Treaty of Peace with Nature

The planet needs a true Peace Treaty between humanity and nature, in the words of António Guterres, Secretary General of the UN, pronounced this December 19 on the occasion of the new World Framework for Biological Diversity signed by 196 countries, the result of the Conference of the Parties (COP 15) of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Never in history has the issue acquired such a high place on the global agenda; and that should give us hope, at least on paper. Things are truly alarming. Deforestation carried out by agriculture and livestock, and industrial fishing, have devastated vital ecosystems on a planetary scale, and with it, have endangered millions of animal and plant species, on land and in the sea. . This is matched only by the last of the mass extinctions, 65 million years ago, which wiped out the great dinosaurs. The new Global Framework for Biodiversity includes 23 targets. The most important is the commitment to conserve at least 30% of the world’s land, continental waters and oceans. Let us remember that, currently, only 17% of the terrestrial surface and 8% of the marine surface are nominally protected; the real or effective percentage is much lower. Scientists point out that 50% should be protected, and also, conservation measures applied to the rest. Something important in the new World Framework for Biological Diversity is the recognition of the important role that indigenous communities and local populations (farmers, riverside or artisanal fishermen) can and should play in conservation, even within Protected Natural Areas. It is recognized that biodiversity conservation must be paid for, that is, by the opportunity cost of land and water. In this sense, the new Global Framework achieves financing of 20 thousand million dollars per year from developed countries to developing countries as of 2025, and at least 30 thousand million dollars by 2030, in a special fund administered by the GEF (Global Environmental Facility) of the World Bank. This issue was particularly contentious, over objections from African countries such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda and Cameroon, which demanded a separate fund from the GEF and the World Bank. It should be noted that the Congo is the second country in the world with the largest tropical forest reserves, which gives it strategic importance, to the extent that tropical forests represent the largest reservoir of biodiversity on the planet. (By the way, along with coral reefs in the oceans). The new Framework also proposes to reduce pollution from plastics and wastewater, excess nutrients, and agrochemicals. Something extremely relevant is the commitment to eliminate subsidies that have a negative impact on biodiversity, basically those destined to agriculture, livestock and fishing. In Mexico, the case of “Sembrando Vida” stands out, causing deforestation of more than 70 thousand hectares per year, among other agricultural and fishing subsidies. A big step forward is that the new Framework provides for monitoring and follow-up mechanisms with precise indicators, as well as the revision of national biodiversity strategies, although, as expected, it lacks binding or mandatory mechanisms, as is the case with the Agreement on Paris.

Either way, on a multilateral scale, the new Global Biodiversity Framework assumes that the climate crisis and the biodiversity crisis are linked. The unprecedented rapid increase in temperature prevents the adaptation of ecosystems and species, and induces migrations towards the poles and towards higher altitudes, which are tunnels without exit. Forests are impacted through droughts, pests and catastrophic fires, while oceans warm and acidify. All this inhibits carbon capture (forests and oceans absorb more than 50% of CO2 emissions), implies higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere, and the acceleration of climate change. It also eliminates the role of climate mitigation and moderation that forests have, and the protective role of coasts against cyclones and hurricanes and sea level rise offered by mangroves and coral reefs.

As for Mexico, the absence of the head of SEMARNAT itself is unfortunate, which confirms her indifference and negligence, while the Foreign Ministry invades and unduly usurps her powers, without having the necessary technical, operational, human or legal capacities. Mexico committed itself, signing the new Framework, in a context of schizophrenia and/or cynicism, while the institutions responsible for the issue are dismantled. Indeed, the National Commission for Natural Protected Areas (CONANP) receives only 1.23% of the sector’s budget (Branch 16), which has been reduced by 36% in real terms since 2018, with only 800 million pesos for 2023. Faced with this, the patronage program that causes deforestation “Sembrando Vida” has an assigned budget of 37 billion pesos. Obscene contrast.

@g_quadri