Paris, France

Our consumption and dietary patterns are causing “interconnected” crises for biodiversity, climate and health, threatening the survival of essential ecosystems such as corals, warn experts from around the world in a landmark report.

Unsustainable agricultural practices”, with their reliance on chemical fertilizers and pesticides, have multiple negative effects: loss of biodiversity, unsustainable water use, pollution and greenhouse gas emissions…

These conclusions, adopted by nearly 150 countries meeting in Namibia, are the fruit of three years’ work by 165 experts from around the world, grouped together in the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).

In this “Nexus” report, these leading scientists – the biodiversity equivalent of the UN-mandated IPCC experts on climate change – list the links between biodiversity, water, food and health.

Their message: the crises affecting the planet are “all interconnected”.

“There is a real danger that we will solve one crisis by making others worse”, explains Paula Harrison, one of the report’s principal authors.

Coral reefs illustrate the warning spectacularly: they are not threatened exclusively by ocean warming

“Even if we solved the climate problem, coral reefs would still be affected by pollution, overfishing and other threats”, points out American professor and lead co-author Pamela McElwee.
As a result, corals represent “the most threatened ecosystem” on Earth and “could disappear worldwide within 10 to 50 years”, concludes IPBES.
Page after page, the scientists warn of the harmful consequences of trying to solve one problem without thinking about the others, for example by tackling climate change “exclusively”, ignoring the effects on nature. Some climate solutions can “have a cost for biodiversity”, insists Professor McElwee.
For example, planting trees to absorb more CO2 can harm the local ecosystem if the species are poorly chosen, or reduce the area available for growing food. Some wind farms, while good for the climate, can increase bird and bat mortality.
– Answers –
Conversely, some solutions tick all the boxes.
“Reducing over-consumption of meat” is cited as one of 71 ‘answers’ with multiple beneficial effects.
“Good examples include marine protected areas that have involved communities in management and decision-making,” points out Pamela McElwee.
“These areas have helped to increase biodiversity, increase the abundance of fish to feed the population and improve the quality of life.

“Good examples include marine protected areas that have involved communities in management and decision-making,” Pamela McElwee points out.
“These areas have increased biodiversity, increased the abundance of fish to feed people, improved incomes for local communities and, often, increased income from tourism.”
Experts cite funding from the city of Paris to encourage farmers to adopt more sustainable practices, with health and environmental benefits and potentially lower water treatment bills.
In California, a ban on rice stubble burning was initially intended to improve the respiratory health of local residents. But submerging these fields in winter also helped restore salmon habitat.
Beyond these consensual recommendations, the specialists – whose conclusions are politically endorsed by the countries’ representatives – struggled to reach agreement on other issues.
– Divisions –
Delegates called for final modifications on thorny issues such as agricultural exports, fossil fuels, single-use plastics and consumption patterns.
They argued over the inclusion of “climate change” in the report’s title, according to the Earth Negotiations Bulletin. In the end, the expression did not appear.

This friction between countries also disrupted other UN environmental negotiations this autumn (on biodiversity, plastics and desertification), some of which failed.
Yet the facts are clear.
Half the world’s economy depends on nature, but human societies spend more on destroying it than on protecting it, the report points out.
The societal and environmental costs inflicted by fossil fuels, agriculture and fishing reach up to 25,000 billion dollars a year, or a quarter of global GDP, the authors estimate.
“These trade-offs are totally forgotten,” economist James Vause, a contributor to the sum published on Tuesday, told AFP, and which the authors hope will influence the forthcoming UN negotiations on biodiversity in February.

Humaniterre with AFP