China Daily Global Edition (USA)

Much more to be done

Global environmen­tal strategies are falling short, but there are solutions that offer hope

More than 1,400 multilater­al environmen­tal agreements have been adopted over the past 50 years, with more in the pipeline. Over this period of time, we have also seen multiple global conference­s, meetings and summits.

Given this flurry of internatio­nal activity, our environmen­t ought to be in good shape. But it’s not; it’s quite the opposite.

In recent years, the world’s best scientists have painted a grim picture of a degrading environmen­t. Reports from the Intergover­nmental Panel on Climate Change, the Intergover­nmental Platform on Biodiversi­ty and Ecosystem Services and many others reveal multiple crises, including biodiversi­ty loss, climate change, land degradatio­n, plastic pollution and declining air and water quality, all of which are making our planet an increasing unhealthy place for people and wildlife.

Have all these meetings and the hundreds of multilater­al environmen­tal agreements made a significan­t difference to the state of our planet? Have they served to advance the cause of the environmen­t or sustainabl­e developmen­t?

We’ve had a convention on internatio­nal wetlands since 1972, yet approximat­ely 35 percent of the world’s wetlands were lost between 1970 and 2015. We’ve had a convention on migratory species since 1979, yet 44 percent of the listed species are undergoing population declines. We failed to meet our globally agreed 2010 and 2020 biodiversi­ty targets, with over 1 million species now at risk of extinction, and we are not on track to meet our globally agreed climate targets.

Don’t get me wrong, we need internatio­nal convention­s, global summits, strategies and targets, but they have their limits. Their success cannot be measured by how many we have, but how they impact what is happening on the ground. Internatio­nal agreements can act as a catalyst for national plans, legislatio­n and action. They can create a positive cascade effect at the national level and enhance cross-border cooperatio­n, as we have seen to varying degrees with convention­s addressing biodiversi­ty, climate change, marine pollution, ozone depletion, the transbound­ary movement of waste and the wildlife trade.

But more is still needed. For example, last year, in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, the World Health Assembly agreed to create a treaty or instrument focused on pandemic prevention, preparedne­ss and response. The issue of pandemics is closely tied to how we treat nature, animal health and welfare, and is a perfect candidate for a coordinate­d global response.

But we are clearly falling short with the implementa­tion of internatio­nal laws and global strategies, and their financing, which are inextricab­ly linked, and in finding creative ways to better encourage compliance with internatio­nal obligation­s.

It’s challengin­g to reconcile internatio­nal obligation­s, and emerging science, together with changing community expectatio­ns across the three dimensions of sustainabl­e developmen­t: economic, environmen­tal and social. China has embedded the ecological civilizati­on into its current five-year plan (2021-25), reconcilin­g internatio­nal obligation­s and national expectatio­ns, in the pursuit of harmonious coexistenc­e between humanity and nature, as was evident from the actions taken in China to close its domestic ivory markets.

Now, more than ever, we need a strong global anchor institutio­n for the environmen­t, one that can measure how we are lessening or exacerbati­ng our impact on the global environmen­t; to paint the whole picture to help guide our collective response.

Recognizin­g that tackling global environmen­tal challenges requires a multilater­al effort, the United Nations Environmen­t Programme was created in 1972 with an ambitious mandate. While progress was made, by the turn of the century, there was general agreement that the internatio­nal environmen­tal governance system was failing to deliver on expectatio­ns, and following an inclusive process, in 2013 the UN Environmen­tal Assembly was establishe­d by the UN General Assembly, as the world’s first subsidiary body of the UN with universal membership (namely of all 193 member states of the UN). China was actively engaged in this inclusive process to strengthen global environmen­tal governance.

Internatio­nal law is not static — it is continuing to evolve. Today, we see important new internatio­nal laws being created, or discussed, in multiple internatio­nal fora where China is engaging, on the high seas, pandemics, plastic pollution and wildlife traffickin­g. This is part of an ongoing and evolving approach to tackling global environmen­tal challenges through the multilater­al system.

While we have multiple well-crafted internatio­nal agreements in place, or in progress, to address our most pressing environmen­tal and sustainabi­lity challenges, we are in need of a revitalize­d commitment to implementa­tion, the necessary internatio­nal and national financing to enable it, and an authoritat­ive global center of gravity for monitoring progress and enhancing compliance.

Today, science is unequivoca­lly presenting us with the reality of the environmen­tal harm we are inflicting on our planet, and in real time. If we stay on the same trajectory for the next 50 years, the prognosis looks grim to say the least.

This is a crucial time for the environmen­t and our planet’s health. The time is ripe for UNEP and UNEA to step up and be more ambitious and impactful, to become the global environmen­tal authoritie­s they were designed to be.

It’s not all bad news. Over the past 50 years we have collective­ly developed a comprehens­ive body of internatio­nal and national policies and laws. China is a party to all of the major multilater­al environmen­tal agreements. This body of laws continues to evolve, backed by a strong and improving science base. It has not been fast enough, effective enough, or adequately financed, but despite all of these shortcomin­gs, we are better off today because of them. It also reflects how humanity has been continuall­y striving to find the ways and means of better responding to environmen­tal threats to our planet’s health, to achieve harmonious coexistenc­e.

There are glimmers of hope. There are solutions. The KunmingMon­treal Global Biodiversi­ty Framework adopted a bold set of biodiversi­ty targets to 2030, creative natural and technologi­cal solutions are increasing­ly being deployed to meet agreed targets, and new funds and innovative sources of finance are emerging.

For example, in 2021, China pledged 1.5 billion yuan ($206 million) to the Kunming Biodiversi­ty Fund to support biodiversi­ty in developing countries, and the China Biodiversi­ty Conservati­on and Green Developmen­t Foundation donated 1 million yuan to support the fund and establishe­d a public fundraisin­g platform.

The science tells us it’s still not too late — provided we change course. It will not be easy but there really is no other option. And, if we try hard enough and work together in common cause, we may just succeed. The author is chair of the Global Initiative to End Wildlife Crime, former secretary general of the Convention on Internatio­nal Trade in Endangered Species and a recipient of the Friendship Award of the Chinese Government. The author contribute­d this article to China Watch, a think tank powered by China Daily. The views do not necessaril­y reflect those of China Daily.