The climate and biodiversity crises are intertwined, but we risk pitting one against the other

Climate change and biodiversity policies have evolved largely in isolation, even though the two crises are deeply intertwined. Both countries have their own UN summits with the same name and numbering system. The United Nations Biodiversity Summit Cop16 just concluded in Colombia, while the Climate Summit Cop29 is currently being held in Azerbaijan. Confusingly, Saudi Arabia will also be hosting a desertification summit, also known as Cop16, in December.

The three summits held in quick succession represent an important opportunity to coordinate these agendas. Healthy ecosystems are essential for climate resilience, while a stable climate is essential for protecting biodiversity.

Let’s take the example of Brazil. Brazil has been able to meet almost 80% of its net-zero pledge by halting deforestation and restoring native vegetation. This would not only save huge amounts of carbon, but also protect a significant portion of the planet’s biodiversity.

Political support for a more integrated approach is gaining momentum. At a recent biodiversity summit, leaders emphasized the need to align national climate and biodiversity goals. This builds on recent initiatives such as the Rio Trio Initiative, which brings together leaders of the United Nations Convention on Climate Change, Biodiversity and Desertification for unified action.

Latin America appears to be strengthening its leadership on biodiversity and climate synergies, which is critical given that the region holds much of the world’s biodiversity and terrestrial carbon. . More than 70 world leaders called on Colombia’s President Petro and Brazil’s President Lula to lead efforts on climate, nature and food security. Brazil has also renewed its commitment to restore 12 million hectares of native ecosystems by 2030, which is very encouraging.

missed opportunity

However, despite these promising developments, the Biodiversity Summit revealed troubling gaps between climate and biodiversity policy. For example, important language referring to the need to transition away from fossil fuels and warning about the dangers of bioenergy was removed from the summit’s final document.

Bioenergy involves the cultivation of plants that have been selected or engineered to have high biomass yields, which can be burned directly to produce energy or processed into biofuels for use in vehicles. A passage in an earlier draft warned of the risks this posed to biodiversity.

“Large-scale deployment of intensive bioenergy plantations, including monocultures, to replace natural forests and subsistence agricultural land is likely to have negative impacts on biodiversity, and reduce food and water security, including through increased social conflict. Please note that this may pose a threat to local livelihoods.

All those risks are very real. However, this paragraph was removed due to opposition from several large bioenergy producing countries.

Bioenergy is a biodiversity risk

This omission is particularly troubling given that many net-zero strategies rely on handing over vast amounts of land for carbon removal. This often means creating large-scale monoculture plantations of exotic trees or growing bioenergy crops to capture and store the carbon emitted during combustion. This technology is still speculative, known as BECCS (Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage).

A recent study found that global net zero efforts could require around 990 million hectares of land for carbon removal by 2060. This is roughly the size of the United States and two-thirds of the world’s arable land. This poses serious risks to biodiversity and food security, especially in areas where land is scarce and competition is high.

The predicted impacts are alarming. Low-income countries, particularly in Africa, have pledged disproportionately large tracts of land for carbon removal, often benefiting high-emitting developed and oil-producing countries. This raises concerns about land expropriation and food insecurity. In some cases, the area promised exceeds the total area of ​​the country, highlighting that the targets are unrealistic and overestimated.

This and other recent high-profile studies warn against the global expansion of bioenergy crops, which often struggle to meet important social and ecological sustainability standards. Contributing to a growing body of evidence.

Moreover, the estimated benefits of bioenergy over fossil energy are often very uncertain when evaluated over the entire life cycle from seed to power. Growing large fields of a single crop (monoculture) is also highly vulnerable to the effects of climate change, such as drought.

Don’t trade carbon for biodiversity

The scientific consensus is clear. We cannot address climate change by industrializing the biosphere. Effective climate solutions must protect ecosystem integrity and support biodiversity, rather than harm ecosystems for added carbon.

This requires not only stronger collaboration between the United Nations Conventions on Climate, Biodiversity and Desertification, but also a more comprehensive approach that strengthens the leadership of the indigenous peoples whose lands the world’s wide range of biodiversity and carbon resides in. A governance structure is also required. This is why it was so important that the recent Biodiversity Summit established a new permanent subsidiary body to enable the “full and effective participation” of indigenous peoples in biodiversity conservation.

At the Cop29 climate summit in Azerbaijan and the Cop30 climate summit in Brazil next year, Latin American countries are expected to continue to take the lead in promoting integrated climate and biodiversity efforts. As we seek to cool the planet, we must ensure that we do not compromise the health of the biosphere on which we depend.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.