If your car had a flat tire and a dead battery at the same time, fixing only one would still leave you stuck. Unfortunately, this is the situation that the United States finds itself in when it comes to our environmental challenges. We currently face two concurrent existential crises: climate change and global biodiversity loss. And although climate change captures the majority of headlines, scientists have concluded that the biodiversity crisis is of equal and, perhaps greater, importance, and we can't solve one without solving the other.
In 2019, a landmark scientific paper released by hundreds of experts put this into sharp perspective when they identified that biodiversity is declining at rates unprecedented in human history with grave implications predicted - including the extinction of one million species - unless transformational action is taken.
Biodiversity loss is not just a concern for species that are threatened, it’s a problem because the destruction of nature threatens the services it provides us: our clean air and drinking water, our access to medication, our food supply, and our mental and physical health, all of which rely heavily on nature and its abundance. Furthermore, the destruction of nature directly leads to a worsening of the impacts of climate change and threatens our global economies - fifty-five per cent of our global GDP depends on high-functioning biodiversity and ecosystem services.
The good news is that slowly but surely the U.S. government and governments around the world have started to take notice of the importance of biodiversity. In what many described as the “nature equivalent of the Paris Climate Agreement,” 196 countries met in Montreal last December and agreed upon a landmark global deal to address the biodiversity crisis. The centerpiece of this agreement is a target to protect at least 30 percent of the world’s land and waters by 2030 (known as “30 by 30”) while respecting the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. This target will roughly double the amount of land under conservation and quadruple the amount of marine area under conservation - which science tells us is the bare minimum required to confront the biodiversity crisis. This will benefit our economies, generating jobs and income – especially for those closest to nature who are often the most vulnerable. It will also assist pandemic prevention and mitigation as well as enhanced security in the global south where communities are currently pushed to the brink by unstable food and water supplies. It’s a win, win for humanity.
What Role Is the US Playing?
While the United States is the only country in the world that is not a party to the UN Convention on Biodiversity, under the Biden Administration it has played a key role in championing the protection of biodiversity and the 30 by 30 proposal. During his first week in office, President Biden set a domestic goal of conserving 30 percent of our country’s land and water by 2030, and the US became a leader of an intergovernmental coalition of 117 countries advocating for the same target at a global level.
The US’s support for the 30 by 30 proposal is hugely important, and after the biodiversity agreement was reached in Montreal, President Biden applauded the agreement and touted the US’s leadership in securing it. He was right to celebrate, just as he was right to support the proposal – 30 by 30 marks the most ambitious global conservation goal ever established. Many would say it represents the nature equivalent of climate’s ‘net-zero’ approach.
But achieving global consensus on 30 by 30 was just the first step; driving its delivery requires even greater leadership, particularly when it comes to putting our money where our mouth is.
Economists have established that achieving 30 by 30 globally will require an increase of roughly $80 billion annually, from the current $20 billion spent globally on protected areas. The figure might seem large, but it is just 0.1% of global GDP, and evidence shows us that the benefits will far outweigh the cost. It’s a smart investment and wealthier nations have both an opportunity and a responsibility to help developing nations where many of the key biodiversity areas are. By contributing our fair share financially, we are not only preventing the senseless destruction of nature but securing our own livelihoods and futures.
But while the United States is the world’s largest economy, we are not the biggest funder of international biodiversity conservation. In fact, despite its economy being less than a fifth the size of ours, Germany is the leading donor – providing over $1 billion annually to biodiversity projects beyond their borders. As the biggest consumer and largest driver of biodiversity loss in the world, the US can and should be the largest contributor to protecting and restoring the biodiversity that underpins our economy and prosperity. We should also be directing significantly more funding to Indigenous Peoples and local communities who are the frontline defenders of nature.
How Can We Ensure 30 by 30 Succeeds?
In December, when the US helped rally support for the 30 by 30 goal, wealthy nations also agreed to increase international financial resources to developing countries to $20 billion a year by 2025 and $30 billion by 2030.
I was encouraged that the G7 leader’s statement released this weekend reaffirmed a commitment to the landmark Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and pledged to meet its goals and targets. The statement also reiterated G7 nations’ “commitment to substantially increase our national and international funding for nature by 2025.” This is a welcome recognition of the importance of rapidly mobilizing finance for nature.
But this did not go far enough. If the US wants 30 by 30 to succeed globally we urgently need all leaders, President Biden included, to publicly affirm their commitment to numeric financial targets, including the financial commitment of $20B in international biodiversity finance from developed to developing countries by 2025. The climate section of the leader’s statement noted the numerical target of $100 billion for international climate finance, and biodiversity requires the same level of specificity for transparency and accountability. Furthermore, it is imperative that the US and fellow G7 leaders outline a clear plan by the end of this year for delivering on their commitment to provide $20 billion in nature financing by 2025.
Like the climate crisis, the biodiversity crisis requires multilateral emergency cooperation from the highest levels of government. The U.S. must increase its attention to this issue and provide the policy and financial leadership that the world needs.