The current form of nature protection is inadequate. To really combat species loss, a more integrated approach is needed and major economic and social changes must take place. This is what international scientists write in two important, recently published UN reports on biodiversity: IPBES Nexus and IPBES Transformative Change. Just a month and a half after a new global biodiversity agreement was signed in Colombia, the authors of the IPBES reports met in Namibia last week to complete both publications.
Parasitic worm infection
The IPBES Nexus report published on Tuesday focuses on the link between biodiversity loss, climate change, food supply, water management and health. Nexus means ‘connection’ and the authors of the report emphasize that the five main themes interrelate and even reinforce each other “in such a way that a separate approach will not work or will even be counterproductive.” The accompanying press release calls it “the most ambitious scientific assessment ever undertaken.” Nearly 150 experts from 57 countries contributed to the text.
The negative consequences of ‘business-as-usual scenarios’ such as natural overexploitation and agricultural intensification are explained in detail: these are at the expense of biodiversity and climate. But an exclusive focus on climate change, for example, would also be disadvantageous. The findings in the report do not mean that no separate climate goals or biodiversity goals should be set at all, but the consequences elsewhere must always be taken into account.
Solutions that are useful for all themes are, for example, the recovery of CO2-regulating ecosystems such as forests and mangroves, strengthening urban nature, promoting sustainable eating habits and supporting indigenous food production. An example of a successful ‘nexus method’ is the approach to the parasitic worm infection schistosomiasis (formerly bilharzia). If this is controlled exclusively with medication, reinfection often occurs. But a project in Senegal (which reduces pollution and removes invasive aquatic plants that support the parasite-carrying snails) shows that improving water quality can significantly reduce the number of infections.
“The report shows that the situation is worrying, but also offers hope,” said Marja Spierenburg, professor of anthropology of sustainable development and livelihoods at Leiden University and one of the authors of the Nexus report. “The example from Senegal shows that some of the solutions can be found in local, small-scale experiments, which can have a major impact on the quality of the living environment and the local quality of life and health. It shows how important it is to combine scientific insights with other sources of knowledge, for example local and indigenous knowledge.” But a more integrated approach to the environment and climate issues also requires bigger changes, she emphasizes. “Consider breaking boundaries between different policy areas and more intensive cooperation between governments, businesses and citizens. Justice is an important theme in the report. This concerns both differences between countries – the global North and South – and within countries.”
Causes of nature loss
In the second report, the IPBES Transformative Change, which was made public on Wednesday afternoon, the focus is on so-called ‘transformative system changes’. These were first mentioned in the 2019 IPBES global assessment and are based on the idea that the current way of nature protection is inadequate.
Esther Turnhout, professor of Science, Technology and Society at the University of Twente, was one of the authors in Namibia. “In the report we map the root causes of nature loss. We show why current nature protection is not sufficient and what actions are needed, but also what obstacles need to be overcome.” The teams that wrote the reports are deliberately interdisciplinary and international. “It includes natural scientists, but also economists, political scientists, lawyers and psychologists. In recent days we have discussed the content down to word level, and every comma has been considered.”
Current nature protection is treating the symptoms, according to Turnhout, and does not address underlying causes. “It’s like mopping with the tap open while you open the tap further and further. The emphasis is on saving and managing what is left, but without a fundamentally different view on economics and social equality, the destruction of nature will continue to outpace its protection. We have to turn off that tap, we cannot continue to grow economically on a finite planet.”
In short, structural change is needed. “Especially among those who operate the taps: politicians, the business community. Voluntary change and good intentions alone will not get us there. You also need a solid framework of laws and regulations.”
Jeanne Nel, biodiverse environment program leader at Wageningen University and co-author of the report, also emphasizes that implementation of the goals is strongly intertwined with economic systems and rules. “To whom do we give the power to make decisions? What do we individually and as a society consider normal or successful? These topics deserve much more attention in research. This report shows that we must look further than the loss of biodiversity usual suspects: land use, pollution, invasive species. The way we organize our world – in terms of economy, culture, worldview – is of decisive importance.”
Three types of change
The Transformative Change report distinguishes three types of changes: change in outlook (the way of thinking, talking, looking), change in structure (the way of organizing and regulating) and change in habits (behavior). “Transformations can also be unpredictable, so you must pay close attention to what an intervention causes and make timely adjustments,” says Turnhout. The report does not include a ready-made step-by-step plan for policymakers, she emphasizes. “You have to remember that these are scientific reports. What we have done is indicate possible options and their possible effects. Each country must then make its own translation into what this means for the regulations.”
In any case, it is clear that transformative change is not needed equally everywhere on earth. “This must especially happen in places where nature destruction comes from,” says Turnhout. “Consider the Netherlands, which has a large ecological footprint both domestically and internationally.” The definition of nature also needs to be looked at differently. “Too often the Western vision of nature – in which nature is treated as an object – takes center stage. That vision is at the origin of biodiversity loss.”
Although change is a long-term process, Turnhout is hopeful that the report will make a difference. “You cannot change an entire system in one go, but there is still a lot of low-hanging fruit that can be picked. For example, there are still many harmful subsidies that could be abolished. We have tried to expose what power relations are at play, what lobbies exist that maintain such subsidies. Changes in the behavior of individuals must go hand in hand with changes in legislation and regulations so that sustainable initiatives have a chance.” In both reports, postponing interventions is expensive, which can easily cost hundreds of billions of euros per year.
It has not been an easy meeting, says Turnhout. “The reports address, among other things, sensitive themes such as capitalism and colonialism.” Nel also speaks of a difficult process: “Behind the scenes it took a lot of dedication, passion, emotion, frustration and mutual respect to reach the finish line. And that is exactly what is needed to move forward now – in addition to rational science and down-to-earth politics, change must also leave room for emotional peaks and valleys, for resistance, experiment and failure. Change is a human process and by recognizing that we can make room for it.”
The question now is how to reach agreement on long-term strategies in a broader, global context, says Spierenburg. “You see contradictory trends in that respect. On the one hand, there is increasing recognition of the fact that treating symptoms does not work and that broader, political-economic reforms need to be pursued. At the same time, we see that nationalist agendas, focused on short-term self-interest, score well electorally.”