Pope urges prayers for success of UN biodiversity summit

Representatives of more than 190 nations have gathered in Canada for a two-week conference that seeks to forge a multilateral pact to halt the destruction of ecosystems and the extinction of species.

COP15, the 15th UN Summit on Biodiversity, was to get underway on Wednesday in Montreal, Quebec. And Pope Francis has asked people to “pray and urge nations” at the summit to reach agreements that will “halt the further collapse of biodiversity” and preserve “our God-given ‘network of life’.”  

In a message for last September’s “World Day of Prayer for the Care of Creation”, the pope said he hopes participants at COP15 will agree on these “four key principles”: 

1. to construct a clear ethical basis for the changes needed to save biodiversity; 

2. to combat the loss of biodiversity, to support conservation and cooperation, and to satisfy people’s needs in a sustainable way; 

3. to promote global solidarity in light of the fact that biodiversity is a global common good demanding a shared commitment; and 

4. to give priority to people in situations of vulnerability, including those most affected by the loss of biodiversity, such as indigenous peoples, the elderly and the young.

Organizers of COP15 are hoping that at least one of the things participants will be able to agree upon is to commit to protecting 30% of the planet’s lands and oceans by 2030.

French entomologist Philippe Grandcolas, director of research at France’s National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS), believes that goal is “theoretically possible” and even “realistic”.

An expert on the evolution of biodiversity, Grancolas is also director of the French Institute of Systematics, Evolution, Biodiversity.

He spoke with La Croix’s Emmanuelle Réju about COP15’s objectives and the summit’s likelihood of achieving them.

One of the objectives of the COP15 is to place 30% of the planet under protection by 2030. Is this realistic?

Philippe Grandcolas: For European eyes, this may seem unrealistic. But in many countries, human density is much lower than in Europe. Not to mention the marine areas where it is theoretically possible to protect 30% of the surface. So yes, this objective is realistic.

What degree of protection are we talking about?

P. G. : That is indeed the question. The goal of the reserve is not to put areas under a bell jar, surrounded by barbed wire and watchtowers: the conflicts of use with the population would be far too great. 

Moreover, it would be difficult to find totally virgin nature on earth, free of any human imprint. This 30% objective does not mean that there will be 30% of untouched paradise on earth.

Ideally, human activities should be at least limited and not affect the renewal of resources. This is not always the case in the protected areas that currently exist. 

Take the Mediterranean: of the 7.4% of its surface area classified as marine protected areas, only 0.04% is under strict protection. It will therefore be necessary to monitor the degree of protection actually implemented, as well as the fate reserved for indigenous peoples.

How are they threatened?

P. G.: It frequently happens that indigenous peoples are literally chased out of the places where they live in order to turn them into biodiversity reserves. This is not only totally unacceptable, it's idiotic. It would be much more intelligent to learn from their know-how. 

This is an extremely delicate issue, which rightly causes a lot of turmoil in the international community, including conflicts between NGOs and indigenous peoples. We cannot do without the support of these communities, which still manage 8-10% of the land territories.

What are the priority places to protect?

P. G.: Conservation biologists were initially interested in biodiversity hotspots on the planet, which combine the richness of the species found there, their endemism and the fact that they are endangered. 

But there is a growing interest in natural places that provide ecosystem services locally. For example, avoiding floods or landslides in densely populated areas by preserving vegetation cover. Or limiting the effects of sea level rise on coastlines by creating buffer zones. 

These are not necessarily places with the most spectacular biodiversity, but it is just as important to preserve them.

Do you believe that this COP, even without the presence of Heads of State, will make it possible to move forward?

P. G.: There is a lot of criticism of the cost and slowness of these large international meetings, but the situation would be much worse without these moments that allow us to measure what has been done... or not done. 

However, we must be careful not to focus too much on the 30% objective, which must not become a blank check for doing anything outside the protection zones. The reduction of pollution by pesticides is also part of the negotiation, which requires a change in agricultural production methods.

This agricultural transition is just as important as the creation of reserves, but much more difficult to implement. Agricultural production is under the influence of lobbies whose power is underestimated. 

National representatives could be tempted to put forward the 30% objective to better conceal the poor progress made in this area.