Taking responsibility for unsustainable consumption patterns: the elephant in the room

Illustration by Lena Nemik

By Yemi Katerere, African Civil Society Biodiversity Alliance (ACBA)

While there is agreement that a successful Global Biodiversity Framework needs financial resources that match the level of ambition, the details about how much money and from which sources remain mired in complex and, at times, contradictory propositions. 

Target 18 calls for the elimination of incentives harmful for biodiversity. This is important as it reduces the future need for funding to counter these impacts. The size of such harmful subsidies is contested.  The Dasgupta Report estimated them to be USD 4-6 trillion per year. Determining a credible estimate is absolutely critical because, together with other aspects such as proper governance and adaptive management in place, it is the one of the biggest opportunities to make conservation effective by moving beyond resource deprived paper protected areas and supportive funding to IPLCs. 

Whatever amount is eventually agreed upon and “released”, there must be clarity on how these resources are deployed, accessed and targeted towards the biodiversity emergency measures. Significantly, without a credible estimate of the actual magnitude of incentives harmful to biodiversity, the size of the funding gap (Target 19) becomes fluid. 

IPBES (2019) findings show that domestic material consumption per capita is greatest for developed countries. International trade, mainly driven by consumption in developed countries of goods imported from developing countries, is a key driver of biodiversity loss and causes 30% of global species decline. Analyses by Wilting et. al. (2017) and Weinzettel et. al. (2013) show that more than 50% of the biodiversity loss associated with consumption in developed economies occurs outside their territorial boundaries. This effectively amounts to an export of vulnerability (Kok et. al., 2009) to the Global South. Therefore, while economic harmful incentives must be eliminated, greater attention needs to be on the Global North.

Ultimately, unless the culture of overconsumption is addressed, the goal of eliminating incentives harmful to biodiversity will be difficult to achieve. The responsibility for reduced consumption  and resource provision is the elephant in the room that needs to be tackled.

References:
Wilting et. al. (2017) https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acs.est.6b05296 
Weinzettel et. al. (2013) 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378012001501 
Kok et. al. (2009) 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268811520_Vulnerability_of_people_and_the_environment_-_Challenges_and_opportunities_Background_Report_on_Chapter_7_of_the_Fourth_Global_Environment_Outlook_GEO-4_Netherlands_Environmental_Assessment_Agency 

__________________________________________________________________________

The opinions,commentaries, and articles printed in ECO are the sole opinion of the individual authors or organizations, unless otherwise expressed.