(AFP / GAIZKA IROZ)
The 196 member countries of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) are meeting until Tuesday March 29 to negotiate a text aimed at better protecting nature by 2030, and the financial ways to mobilize. This text will be accepted at COP15 biodiversity this year.
At least $ 1.8 trillion in public subsidies – or 2% of global GDP – contributes each year
to the destruction of nature
, according to a study by the Business for Nature coalition. Other studies cite lower numbers, but all agree on the recognition there
the world spends more to destroy nature,
providing clean air, drinking water or food, just to protect it.
Is the world ready to reverse this trend, to pay to protect nature and no longer spend exorbitant amounts to destroy it? This is the question that is at the heart of
international negotiations to better protect the environment in Geneva,
ahead of COP15 biodiversity in China.
“We lack data” on the amounts allocated to these harmful subsidies, such as environmental protection costs, said Juliette Landry, researcher at the IDDRI think tank.
The 196 member countries of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) are meeting until Tuesday to negotiate a text aimed at
better protect nature by 2030,
and the financial way to mobilize. This text will be accepted at COP15 biodiversity this year.
“Resource mobilization has been a hot topic of this meeting,” said Ghanaian Alfred Oteng, who has contributed to key biodiversity protection actions.
We need “additional resources from all sources – international, national, public, private -, reducing harmful spending (for nature) and making better use of available financial resources”, Jeremy summarizes Eppel, co-author of reports on the subject. CBD.
The discussed text contains quantified objectives: “to redirect, reassign, reform or eliminate harmful incentives (…), by reducing them by at least 500 billion dollars every year “,
“increase financial resources,
from all sources, to bring them to at least US $ 200 billion per year (…) by increasing global financial flows to developing countries by at least US $ 10 billion per year ”and reduce the financing “of at least 700 billion US dollars per year by 2030”.
“Additional efforts to be made”, recognize the rich country
It remains to be seen who will pay. For developing countries, an annual turnover of 10 billion dollars is not enough. Guatemala is publicly asking for 60 billion. Vinod Mathur, president of the National Biodiversity Authority of India, is generating 100 billion “new, additional, quick funds”.
If there are not enough funds,
it is impossible to have ambitious nature conservation goals, he says.
The Global Environment Facility (GEF) is currently funding biodiversity projects. But developing countries are lamenting
its slowness and the small amount invested.
Some are calling for the creation of a new fund – which will last for years, answering countries opposed to this idea – or at least a GEF reform.
Rich countries are “recognized to have
additional effort to be made,
according to one of their representatives, but does not adhere to the values mentioned by developing countries. Greater mobilization in the private sector and use of available money are ways, says the same source.
Also discussed are
which fuel intensive agriculture, overfishing, deforestation, fossil fuels … Governments have defended them, arguing “that they help or target the poor, but (…) the main beneficiaries are often the richest”, he said Ronald Steenblik, author of the study for the business coalition Business for Nature. 80% of fishing assistance goes to industrial fishing and not to small-scale fishermen.
Reforming them is often a headache because the entire sector of activity depends on them. But the problem must be addressed, said Eva Zabey, executive director of the Business for Nature coalition.
Rather oddly, the Business for Nature coalition, with the support of more than a thousand companies, is asking like NGOs
an ambitious text.
“Companies need political insurance to invest, innovate, change their business models, and fast,” argues Eva Zabey.
As is often the case in international negotiations, the issue can only be resolved at home stretch, at COP15 in China.
To have hope of stopping climate change, rich nations must first eliminate fossil fuels
According to a study by a British scientific consortium published on March 22, the richest oil and gas producing country should
stop all production in 2034
hoping to keep global warming at 1.5 ° C, while the poorest should benefit from the delay. Coal, oil and gas are among the
main source of greenhouse gas emissions
responsible for global warming, whose Paris agreement aims to limit if possible to +1.5 ° C compared to the pre-industrial era. Emissions from fossil fuels are therefore one of the main levers for
limit the visible consequences of climate change –
devastating drought, storm or flood.
But this output is not the same
for different producing countries, the study emphasizes the Tyndall Center for Climate Change, a British consortium made up specifically of universities. Focusing on the oil and gas sector, the researchers studied 88 countries, representing almost all of the world’s production. For some poor countries that represent only a small percentage of global production, income from fossil fuels contributes very strongly to their overall national wealth, researchers point out.
On the contrary, some large producing countries will remain
rich even by stopping getting
: the world’s largest oil producer, the United States, whose oil and gas sector contributes 8% to GDP, thus maintaining a wealth per capita that is virtually unchanged, approximately 60,000 dollars each head, against 63,500 at present. Therefore, the authors sought to establish a timetable for a “fair” release according to the needs and capacity of different countries “to fund a fair transition” thanks to their GDP level not included. the “dependence” on oil and gas.
“We are calculating emissions end dates that match the temperature objectives of the Paris agreement. We find that the richest country should arrive at a
zero oil and gas production in 2034 “,
highlights for AFP Kevin Anderson, professor at the University of Manchester and lead author of the study.
These countries, 19 in number – including the United States, United Kingdom, Norway or the United Arab Emirates – have an average GDP excluding fossil fuels of 50,000 USD per capita and represent
35% of the world’s oil and gas production.
A group of 14 countries with an average non-fossil GDP of 28,000 USD per capita should stop all production by 2039. These countries, including Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, represent 30% of production in world.
Next are 11 countries with an average GDP per capita excluding fossil fuels of 17,000, including China and Mexico, which are due to stop production (11% of the world total) in 2043; 19 countries with an average GDP of 10,000 USD, including Iran, which will stop production (13% of the total) in 2045; and a group of 25 countries with an average GDP of 3,600 USD, including Iraq, Libya or Angola, due to the cessation of production (11% of the total) in 2045.