Kapok | Killing them not so softly

Eric Sautedé

True: United Nations agencies or “bodies” can be confusing, especially when their names are long — the more specialized they are the longer the name — and the way they are designated in the mainstream press only refers to their acronym. There is the IPCC on the one hand, and the IPBES on the other, with the latter sometimes being characterized as the former “on biodiversity”—how helpful is that?!? Indeed, the IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and this is the one organization we most often heard about as the unprecedented warming of planet earth is seen as the root cause of all our environmental challenges, present and future.

The IPCC’s work provides scientific evidence about and policy recommendations on how to deal with these challenges to its 195 member states. It is the IPCC, which was founded in 1988, that warned us last October that efforts to limit global warming “well below 2ºC” above pre-industrial levels over the century would not be enough, contrary to what we thought in 2015, and that the new threshold not to cross was 1.5º C in order to prevent a grilling amplification of heat-waves, a sudden destabilization of the marine ice sheet in Antarctica, the irreversible loss of the Greenland ice sheet, and an alarming rise of mean sea level across the globe. 

The consequences would be dreadful for human societies and the urgency is here and now: CO2 emissions have to be reduced by about 45% at the horizon of 2030 and reach net zero — carbon neutrality — by 2050!

The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services is more recent — it was created only in 2012 — and, as the name indicates, is focused on the footprint human activities have on biodiversity and ecosystems across the world. Governments — 130 member states altogether — support the action of the IPBES, but just like the IPCC, its different roles are grounded in expertise bringing together scientists, NGOs as well as businesses and industries. It is well-known for its “assessments”, among which certainly the most influential to date has been its report on “Pollinators, Pollination and Food Production” and ground-breaking trend it triggers in the global fight against pesticides since it was published in 2016.

Now, the plenary session of the IPBES just convened for two weeks in Paris in the UNESCO building and released on May 4th a short version of its huge report on the unprecedented and dangerous decline of nature because of human activities. The most quoted and conscience-striking fact highlighted in that “summary for policymakers” being that 1 million species of plants and animals — out of a total of 8 million, including 5.5 million insects — are “threatened with extinction, many within decades, more than ever before in human history.”

The report also indicates, just like the IPCC report from October, that “global goals for conserving and sustainably using nature […] cannot be met by current trajectories, and goals for 2030 and beyond may only be achieved through transformative changes across economic, social, political and technological factors.” The constant reminder of the 2030 horizon deriving from the 17 Sustainable Development Goals set by the United Nations General Assembly in 2015.

What is meant by “transformative changes” is pretty complex, although the executive summary makes it very clear that these should follow four key principles of governance: ‘integrative’ governance to ensure policy coherence and effectiveness; ‘inclusive’ governance approaches through stakeholder engagement and the inclusion of indigenous peoples and local communities; ‘informed’ governance for nature and nature’s contributions to people; and finally ‘adaptive’ governance and management. Any piece of policymaking should thus be implementable and implemented across the board, by all and for the benefit of all, based on facts and assessments and enabling locally tailored choices that can then be erected as guidelines for best practices by all.

But then, the report concludes distressingly that a “transformative change can expect opposition from those with interests vested in the status quo,” a disheartening warning not quite mitigated by the somewhat naive assertion that “such opposition can be overcome for the broader public good.” Reminds you of anywhere?