sign a “peace pact with nature”. The appeal of the Secretary General of the United Nations (UN), Antonio Guterres, when opening the 15 conference of the parties on biodiversity (COP15) was heard. The treaty was initialed on Monday, December 19, by more than 190 states in Montreal. But, in a peace plan, it is not so much the signature that matters that the effective application of commitments by stakeholders. The “Kunming-Montreal Agreement” may have been described as “historic” by protagonists who hastened to make it the equivalent for the biodiversity of the Paris climate agreement, the promises n ‘ engage at this stage that those who believe them.
It is true that a COP on biodiversity had been so ambitious. It is a question of protecting 30 % of the planet, of restoring a third of ecosystems, of half reducing the risks linked to pesticides, to double the overall funding in favor of the protection of nature.
These ambitions are as laudable as it is essential. In the same way as those which had been formulated in 2010 during the COP10 of Nagoya (Japan), which, too, had raised a wind of hope … before disappointing. Of the twenty targets that had been set for the end of the decade, none has been reached. Worse, the decline of most of the most fragile species continued, despite the beautiful words.
Attempt to reassure themselves by betting on the assumption that the commitments made in Nagoya have made it possible to slow down the process of destruction constitutes a pitiful satisfactory. This calamitous assessment raises the question of the method of this COP15. Failing to have learned all the lessons from this failure, the same errors threaten to lead to the same dead ends.
insufficient funding
The Kunming-Montréal agreement, however, marks significant progress, providing for a follow-up framework which must make it possible to regularly assess advances to possibly correct the trajectory. While, in many areas, the point of non-return is reached, it is no longer possible to wait ten years to see the failure of the policies carried out.
The fight for the preservation of biodiversity is a challenge as complicated as that of global warming. The effects are often diffuse, invisible to urban populations. Above all, the sanctuarization of natural spaces has heavy impacts on populations and local economies, requiring enormous means to support them in this transition. However, even if the funding promised in Montreal are in sensitive increase, they remain largely insufficient.
But whatever the most pessimistic say, the agreement obtained at the end of this COP15 has the merit of existing. The fears of a resounding failure were real and it is necessary to salute the start which allows to maintain the hope of saving what can be. That said, without binding mechanism, many commitments are likely to remain a dead letter. The European regulations which were adopted on December 6 to prohibit imports of products that contributed to deforestation is an example of a device which can usefully complete the Montreal Agreement. Unfortunately, this type of initiative remains isolated.
Some countries like China have won the case, during COP15, so that the preservation objectives are global and not on the scale of each nation. The process does not deceive anyone on the degree of voluntarism of everyone to act: the not in my backyard (Nimby, “not in my garden”) remains the best shared notion in the world. Peace is signed. However, it does not mark the end of the fight.