Biblical biodiversity?

In December last year, the much-delayed UN Biodiversity Conference (COP15) finally took place in Montreal, Canada (see November’s en).

After nearly two weeks of intensive talks, representatives of 188 governments approved a new set of goals to guide global action up to 2030 – to halt and reverse nature loss. This agreement rejoices in the snappy title of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.

What does it say?

There’s a lot in it, but it includes commitments to halt extinctions of threatened species; preserve intact ecosystems and restore what’s been depleted, and protect 30% of Earth’s lands, oceans, coastal areas and inland waters, with emphasis on areas of particular importance for biodiversity.

To put that percentage in context, the UK government already has a target that 30% of land and sea should be protected and effectively managed for nature. The UK is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world, so it is perhaps not a surprise that, according to research by my colleagues, only 5% of land in the UK is both protected and effectively managed for nature (we’re doing slightly better at sea). The UK government has a more optimistic view, but it’s clear we’ve got a long way to go.

Finance is crucial, and there is agreement to reduce harmful government subsidies that destroy biodiversity by at least $500 billion, and to increase biodiversity finance by at least $200 billion. However, of the $200 billion, only $30 billion per year by 2030 is set to flow from developed to developing countries. It’s a significant step in the right direction, but still much too low to achieve the goals.

How were Christians involved?

Faith-based organisations were able to take part in the discussions (although the formal negotiations and agreement were for governments only). Christian organisations such as A Rocha International and the World Evangelical Alliance were well-represented alongside secular environmental bodies such as the WWF and BirdLife International (of which the RSPB is a member). Members of the A Rocha delegation came from Canada, Ghana and India as well as the UK, and spoke at a number of side events to articulate a distinctively Christian voice for creation care.

What does it mean for us?

Reaching agreement between so many parties inevitably involves some sort of compromise, but the reaction from environmental groups was generally positive: ‘a momentous commitment’ (A Rocha International); ‘a landmark win’ (RSPB). Commitments could have been more concrete (metaphorically speaking), the finance has a way to go, and the approach to business disclosures on how they affect nature could be stronger, but the agreement lays a strong foundation for taking action.

It’s now largely down to governments to put fine words into action. So much depends on domestic politics. Environmentalists have taken heart from the recent election of President Lula in Brazil, a key country globally for nature. Whatever his faults, Lula is firmly committed to protecting the Amazon rainforest and the rights of indigenous people, quite the opposite of his predecessor. Closer to home, the rhetoric of the UK Government doesn’t always match its actions; as I write, controversies rage about water pollution, and there is concern that the new system of support for farmers in England won’t do enough to help them restore nature.

We all have a role to play in encouraging our government to take ambitious action for nature, not just to halt further ecological losses but to restore what’s been lost as we seek to reflect the concern our Creator has for his world.

Simon Marsh works in nature conservation and is a member of St Neots Evangelical Church.