Will biodiversity finally have its “Paris Agreement” with an ambitious global framework rallying 196 countries? The Canadian Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Steven Guilbeault, spoke of “historic advances” on Sunday afternoon at COP15 in Montreal.
“It’s a very, very good text and I’m not the only one to say it. You have probably heard several NGO representatives mention it as well,” said Steven Guilbeault, Sunday afternoon, in a press scrum upon leaving a negotiation meeting.
Sunday morning, a new draft of an ambitious final agreement, but expurgated of certain passages which blocked the achievement of a consensus, was published, on the eve of the conclusion of the 15e United Nations Conference on Biodiversity (COP15).
The text on the post-2020 global biodiversity framework, the centerpiece of the agreement, no longer contains brackets, which framed the passages on which there was disagreement.
“In the room in which we find ourselves, there are several countries which have even proposed to adopt the text as it is. This is my 22e or 23e COP when we compile the COP climate and the COP biodiversity and I’ve never heard that. A text from the presidency which is presented like this and which is immediately supported unconditionally by several countries from both the north and the south, it is quite exceptional”, underlined Mr. Guilbeault.
” The Presidency [chinoise de la COP15] presented a text with an unexpected level of ambition, still quite high, and with a proposal for international financing that exceeds what developed countries wanted”, says Eddy Pérez, director of international climate diplomacy at Climate Action Network Canada .
“China is aiming high”, he notes, nevertheless referring to a text which “is not perfect” and which will continue to be the subject of negotiations by Monday.
PHOTO JOSIE DESMARAIS, THE PRESS
Director of International Climate Diplomacy at Climate Action Network Canada, Eddy Pérez
The thorny issue of financing biodiversity protection measures in developing countries has been resolved by the Chinese presidency, which is proposing the creation of a new fund dedicated to biodiversity.
“There is a fund and there is the money,” notes Eddy Pérez.
“It’s a very balanced text. Even those who would like to have a little more recognize that there is a lot of balance in this text. And in terms of funding, we are going much further than what was planned. We are even going further than what we have on the side of climate change, for example,” said Steven Guilbeault.
One of many documents posted online Sunday morning by the Chinese presidency “recognizes the urgency of increasing international biodiversity funding and establishing a dedicated and accessible Global Biodiversity Fund in 2023”.
The proposal calls for funding of at least $20 billion per year by 2025 and at least $30 billion by 2030.
The creation of this fund is the main request of several developing countries, which demanded a fund entirely dedicated to biodiversity, unlike the Global Environment Facility (GEF), which casts a wider net.
It remains to be seen whether the European Union will endorse this proposal. Its representative has mentioned more than once that it opposes the creation of a new fund.
The flagship objective of a possible global framework for biodiversity seems to be adopted; Goal 3 still talks about protecting “at least 30% of land, inland waters and oceans”.
But the mention “at the national level”, which was in square brackets, has been redacted, as well as the obligation to set up protected areas “of which a substantial part [est] strictly protected.
It’s fair to say there’s also some good in what’s been proposed, says Georgina Chandler, senior international policy officer at the International Climate Politics Hub.
“The mission, to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030, is strong and we are very happy to see that,” she adds.
The fact that we agree to protect 30% of the earth’s surface and the oceans is a huge success. There is also an agreement on the whole question of the restoration of degraded lands. We agree on reducing the risks associated with the use of pesticides. All of these things are things that environmentalists, myself included, have been dreaming of for a very long time and we are almost there here in Montreal.
Steven Guilbeault.
The new draft also proposes to reduce by 2030 the negative impact of pollution from all sources “to levels that are not harmful to biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services”, having dropped the passage “and to the human health” which was in square brackets in the previous version.
The quantified target for reducing the use of pesticides, which in the previous draft was at least 50%, or even two-thirds, has been abandoned in the new draft, which instead refers to a reduction by half of the “overall risk related to pesticides and highly hazardous chemicals”.
On the other hand, the target of reducing “by at least half” the excess nutrients lost to the environment is maintained.
Eliminating plastic waste and e-waste discharges has been replaced by “preventing, reducing and working towards the elimination of plastic pollution”.
The Global Biodiversity Vision for 2050 has also been stripped of its intermediate targets for 2030, which worries many observers.
“Without these, it will be difficult to assess whether or not the global biodiversity framework actually generates positive impacts on ecosystems,” lamented the non-governmental organization Avaaz.
Delegates from the 196 member countries of the Convention on Biological Diversity will meet in plenary in the afternoon, and again in the evening; it is possible, but uncertain, that they will then adopt the final agreement.