They worked hand in hand for the first time.
IPBES, the intergovernmental scientific and political platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services, and "its cousin", the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), unveil an unprecedented report on Thursday.
The result of the work of fifty scientists, it officially notes that the climate crisis and the decline in biodiversity can no longer be separated.
Anne Larigauderie, executive secretary of the intergovernmental platform on biodiversity, explains the stakes of such a finding.
This report shows that by acting for biodiversity, we can also act against global warming.
Is this a novelty?
ANNE LARIGAUDERIE.
This is the first time that the two platforms, IPBES and IPCC, have come together to work together.
This is all the more important since we have deadlines this year with the COP15 on biodiversity and the COP26 climate.
What are the conclusions?
We do not have a climate crisis on the one hand, and biodiversity on the other.
The living world and the climate evolve together and are as one, solutions must be provided as a whole.
The main message is to show that there are solutions that benefit the mitigation of global warming and the reduction of biodiversity loss.
To read also Heat waves, floods, cyclones ... you will have to get used to extreme weather
Why have the two separated so far?
In the 1980s, communities were independent and it was not understood that climate change would progress at the rate it is now progressing and that it would, for example, have impacts on animal migrations.
We understood little by little… And if we had to do it, I think we would do things differently because, if we tackle these two challenges separately, we will face great difficulties.
From now on, we have to decompartmentalize, create bridges to convince that in fact it is artificial partitions that we have created.
These "partitions" have already had negative consequences on the environment ...
There are some counterproductive programs. There are, for example, plenty of places where for a few cents, you are offered to replant a tree. But we did not look at the ecology of the restoration, and we will sometimes replant species that are not local and create competition for certain resources. We must keep this same ambition, but let's learn more. The report also points to the planned large-scale deployment of crops for bioenergy, such as the cultivation of sugar cane for bioethanol. It's an interesting technique from the climate community, but it depends on the scale. What is envisaged is to develop crops on land as vast as India. More than a fear, we know that protected areas have already been transformed for these cultures.
To read also Pascal Canfin: "The protectors of nature deserve the Nobel Peace Prize"
How to avoid this?
We will not save by reducing our energy costs.
We must change our behavior to be less dependent on these energies.
We must also change our food preferences, by eating less meat instead, because this is one of the main reasons for deforestation.
The fight against deforestation seems to be part of the solutions, which can be beneficial for both the climate and biodiversity.
To win on both counts, we need to better protect natural spaces.
Forests suck up a third of our greenhouse gas emissions, but we can do better by stopping deforestation, which is very important.
We can conserve nature, not degrade it and it can help us.