses, with a disproportionate impact on low-income countries.
Will these dire predictions motivate people to take action? to a certain extent. We must look at the positive side of nature conservation. Nature is a source of beauty and joy, a shared resource, and we are part of that. Nature is also a source of economic opportunity. Ecosystems and wildlife help regulate meteorological cycles, water resources, soil fertility, and pollination. By investing in nature conservation and restoration, we can build lasting value for the public good in our communities.
The value of nature for everyone: economic, cultural, spiritual – it is the foundation of our society. This should be understood by everyone in society, from political leaders to businessmen.
How can we build consensus and shared understanding of the importance of robustly implementing the post-2020 global biodiversity framework?
The key word in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework is “inclusion.” Nature should be included in policies, regulations, economic decisions and consumer choices.
We cannot leave future generations to repair the damage done by ourselves and our elders. We must continue to educate ourselves and everyone else.
We need to make some frequent arbitrage for policy leaders, the business community, investors, and even consumers. Is it to increase our power generation capacity in the short term or is it a priority to withdraw from fossil fuels to invest in the green transition? Should we continue to clear 10,000 square kilometers of Amazon rainforest per year to produce more soy, meat and palm oil, or should we invest in a more sustainable food system? Should rich economies continue to subsidize pesticide-intensive agriculture, or should they support farmers to cultivate more sustainable and productive farmland? If I’m lucky enough to have a retirement plan, should I maximize short-term interests by investing in oil and gas, or should I ask my bank manager to invest my savings in long-term investment products?
At the consumer level, especially in developed and developing countries, should we wrap all our food in plastic? How much meat do we need for a healthy diet? Are we prepared to pay a premium for healthy, sustainable consumption?
These choices are not easy, especially in today’s world of inflation and debt. At a structural level, this requires major changes in the international financial system, where public investment is prioritized for the green transition and the needs of the most vulnerable people.
How can states and non-governmental organizations incorporate biodiversity issues into their net zero plans to ensure alignment between the two agendas?
Regarding net zero plans, we must realize that nature is an integral part of climate and vice versa. A net zero plan should consider how a company interacts with nature. Nature is a resource, and in reducing and adapting to natural loss, net zero plans are a risk.
At the government level, the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity’s plans are clear: they are committed to implementing the GBF in the short term, which means developing, updating and strengthening National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs). ), in support of GBF’s vision and goals. And words must be followed by action – now.
For donor countries, this means mobilizing overseas development aid on a natural basis to reach $20 billion a year by 2025 and $30 billion by 2030 (note that it is estimated at $4 to $10 billion at 2020 levels).
For all countries, this means focusing their economic and financial policies and regulations to mobilize public and private finance to implement the GBF. This includes reducing harmful subsidies and incentives by $500 billion annually by 2030 and taking actions to protect or restore nature.
The same is true for the private sector. Today, biodiversity finance is estimated at less than $150 billion per year, while the GBF calls for $200 billion per year by 2030 (from all sources), and at the same time, tens of trillions have been invested in activities that contribute to this. destroying nature. This is where the idea of streamlining financial flows comes in.
How can we better engage the private sector to tackle biodiversity loss and promote conservation?
A lot depends on education and awareness raising. Protecting and restoring nature is good business – it generates value, builds resilience and supports net zero initiatives. After a tree is cut, you can make furniture or maybe heat your house for a few days, but then you have nothing left.
The costs of natural losses should be included in the financial statements of companies. Companies now report to their shareholders the value they get from cutting down the tree. Still, they did not report on the value lost when the tree is removed – the shade that protects from heat waves, the stability of the soil under the roots, the water storage and the recreation of the forest.
This means that nature conservation will be an issue for financial decision makers, not just for their sustainability departments.
The Task Force on Intrinsic Financial Disclosures (TNFD), for example, aims to provide a framework for evaluating and publicly reporting on the inherent risks, dependencies and impacts that organizations face. TNFD integrates with the Climate-Related Financial Disclosures Task Force so that an organization can assess and report its current climate-related risks, impacts and dependencies in an integrated manner.
We’re looking at developments by the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB), part of the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) Foundation, which will soon release guidance on climate and nature.
In some countries, this concept of reporting on nature-related hazards and impacts is growing. We are seeing concrete developments in the European Union. We should see mandatory disclosure as a growing requirement in all jurisdictions. I would like to believe that the integration of voluntary market initiatives such as TNFD and regulatory shifts will have a tangible impact on corporate policies and financial strategies.
[ad_2]
Source link
