A transformative change to stop the planetary biodiversity crisis. The biodiversity ‘IPCC’—the Intergovernmental Platform on Biological Diversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)—launched two weeks ago your latest reportprepared by 165 leading international experts from all regions of the world over three years of work. To solve the loss of natural wealth that has accelerated, it is essential to understand that it is a polycrisisthey warn.
This transformative change, as the IPBES has called it, encompasses the proposal of a whole series of fundamental changes throughout the system: in the visions of society (ways of thinking, knowing and seeing); the structures (ways of organizing, regulating and governing); and practices (ways of doing, behaving and relating).
Lucas Garibaldi, doctor in Agricultural Sciences and co-director of the report, catalogs in a conversation with elDiario.es this research as a “historical milestone” because, he affirms, it is the result of a scientific-political consensus promoted by 147 countries “ based on the best science they have.” “History has shown us – he insists – that societies can transform on an immense scale, as they did during the Industrial Revolution. “While that era exacted terrible environmental and human costs, it is proof that fundamental, systemic change is possible.”
Why did you think a report like this was necessary and what makes it unique?
What we found is that, somehow, during the last decades, although there have been a lot of efforts to get out of this trajectory of planetary destruction, these efforts have not been successful on a global scale. The balance remains negative: it has not been possible to bend the curve of biodiversity destruction. Therefore, we have seen that what is needed is a change that is qualitatively different: a transformative change.
Previous approaches often did not take into account the root causes of biodiversity loss, such as our values: most people still think that their well-being does not depend on nature. They feel, consciously or unconsciously, completely disconnected from it, and that is a mistake, because we live in an ecological system where our well-being depends directly on it. We are crossing planetary boundaries and we are already seeing the consequences of not being able to recognize that, in reality, the entire economy depends on nature, the consequences of not recognizing that ecological laws exist.
More than $10 trillion in business opportunities could be generated and 395 million jobs could be supported globally by 2030 with this approach.
Many people see changes only as resignations. However, we can also get other things from them. What would we receive as ‘return’ if we started activating these strategies?
Somehow, people are beginning to realize that something bad is happening: you work a lot, but you are not happy; you cannot access basic welfare things; You realize that the only thing you can do is spend money on things that have to do with the short term; who have almost no access to nature; that the happiness they obtain is very shallow, very superficial, so to speak; that everything has to be quick, easy, right now, and it is difficult to look at the long term; We buy things and when we buy them we feel very good but after two days it is already something old and we need to buy something else.
That sounds like a similar pattern to addictions…
Yes. We are a society that is based on that series of addictions. However, people are beginning to realize that many things do not end up working, that the things we invest a lot of time and money into do not create lasting peace in us, so to speak.
The report suggests that we have to rethink some issues: we live in a world in which just ten people have exaggerated wealth and that truly affects the well-being of the planet and the majority of the population. Or if we really have to consume so much, or in this way, or what type of products should be consumed. And, in this sense, generally the things that are most beneficial for the environment are also most beneficial for us. Additionally, research indicates that more than $10 trillion in business opportunities could be generated and 395 million jobs could be supported globally by 2030 with this approach.
The first strategy deals with conservation, restoration, and regeneration. Can you give examples of real cases that summarize this first strategy?
There are many examples of conservation areas co-managed with local populations in almost all countries. Some of them are even supported by legislation. In some of these cases, for example, people do not have the vision that nature must be preserved without touching it, but rather that, in some way, we can manage natural resources, obtain benefits from it, but creating synergies.
There are many initiatives linked to tourism where local populations find more value in the environment through the benefits that tourism provides – controlled and regulated – than in destroying nature to obtain a series of products or services that have very low value. . One case is the Galapagos, but there are a lot of places in the world where we can see examples where they are promoting this.
The second and third strategy they propose is to promote systematic change. That is, the integration of biodiversity in the sectors most responsible for the deterioration of nature, and transforming economic systems for nature and equity. In this sense, where has this been done?
On the one hand, the issue of transforming economic systems would be about promoting different metrics of economic success and how to transform our economic systems so that our country’s success metrics are not growth or GDP, but, although They are interesting and must continue to be, they are complemented more with questions of measures that take into account nature and the well-being of people.
Or, instead of subsidizing sectors that destroy nature, subsidizing climate-smart agriculture, green technologies, bonds for the recovery of forests… Twenty years ago these were ideas that were in development, but today we have examples in all sides, and they work.
And there are plenty of examples. One is in Spain, in Galicia, and it is the Os Miñarzos marine reserve. It was managed jointly by fishermen, scientists, and the Government, after an oil spill. This collaboration improved fish populations, restored marine biodiversity and increased economic benefits for small-scale fisheries.
Can you explain how to transform governance systems to be inclusive, accountable and adaptable, and change perspectives and values to recognize the interconnection between humans and nature?
There are plenty of governance systems that are inclusive, participatory, and that are working. In Tanzania, participatory land use planning allows local communities to balance conservation with development needs. This inclusive approach encourages sustainable resource management while empowering rural populations. Or Rwanda’s national ban on single-use plastics, which reduced urban plastic pollution by 90%. These policies demonstrate how strict regulations can quickly change social norms and behaviors towards sustainability.
On the other hand there is the strategy that talks about values and visions. Visions are where we want to go, what our goal is as a society. And that world we want is visualized based on values. There are places that have rearranged their cities so that one can go to work by bicycle. And from there one obtains a health benefit and also a benefit to the environment. Another specific case of this would be the Finnish education system, which integrates the connection with nature into its curricula, teaching students the value of biodiversity and ecosystem services.
Without a change in values, everything else cannot be achieved?
What we are saying is that everything has to happen: the change in values, in practices, and in institutions. But in many of the examples, institutions begin to change, then practices, and then values; In others, practices change, then institutions, and then values; and in others first the values, then the institutions and then the practices. In the cases that we saw, there is everything. Sometimes changes in values are given by governments, and sometimes it is the other way around.
We are so involved in this race against life to the point that suddenly life passes us by, we die, and the only thing we can see when we look back is what we accumulated and what we produced
There are many forces, they point out, that block this transformative change. Could you tell us about them?
Without a doubt, there are a lot of established, transnational power groups in different countries that have extraordinary income and clearly do not want to lose it. There are lobbies that block new technologies, or changes that may be more revealing for society. It also happens with medicine, for example: we could have medicine more oriented toward prevention. That makes more sense than covering up problems. Or the health system: the inertia of the free market is going to a place where you are going to have to pay for everything. And ensuring that this is not the case depends on struggles, values, social movements, and a democratic and governance system that has to sustain it.
You maintain that, perhaps, less ends up being more…
In some ways, if for people to be better off, in general, you have to lose 10% of your wealth, you’re not going to like it. But hey: paradoxically, by losing 10% of your wealth you are still happier than before. That’s where this aspect of values is, of how we are so involved in this race against life to the point that suddenly life passes us by, we die, and the only thing we can see when we look back is what we accumulated. and what we produced and that we do not realize that sometimes less is more.
#Lucas #Garibaldi #IPBES #scientist #bend #curve #biodiversity #destruction
