The baseline question
 |
| Image source: Shutterstock |
By Friedrich Wulf, Friends of the Earth Europe
The world is a diverse place, and things are understood differently around the globe. This became evident in Wednesdays’ discussions around Goal A, where one of the questions was what an ecosystem is and which ecosystems need protection. While some were of the view that “ecosystem” means every individual place with a certain flora and fauna, others thought that “ecosystem” meant the overall type. That has important bearings in the meaning of the Goal: if we merely protect the integrity, connectivity and resilience of certain ecosystem types, this means we can bear losing many areas covered by this type before things get critical. If we, on the other hand –in continuation of Aichi Target 5– see the meaning of “ecosystem” as individual habitat, this means that every specific one needs to be maintained, which is much more ambitious and in line with halting (and reversing) the loss of biodiversity, as the proposed mission says.
Another point of debate is what baseline to use as a reference for increasing “the area, connectivity and integrity of the full range of natural ecosystems” by X% by 2030 and Y% 2050. For most people, it would be logical that you change the situation from the status quo. i.e. the baseline is now, 2020 or 2022. One country, however, requested to include “taking into account a natural state baseline” if the goal includes quantitative reduction numbers. The current proposal of Goal A now reads:
"The integrity, connectivity and resilience of [all] [vulnerable and threatened natural] ecosystems is maintained, restored or enhanced, increasing [or maintaining] [by at least 5 per cent by 2030 and [15][20] percent by 2050] the area, connectivity and integrity of the full range of natural ecosystems [taking into account a natural state baseline] [and the risk of collapse of ecosystems is reduced by [X] per cent]."
But what does that actually mean? If we take a natural state, say, in 5000 BC, as a baseline, there is no room for enhancing or increasing so nothing would need to be done. But we don't have that. If it means that we need to get every single individual ecosystem into a natural state, that would be very ambitious and not just feasible without humanity's numbers going down 10.000 fold...
It would really be important to understand how that can work. For the moment it seems that southern countries that still have some intact nature search for a license to still go on decreasing their ecosystems with the argument that developed countries already have destroyed their primary ecosystems, and it would only be fair that they can now trash their nature too.
Legitimate equity issues and saving biodiversity seem to be at odds here. As the biodiversity crisis needs to be tackled everywhere, compensating countries is probably an important aspect of the equation. But this argument can´t legitimize further destruction of ecosystems. Continuing with business as usual inevitably will push all of us over the brink.
The negotiations towards the post 2020 GBF have shown that there are many specific national interests and every Party fights to have them reflected. That’s legitimate –but these should at no point go against the common interest of having an ambitious, transformative post 2020 GBF and saving this planet.
The opinions,commentaries, and articles printed in ECO are the sole opinion of the individual authors or organizations, unless otherwise expressed.