The Nature Summit – Christmas gift to the planet

After two weeks of negotiations in Montreal, Canada, a new nature deal was struck at 3:33am Monday morning on the last day of the summit. The historic deal is met with cheers and cheers from several environmental organizations. It’s not perfect, but much better than many had hoped for. WWF believes the summit could in practice be the start of a revolution in the way the world handles nature and biodiversity.

This is how nature got its way “Paris Agreement”, how the climate has and what was the goal of the summit; that is, a framework of verifiable objectives towards which each country is committed to work. The overall goal is “30 by 30”. This means that at least 30% of marine and land areas must be under protection or guardianship by 2030. Norway and Environment Minister Espen Barth Eide have notably been a driving force for seas to be covered with protection as strong as nature on land.

The art of not being stupid

The decisive point has as usual it was funded. The request from developing countries to support a new fund for biological diversity threatened to turn the whole meeting upside down. Developing countries believe that rich countries have made their fortunes by exploiting their natural resources, and therefore consider it reasonable that they should be compensated for not exploiting them themselves. Eventually it was agreed to significantly increase support towards 2030, but the so-called funding gap will still be a major challenge.

The revolution is coming extraordinary. Many would say that the agreement was signed at five past twelve. The objectives of the previous agreement, concluded in Aichi in Japan in 2010, are far from being achieved. Nor can Norway boast that it has taken the lead. Only six of the 13 parliamentary resolutions on nature following the Aichi agreement have been implemented, while Norway is lagging behind, among other things, in terms of forest protection. Now Barth Eide promises a quicker follow-up, and there’s no reason to believe there’s a lack of will on the part of the ambitious climate and environment minister. It is probably rather with the government partner that he meets opposition.

It all depends on the implementation. The agreement that has been concluded is loud and clear on both protection and restoration, and if it is followed up, it is realistic to hope that a large-scale reversal of nature loss is underway. The world has no alternatives. Therefore, there is every reason to celebrate nature’s “Paris Agreement” as a historic breakthrough and a long-awaited Christmas present for the entire globe, but then the job remains. With the deal in hand, governments around the world will be measured. If they leave again, unfortunately it is all too visible.