ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CRISIS: BIODIVERSITY LOSS IN THE 21ST CENTURY
BY MĂDĂLIN CĂTĂLIN BLIDARU
The environmental challenges on the international agenda are focused in particular on climate change and on the efforts to address the effects of natural disasters.
The scientific world working to tackle many climate change issues sounded the alarm regarding the risks and the transformative needs that we need to address the climate emergency.
“Limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require ‘rapid and far-reaching’ transitions in land, energy, industry, buildings, transport, and cities,” highlighted IPCC in a seminal 2018 report. Justly, these efforts in the fight against climate change inspired and generated a set of supportive active measures from the international community, involving public, private, and nonprofit stakeholders.
However, there is a risk that the environmental agenda will be unwillingly “captured” by the climate crisis and other fundamental environmental themes will not raise a sufficient-enough ambition level. One example is biodiversity loss. Apart from the fact that we all love the fantastic documentaries bringing nature in all its splendor into our homes, as well as nature itself, biodiversity means more than the conservation of the biological diversity around the global. Without proper considerations, it can easily fall behind.
Aimed at evaluating the current situation and the trends concerning biodiversity and ecosystems, in 2019 a global assessment report was published by IPBES, an intergovernmental platform that reunites 137 member states and aims to be a science policy interface on biodiversity. The IPBES Global Assessment Report sent a warning message of an unprecedented decline in nature and the acceleration of species’ extinction.
How fast can we get from a biodiversity crisis to an armed conflict?
The assessment, considered one of the most comprehensive to date, states that “the global rate of species extinction is already at least tens to hundreds of times higher than the average rate over the past 10 million years and is accelerating.” The figures demonstrated that from an estimated 8 million species of plants and animals, 75 percent of which are insects, 1 million are threatened with extinction. The report contains a set of policy recommendations that could contribute to achieving the sustainability resolutions in the area of biodiversity.
Nevertheless, the report largely disregards the disruptive potential of nature-human relations. COVID-19 and the global nightmare of a bat in a wet market in Wuhan exposed the complex interdependencies not only among nations, but also between man and nature, with zoonotic transmission at the forefront. A policy brief prepared by OECD stressed recently that the loss of biodiversity is a critical factor of concern when discussing the emerging infectious diseases and the risks for society and the economy. It shares recommendations for investments in conservation, sustainable use, and restoration. On the other side, it is true that biodiversity provides a framework that, managed properly, could support a sustainable economy, create new jobs, and reduce health and epidemiological risks. We need a healthy nature for a healthy life.
With an international relations background, the impact of biodiversity on conflict and international trade arises as a rather exotic analytical curiosity. Beyond ecology, these topics are under-explored in such endeavors. Additionally, these are issues that are not within the conventional mandates of the international organizations active in the environmental or international security sectors.
From biodiversity to conflict – not a very long way
How fast can we get from a biodiversity crisis to an armed conflict? We have similar examples in environmental issues where the struggle for access to resources is much more visible: agriculture, energy, water. Scenarios on the impact of a biodiversity crisis are limited, and perspectives on the failure to preserve biodiversity are incomplete. A set of advantages encourages the calls to conflict resolution and preventive measures as the existence of communication channels between parties, good neighbor relations, or bilateral and multilateral agreements in force that are focused on the governance of fragile biological resources.
These mechanisms have been developed in a context marked largely by affluence and with disputes arising from jurisdictional conflicts or disputes around biological resources exploitation management. Efforts aimed at conservation of threatened species have been supported, yet the results can be seen after sustained multiannual programs. They do not provide a rapidly obtained outcome. There have also been efforts conducted in genetic research that could address access-based challenges, with the benefits and risks of the modified organisms at the forefront of public debate. But these advances can be labeled as “known knowns”—we know that they exist, we share a common understanding around the issue, and we know their direction and the ongoing regulations under international auspices.
The impact of biodiversity on conflict and trade needs additional attention.
Difficulties arise with possible conflicts over access to biological resources that are not on our radar. There are multiple easy-to-imagine illustrations. The disappearance of a fish species in one country due to developments in another jurisdiction. The chain impact on many natural phenomena, a topic in the area of climate change that can be easily extrapolated to natural ecosystems. Deforestation out of control in a state that threatens the territory of species with transboundary movements. Erosion of an ecosystem supporting role based on development investments in other states. Investing in infrastructure development in an area without serious environmental impact considerations. Complications that can be provoked in the long run by the uncontrolled transboundary movements of living modified organisms, especially in hard-to-detect areas. Impacting the water quality in an area with negative effects on organisms that live or use that water. Unauthorized or uncontrolled use of genetic technologies that can disturb entire populations central for the maintenance of transboundary ecosystems.
Many other examples can lead to disputes between parties. The illustrations mentioned above fall into the category of those we know and can predict (like an international pandemic).
Challenging questions appear beyond the variables we know, questions falling into the area of environmental security. We are not prepared for a devastating disease with an impact on pollinators, without which we could not live. If such challenges arise in more specific jurisdictional contexts, the impact on potential conflict may be higher. 2020 equipped us with the opportunity to reflect on more confrontational and conspiratorial approaches to nature’s unknowns with international spread.
The impact of biodiversity loss on international trade
The second point concerns the impact of biodiversity loss on international trade. The food economy is a global economy and an anthropic life-supporting system. Supply chains are international, and few places have the capacity to easily adapt to major damage to a supply crisis. There are international futures-based stock exchanges and ongoing research in the agri-food sector, but the loss of biodiversity contests the traditional preparedness scenarios.
The general perspective from which the relationship between biodiversity and trade is viewed is that in which trade (not just international trade) threatens or has a direct or indirect negative impact on biodiversity—on individuals, on species, on functional relationships in ecosystems, and on inter-ecosystemic relations. There are consistent discussions about the role of biodiversity in trade agreements, on non-tariff barriers based within certain limits on the effects on biodiversity, and so on.
Changing our lenses to an approach that looks at the impact of biodiversity loss on international trade is necessary. Local events can cause shocks to supply chains and business relationships. Once again, COVID-19 functioned as an early warning system. It is a direction that often takes us to the area of trade management, with natural resources dependent on the state of biodiversity.
We need additional efforts to ensure nature’s sustainability not only for its own sake, but also for its role in shaping the society in which we live.
The impact of ecosystem destruction remains underestimated. Understood as the benefits that humans derive from ecosystems, the importance of ecosystem services is largely ignored, even if they have been carefully studied since the beginning of this century, such as provisioning, regulating, cultural and supporting services provided by ecosystems.
The fishing industry, for example, is one of the extractive industries still dependent on the proper functioning of ecosystem services. The cost of energy obtained from biomass obtained by enlarging production areas remains underestimated and its extractive dimension overlooked. The loss of the role of biodiversity in adapting and mitigating climate change has a very long-term impact. Maintaining good trade relations between several states may depend on the supply of resources whose availability are threatened by the degradation of biodiversity, thus imposing more difficulties on international cooperation in mercantile situations.
The previous example of pollinators is much more relevant as 75 percent of the world's food crops depend on them. In fact, according to the same source, the European Commission, six industries depend on nature through their supply chains for more than 50 percent of their added value. The seven industries mentioned are chemical and materials, aviation, travel and tourism, construction, mining and metals, supply chains and transport, and retail and consumer goods.
Tackling biodiversity loss is a local and global endeavor
The loss of biodiversity is a local and global challenge. It is a challenge that we can all respond to, especially since we are in a relationship of dependence that we rarely perceive at its true value and magnitude. It also requires collective ambitions and multilateral commitments.
Like other systemic environmental crises, we acknowledge the risks and threats of today, but these are even greater on the horizon in the absence of action. At the same time, there are opportunities at the limit of the imagination for prevention, adaptation, and mitigation. The impact of biodiversity on conflict and trade needs additional attention—at the analytical level, at the policy level, and in particular in supporting agreements based on effective multilateralism, but also in the real economy.
Most of us appreciate the contributions of nature. It is inexpensive to directly enjoy the benefits that a natural park offers you. Nonetheless we need additional efforts to ensure its sustainability not only for its own sake, but also for its role in shaping the society in which we live, wherever we live, one that has peace and prosperity as fundamental goals.
____________________
Mădălin Cătălin Blidaru is a Pacific Council member and Ph.D. student at the National University of Political Studies and Public Administration.
The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Pacific Council.
