A key, if modest, deal on biodiversity

The agreement signed at the COP15 UN Convention on Biodiversity (CBD), in Montreal, Canada, early this week has come at the end of long negotiations to protect the world’s flora and fauna from further destruction. It has been compared to the Paris Convention on Climate Change but has attracted less attention. Perhaps it is because of the wrong assumption that human beings will be affected more by climate change than by loss of biodiversity. The disappearance of plants, animals and other living things is less noticed than cyclones and torrential rains. But the problem of declining biodiversity has been discussed for long. The agreement now reached by 196 countries has decided to take steps to protect 30% of the world for nature by 2030, reduce environmentally harmful subsidies by at least $500 billion a year, and restore at least 30% of degraded ecosystems.

There are warnings that the earth, which has seen five mass extinctions till now, is heading for a sixth. Nearly a million species on land and sea are considered to be endangered. The pace of extinction has increased in the last 50 years. Large tracts of forests have disappeared because of industrial and agricultural activity. About 40% of the world’s land has been degraded. Effective steps are needed to stop the losses, especially because what is lost is lost for ever. Human life critically depends on the life of other living things and nature. The agreement has set for the world four main goals and 23 targets to be achieved by 2030. The main target is to ensure protection of 30% of land and sea by 2030. At present, only 17% of the land 8% of the oceans are protected. It also commits to mobilise $200 billion every year for this. The convention has proposed the idea of national biodiversity plans, similar to the nationally determined contributions in climate change strategies.

But some of the decisions, like reducing the use of pesticides and farming subsidies, are contentious. India was not for setting targets on pesticide reduction. It argued that different countries have different levels of responsibility, as in the case of climate change strategies, and can pursue different strategies on biodiversity, too. There were other opinions also. African countries, especially the Democratic Republic of Congo, had many complaints and objections, including on the financial aspects of the deal. They have even said that the agreement has been forced on them. The US is not a party to the agreement, and the deal is not legally binding on the participants. Still, it is a step forward and will show the direction in which governance, policies and politics should move.