Monday morning, the first piece of news I saw on my feed was the one that said that the Government of Quebec had finally, after 13 years, updated its list of threatened or vulnerable species. Our government will therefore add 27 new living species to this list.
Good. A list. Names of animals, insects and birds on paper.
On Tuesday, at the opening of COP15, this same government announced a “Nature Plan” of $650 million over seven years, new protected areas to achieve 30% protection before 2030 as well as consultations with conservation organizations. , civil society and indigenous communities. Oh yes, and with private companies as well.
Better. What I like the most in all of this are the consultations. Those who live or work directly with the territory know more, sorry to say.
Hoping that these consultations will be real and will have weight on the actions to be taken. Well, I’m less certain. It’s that the First Peoples have already played in the consultation film many times, without much success. Forgive my cynicism.
The root of the problem, him?
To really achieve results during this COP15, it seems obvious to me that we have to agree to change the rules of the game. However, we will always play the same game the day after the event, a big C game with a same goal: continuous growth. During the exercise, the rules will no doubt be tightened in order to make them more flexible later by ratifying an agreement that we may or may not respect.
Do you remember the Paris agreement? Canada, like the other signatory countries, decides itself on the targets to be achieved, targets that it is not obliged to meet. Non-binding targets. Already several countries have confirmed that they will not reach their targets. We relax the rules to such an extent that we no longer have an obligation of result, so what happens?
Canada still ranks among the most polluting countries per capita and gets a D on its report card.
So, what will change a possible Montreal agreement on biodiversity if we are not required to respect it?
I really feel that many of us, our leaders included, have lost touch with nature.
In the last century, there has been a break, a slow break that has separated us from the territory like a gap that has insidiously placed itself between us and the animals, plants and ecosystems.
So I don’t know how you can make good decisions when you don’t know anymore. Or when we just know on paper, on lists and not with the heart. When you’ve never felt the beating of the earth. When the territory has not taught us humility and respect. What’s more, how do you make the right decisions when you’re at the head of a country whose entire system is based on constant economic growth, a country that offers no other models? I do not know.
Take the example of caribou. They are not on the Quebec list. However, they are clearly threatened. The Innu, Naskapi, Cree and Inuit clearly do not need statistics to understand this. They have only to look at the rivers where this majestic animal once swam, to walk in the forests. But protecting caribou, really I mean, means protecting habitat. And effective protection for caribou means stopping forestry, mining or industrial activities that would disturb their homes. So the question arises: is it too disturbing for our society and our economic models to protect caribou?
And when it’s another species, then another? Too disturbing again, so we do nothing?
Until when can we look elsewhere like this?
As of this writing, Justin Trudeau is announcing an $800 million investment for four conservation projects run by Indigenous peoples in the northwest. Nothing on the territory of Quebec. Shame. But not surprised.
We should have listened to aboriginal people decades ago. We should listen to those who know what they are talking about, who have this sacred connection with mother earth. Those who, instead of trying to dominate it, have lived with the territory for at least 10,000 years here, much longer elsewhere in America. They may have real solutions rooted in a millennial way of life. Those who have learned to make decisions based on the seven generations to come. Those who were seen as inferior because they had not “dominated” the resources in their territory. Those who took this territory. We wouldn’t be here if we had tried to understand instead of judging. Maybe we should learn, now, to listen. To make the effort to share power with those who know. We would all be winners in the end.