Excellency Hamdallah Zedan and through you to Minister Yasmin Fouad of Egypt.
Thank you for your generous words of support.
Co-Chairs Francis Ogwal and Basile van Havre
Executive Secretary Cristiana Pașca-Palmer
Ministers, Ambassadors, distinguished guests, partners, colleagues and friends.
Welcome to Nairobi!
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you as you begin the hard work of setting the structure and scope of the post-2020 biodiversity framework.
This is a long and difficult task, but one from which we cannot shirk.
This framework will be crucial in arresting biodiversity loss, the implications of which are becoming clearer and more severe with every passing year.
This year alone four landmark reports brought these implications home: the 6th Global Environment Outlook, the Global Resources Outlook, the IPBES Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services and the IPCC report on climate and land.
These reports tell us, in no uncertain terms, that we are losing species and the land and marine spaces that supports them at terrifying rates.
- Populations of mammals, reptiles, amphibians, birds and fish fell 60% between 1970 and 2014.
- We are set to lose at least one million out of the nearly eight million species on earth.
- Humanity is gobbling up land for agriculture, infrastructure and urban expansion.
- The IPCC report tells us that we use 72% of the planet’s ice-free surface to feed, clothe and support ourselves.
As we lose this biodiversity, we lose the food, water, energy, raw materials, medicines, and cultural and spiritual wellbeing it provides.
We need look no further than what is happening across our planet right now, where unprecedented fires are devastating large areas of some of the most important areas of our universe.
We cannot begin to unravel the impacts this will have on biodiversity, climate change and the well-being of people.
To be blunt, so while we must make every effort to stretch to reach the Aichi Targets before the 2020 deadline, we already see that our efforts to fix the biodiversity crisis through the Aichi Targets on reducing biodiversity loss will not succeed as per our expectations and plans.
So we must learn, reflect, investigate and understand why this is so.
The direct drivers of biodiversity loss – habitat conversion, over-exploitation, pollution, climate change and invasive alien species – are only growing in their severity and impact.
Now we have a second bite at the cherry through the post-2020 biodiversity framework.
We must get this framework right, a job that starts here today.
So, how do we get it right?
One, we must learn from mistakes made in setting the Aichi Targets.
The targets were in large part not met because they were agreed to without the buy-in of the sectors that largely cause biodiversity loss, and because they were agreed to without baselines, and without measurable indicators.
We cannot repeat the mistakes of the past if we are to have any chance of success.
Two, we need a greater level of ambition on protection targets.
Aichi Target 11, which called for the protection of 17 percent of terrestrial space and 10 percent of marine space, provided a clear path for accountability and was amongst the most successful goals.
This allowed countries to make real progress, and I congratulate those who met or exceeded the target.
But even if we do reach this target by 2020, it is not enough. We should aim to stretch beyond the current percentage goals reflected in Target 11.
Three, focusing only on a percentage of our planet that we protect is an inadequate overall measure.
Don’t get me wrong, stretching for an ambitious percentage for our protected marine and terrestrial areas is critical and, as mentioned, we should stretch the limits of the post-2020 framework and look to protecting a significantly larger percentage.
But beyond protected areas and beyond percentages it is even more critical, that we plan to protect the entire planet in a variety of ways.
This means that in our fields, in our cities and in our infrastructure, biodiversity and nature-positive action must be part of the solution.
We need to facilitate and encourage biodiversity-positive agriculture, biodiversity-rich cities, biodiversity-smart construction and biodiversity-friendly infrastructure that integrates nature in design and execution.
We need Nature-Based Solutions.
This will not only be good for biodiversity, it will also be good for human welfare, for our health and for resilience in a climate changing world.
Four, the quality of what we protect is as important as the quantity.
The ability to measure progress is essential, but counting percentages is not the only way.
Our protected areas need to overlap with key biodiversity areas, the ones that hold our planets most diverse, and most important species and ecosystems.
And we need to remember the important role that indigenous communities and local communities play as stewards of nature.
Five, we need to secure buy-in from outside the biodiversity movement.
Our engagement with sectors that have a huge impact on biodiversity is critical.
For example, we know that land-use change is a major driver of biodiversity loss.
But the Aichi targets were agreed at the Environment Ministry level, and in many countries the targets had limited buy-in from agriculture, infrastructure, public works, municipal planning and other sectors that use the land and that often are the primary drivers of biodiversity loss.
We, in the biodiversity sector, need to work with agriculture and infrastructure to help these sectors become biodiversity-positive and nature enhancing.
These sectors must be part of defining the post-2020 framework.
If they are not, the destruction of biodiversity will continue unabated.
Six, we need science-based targets.
Engaging with other sectors will require a different approach, one that allows these sectors to know exactly how they are performing vis-à-vis biodiversity wealth.
So we need science-based targets in order that business, agriculture and infrastructure, etc., can measure their performance on a biodiversity scale of impact.
This means science-based targets for sectors such as palm oil, soy, wheat, cattle, infrastructure, cities and municipalities, etc.
These targets should be ambitious, measurable, feasible and contain the quality of protection that we need.
Seven, we should think about an apex target for biodiversity.
Climate change has its apex target of 1.5 degrees. Allow me to muse on what the development of an apex target might look like. Imagine if we had something similar against which to measure our performance on biodiversity. Now I realize that such a measure might not be ready today, but I call on the scientific community to study and research this. If such a measure was designed, it would allow us to simplify and enable a broader understanding and measurement of a highly complex issue.
Imagine a composite scale that combined species diversity, genetic diversity and ecosystem diversity. And then imagine someone plotting global and country performance on this scale highlighting gaps as well as opportunities.
If science had such a scale, it could shine a light on those countries and sectors that need to stretch, as well as on those countries who are importing biodiversity-negative products, such as unsustainable meat farmed on tropical forest land or unsustainable palm oil products.
If the science community were to define such a scale, and if the science community were, therefore, to simplify the message, it will allow the public to follow and understand, to vote and to lobby for biodiversity conservation.
Eight, targets mean nothing without the right solutions.
We can set ourselves all the lofty goals we want, but we need actions and solutions to meet them.
But ladies and gentlemen, the good news is that solutions exist. They are in our hands.
Our economic model can adequately value our ecosystems
When our economic models and national accounts acknowledge planetary boundaries, we can factor biodiversity into well-being and sustainability. This will move us to market-based solutions that contribute to biodiversity conservation.
Agriculture can work with nature
By transforming our agri-food system, we can produce, distribute, consume and dispose of food in ways that optimize resource use, minimize greenhouse gas emissions, avoid harmful chemicals and arrest biodiversity loss.
Habitats, wildlife and wild spaces can co-exist side by side
By focusing on integrated land and water use planning and linking the private sector, governments and local communities, we can deliver investments that bring sustainable economic and ecological benefits to countries, people and the environment.
Arresting land degradation can reduce poverty, conserve biodiversity and improve resilience
By restoring landscapes and gearing our structures towards subsidies and incentives that reward restoration and sustainable resource use, we can bring obvious climate, biodiversity and livelihood benefits.
Investing in nature’s infrastructure can ensure smarter choices
By investing in nature’s infrastructure as the first choice of infrastructure for resilience, coupled with smart design of buildings, resilient cities and infrastructure, we can reduce emissions, resource use, and impacts on biodiversity.
Here let me tell you that research has found that on a sunny day, a single healthy tree can have the cooling power of more than ten air conditioning units.
Cities like Medellin in Colombia have managed to reduce temperatures by more than 2 degrees celsius through turning their concrete jungles into urban forests.
This is a perfect example of a nature-based solution that promotes local biodiversity and helps reduce the impact of climate change.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Society around the world is increasingly recognizing and responding to the environmental challenge and looking to hold governments to account.
Governments need to respond.
Political will, synergy across sectors, targets and agreements, utilizing solutions and supporting national capacities will be critical ingredients of our success.
Now we must take every opportunity to put biodiversity conservation on the top of the agenda in every boardroom, in every ministry and in every international process – starting with the upcoming Global Climate Action Summit.
We must demonstrate how backing nature is a powerful solution to a significant number of the challenges this planet faces, from biodiversity loss to climate change to poverty.
If we get this framework right, we can get biodiversity right.
And if we get biodiversity right, it will help provide decent work and prosperity for thousands of small and large communities around the world.
And if we get biodiversity right, we have immeasurable assistance in getting climate mitigation and adaptation right.
And if we get biodiversity right, we can get food security and water security right.
And if we get biodiversity right, we will have made a major contribution to making cities and communities sustainable,
And if we get biodiversity right, pressures on land will be reduced, and so will be the risk of conflict and migration.
If we get this framework right, we can use it to deliver our common vision of living in harmony with nature.
The hard work starts today.
Thank you.
Inger Andersen
Executive Director
