Maybe you’ve heard the slogan, or even chanted it: “F*ck the COP! “. This meeting would be useless, according to demonstrators.
The opposite, however, has just been proven. Because no matter what angle you look at COP15, its impact is positive. States have accelerated their march towards the protection of biodiversity.
If there is anything to criticize, it is less the conference than the delay accumulated for decades, and all the path that therefore remains to be covered to prevent the 6e mass extinction of life.
The angry protesters are right, small steps are no longer enough. The urgency demands much more. But for that, the States must coordinate. And that goes through meetings like COP15 in Montreal.
His success is unexpected. Because a few months ago, we feared the worst.
The meeting was to take place in China in 2020. Because of its zero COVID policy, it was moved to us. These two countries became co-organizers despite their icy diplomatic relations.
Last summer, Canada’s Environment Minister, Steven Guilbeault, had never yet spoken to his Chinese counterpart. They ended up working very well together.
The accidental co-chairmanship felt like an obstacle. She turned out to be an asset.
PHOTO ANDREJ IVANOV, AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
China’s Minister of Ecology and Environment, Huang Runqiu, with Canada’s Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Steven Guilbeault. The two ministers worked in partnership throughout COP15 to convince other countries to ratify an agreement for biodiversity and land protection.
The Middle Kingdom is located between the rich countries and those of the South. It is a big polluter, but with less historical responsibility than the G7 in the devastation of ecosystems. It helped him get everyone’s ear. And it took up more space because of the virtual absence of the United States – having never ratified the biodiversity convention, the Americans have simple observer status.
Mr. Guilbeault and his counterpart shared the list of countries to convince. They thus resolved an impasse between the economic powers who wanted funding to pass through the current climate fund, and the countries of the South who demanded the creation of a new instrument. A hybrid formula has been created. The sum will also be considerable: 30 billion by 2030. Even if this is lower than the needs, it remains three times more than the annual average paid during the last decade.
After having reassured the countries of the South on the money, Canada and China were able to rally them to another commitment, that of the protection of the territory.
This explains why Mr. Guilbeault is crying victory.
This work should not be underestimated. In other international meetings, the host country has complicated the negotiations. According to observers I spoke to, Egypt did nothing to bring the countries together at the last climate meeting this fall, and Denmark was unusually disorganized in 2009.
This time, the commitments are important. The problem, however, is that these are only commitments…
Protecting biodiversity should be an easier sell than fighting climate change. When we save a forest at home, the benefits are immediate. And this, no matter what our neighbor does.
But the subject has occupied less media and political attention for 20 years. And diplomacy is less advanced, as evidenced by the agreement that occurred early Monday morning.
In Paris in 2015, the States signed an “agreement”. True, it does not include penalties. In case of violation, the consequences are symbolic. But this nevertheless remains more restrictive than the “framework” negotiated in Montreal. It does not contain the same requirements as the Paris agreement to reinforce targets and document progress towards them.
Moral suasion can encourage governments to act — to respect a target of the Nagoya agreement in 2010, the Legault government protected 20% of its territory. But on the whole, this voluntarism is not enough. On a global scale, none of the Nagoya goals have been achieved.
If the pessimists are wrong, the skeptics are right. The pressure must be maintained on the States so that the actions follow the words.
Canada has committed to enacting legislation to implement the framework of the agreement. If the trend continues, it will also reach the protection targets of its terrestrial and marine territory.
The new single-use plastic regulations have also just come into effect (immediate end to manufacture and import, then full ban from 2024), and further announcements may follow for the plastic standard recycled.
On pesticides, however, Canada’s record is mixed at best — the agreement promises to reduce the harm from pesticides without setting a target on their use, which pleases Ottawa, but frustrates the European Union, among others. The protection of species at risk is also laborious, as evidenced by the conditional approval of the port of Contrecœur, which will further threaten the copper redhorse. And the reduction of “harmful to biodiversity” subsidies promises to be difficult. This part of the agreement will be fought by lobbyists from the oil, gas, mining, forestry and fishing industries.
For the rest, vigilance is essential. Nevertheless, the COP15 agreement is undeniably good news. Most hearteningly, it proves that states like Canada and China can work together despite their differences.
This cooperation is fragile, but to avoid the worst of the climate and biodiversity crises, it is our best chance. And the only one too.