Can they save the planet?

After protracted negotiations and disruption caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, 188 countries, including India, ratified the Kunming-Montreal Biodiversity Framework at the fifteenth meeting of the Conference of Parties (COP 15) to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity that was held in Montreal, Canada, in December last year. The new biodiversity framework succeeds the UN’s Strategic Plan for Biodiversity (2010–2020), which contains 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets that provide a framework for action by all countries and stakeholders to save biodiversity and enhance its benefits to people. It was approved at the COP10 meeting held in October 2010 in Nagoya, Japan.

An assessment by the UN showed that the world had failed to meet most of the Aichi targets, such as protecting or conserving 17 per cent of all terrestrial and inland waters and 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas by the year 2020, reducing deforestation and loss of natural habitats by at least half, reducing pollution levels, and restoring at least 15 per cent of degraded ecosystems. A major reason for the failure to achieve the Aichi Biodiversity Targets was that, except for a few, most targets lacked measurable indicators.

Also Read | Major firms not doing enough to curb deforestation: Report

The Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services by the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (2019) suggests that rather than reducing, the rates of biodiversity loss have accelerated in the past few decades, with around one million species facing extinction in the coming decades unless accelerated action is taken to reduce the impact of the drivers of biodiversity loss.

The new biodiversity framework for the period 2022–2030 sets out an ambitious plan to implement broad-based action to bring about a transformation in our societies’ relationship with biodiversity by 2030, in line with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its Sustainable Development Goals, and ensure that, by 2050, the shared vision of living in harmony with nature is fulfilled.

The framework sets out four long-term goals to realise the 2050 Vision for Biodiversity and 23 global biodiversity targets to be achieved by the year 2030. It calls for, among other things, a near-zero loss of bio-rich areas and critical ecosystems by 2030, the conservation of at least 30 per cent of all terrestrial and inland waters, as well as coastal and marine areas by 2030, the restoration of 30 per cent of degraded ecosystems, and a 50% reduction in the threats posed by invasive species.

It also calls for respecting the rights of indigenous people and local communities, protecting environmental human rights defenders, being gender-responsive, and following a participatory and inclusive process in decision-making. To transit to a climate-resilient and biodiversity-friendly planet, it calls for a 50 per cent reduction in the use of pesticides and hazardous chemicals through integrated pest management and efficient nutrient cycling, promoting sustainable consumption practices, and halving global food waste and waste generation. It recommends the use of an ecosystem-based approach, including nature-based solutions, to address the biodiversity and climate crises.

Perverse subsidies and government policies have incentivised the degradation of biodiversity and ecosystems, and hence the framework calls for reducing such subsidies by around US $500 billion per year by 2030 and scaling up the incentives for conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. It also calls for mobilising at least $200 billion per year from all sources by 2030 to enable the implementation of national biodiversity targets.

Also Read | Protecting 30% of oceans a huge challenge for the planet

The global biodiversity goals need to be translated into national goals, considering each country’s circumstances and priorities. But the moot point is: do countries have the political will to implement these ambitious biodiversity targets, or will it meet the fate of its predecessor framework? Despite the Paris Climate Agreement’s call to developed countries to mobilise at least US $100 billion per year by 2020 to assist developing countries in adapting to climate change, only a fraction of this has been achieved so far. While billions of dollars have been mobilised at short notice to give arms aid to Ukraine, mobilisations of funds for tackling the climate and biodiversity crises are lagging.

Although India assigned an important role to forest conservation in its climate action plan communicated to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in December 2015, it is incentivising and weakening environmental laws to facilitate the diversion of forests for non-forest uses. Despite the Forest Policy of 1952 and 1988, which recommended a forest cover (including under-tree crops) ratio of 33 per cent for the country, even today it ranges around 24 per cent of the total land area. Although official data show that India’s forest cover has increased, this writer has previously suggested (DH, March 5, 2020) that forest data are being manipulated to paint a rosy picture of India’s forests.

Even granting that India’s forest area is increasing, most of the planted forests are under species such as eucalyptus, teak, and Acacia nilotica, which have low ecological and biodiversity values.

In a recent article (DH February 10, 2023), environmentalist Panduranga Hegde sheds light on the extreme pressure, despite multiple rejections by statutory bodies, to implement the Hubli-Ankola railway line, which entails destroying 2 lakh trees and 1000 hectares of forests in Uttar Kannada district’s Western Ghats biodiversity hotspot. Government statistics presented to the Lok Sabha in July 2022 reveal that during 2019–2022, 544 sq. km. of forest area in the country had been diverted for non-forest uses, with mining projects accounting for a major share.

Union Environment Minister Bhupendra Yadav, while addressing the COP15 meeting, mentioned that farm subsidies in India (about 2 per cent of India’s GDP) should be viewed as a welfare measure and not a freebie, though in another context the government was critical of freebies and the “Revadi” culture. The attitude of our government towards environmental and human rights activists who champion the cause of tribals and tribal lands goes against the spirit of the biodiversity pact.

(The writer is an economist.)