To save life on earth, experts call for “urgent change”

When scientists from around the world invite States to make a revolution. According to experts from « Biodiversity IPCC », « a transformative change » is like this « urgent, necessary and difficult, but possible »in order to « to save life on Earth ». This is the key message of the report on « The underlying causes of biodiversity loss, drivers of transformative change and options for achieving the 2050 vision for biodiversity » of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), presented Wednesday December 18 in Namibia.

The summary for decision-makers, 49 pages long, is the result of three years of work carried out by 165 experts from around the world, validated by some 150 countries. It complements the Nexus report, published the day before, which documents the scale of the current ecological crisis affecting climate, water, health, biodiversity, etc. The message of this second report devoted to solutions is clear and radical: to save our environment – ​​and ourselves, in the process – old recipes will not be enough. We must change everything, including our unequal social organizations and our representations of nature.

Inadequate policies and unsuitable institutions

« One of the major challenges we have identified in the literature is the persistence of relations of domination forged during colonial periods, which continue to influence the way we organize society today. »explained Karen O’Brien, professor of sociology and human geography at the University of Oslo (Norway) and co-chair of the report, during a presentation to the press on Tuesday, December 17.

She also highlighted economic and political inequalities, inadequate policies and unsuitable institutions, a lack of coordination of knowledge and innovation systems, unsustainable consumption and production systems on a global scale, as well as « individual habits and practices that undermine biodiversity support systems » and limited access to clean technologies.

These various obstacles are the manifestations of a deeply dysfunctional link to our environment. « It is important that transformative changes address the underlying causes of biodiversity loss and nature decline, said Karen O’Brien. And a lot of it has to do with our relationship, our separation, and our domination of nature by humans. »

Stopping the most harmful subsidies

The authors of the report propose five strategies to rectify the situation: conservation and regeneration of natural environments ; implementing systemic changes in the sectors most responsible for biodiversity loss (agriculture, forestry, mining, fishing, etc.) ; the transformation of economic sectors in favor of nature and equity ; the transformation of governance systems ; the modification of the views and values ​​of society, in order to favor the fundamental interconnections between man and nature.

Among the concrete actions to be implemented, the authors of the report recommend stopping the most harmful subsidies for the environment. According to the summary, subsidies contributing to the destruction of nature were between 1,400 and 3,300 billion dollars in 2023 (between 1,333 and 3,142 billion euros). The worst sectors were agriculture ($520 billion to $851 billion) and fossil fuels ($440 billion to $1.26 trillion).

The same year, the cost of air and water pollution and soil destruction caused by these activities was estimated at $10.7 trillion. In comparison, between $135 and $156 billion had been spent on biodiversity conservation. Far from the 722 to 967 billion dollars that the authors estimate necessary to maintain the integrity of ecosystems.

More than 400 positive examples

The summary is full of good examples already in place, particularly in agroecology. « We have collected more than 850 visions favorable to change and nearly 400 examples: the Masai Mara national reserve in Kenya, community water management in Nepal, the resilience of breeders in northern Patagonia, in Chile… »listed Lucas Garibaldi, professor at the National University of Río Negro in Viedma (Argentina) and co-chair of the report.

The latter thus resisted ten years of drought and a massive fall of volcanic ash in 2011 by diversifying, relying on local and adapted varieties and on their knowledge and by making decisions jointly between spouses, we read in the summary.

The authors of the report therefore invite us to draw inspiration from indigenous peoples and local communities, already associated with forest governance in Guyana or coastal management in Chile.

« We must draw inspiration from these examples, because therein lies our hope for the future »

Ce « transformative change » can therefore be carried out in a very concrete way. It is already at work almost everywhere in the world. « Since Covid, and even before, we see so many inspiring examples of stakeholder groups, young people, women, indigenous peoples who are challenging the status quo and trying to bring change, observed Arun Agrawal, researcher at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor (United States) and co-chair of the report. We must learn from these examples, because therein lies our hope for the future. »

But also to protect environmental defenders. The summary thus mentions an analysis of 2,802 environmental social mobilizations carried out between 1992 and 2002: 54 % would have resulted in reformist solutions (implementation of technical solutions, application of existing regulations, compensation) and 19 % would have even led to the withdrawal, cancellation or suspension of the activity at the origin of the mobilization.

« Yet we see that almost 2,000 environmental defenders have been killed between 2012 and 2023. Efforts by governments to protect, support and encourage the work of environmental defenders can make a huge difference in how how we bring about and achieve transformative change »insisted Lucas Garibaldi.

All stakeholders — citizens, businesses and especially governments — are invited to get involved in this revolutionary perspective. But what are the chances of success, in a political context marked by the election of several climate skeptic leaders – Donald Trump in the United States, Javier Milei in Argentina, to name but a few – and by the failure of the COP29 from Baku ?

The co-chairs assure that their summary of decision-makers has been approved by the member states of theHIM. They also put forward an economic interest: the transformative change advocated could generate $2.01 trillion in business opportunities and create 395 million jobs. An additional decade of inaction would cost double that.