Press Conference: Launch of a plan B to reverse biodiversity loss and live in harmony with nature, UN Convention on Biodiversity - COP 17

Thank you very much and good afternoon. It is my pleasure to welcome everybody to this press conference, and of course it is my pleasure to have Mr. Steven Guilbeault and Alain Rancieux as speakers. We are here gathering to talk about transformative changes and the results of three-day intensive days that we had discussing openly about what it means and how we can start to bring solutions into the table with the society, with the governments, as a common effort. But where everything started? As you know, IPBES first global assessment in 2019 sent a clear message to everybody. The biodiversity is declining fast, an unprecedented rate in human history. And they presented a clear figures. We, at this moment, have, in risk of extinction, one million species. The 66% of our oceans are affected by human activities. The 75% of our crops are affected because the pollinators are in risk. So there are a lot of data that is telling us that really the biodiversity is declining fast. And what causes that? There are direct drivers and indirect drivers of change. Everybody talks about the direct drivers. For example, everybody talks about climate change, or everybody talks about introduction of alien invasive species, or overexploitation of the species. But nobody, or almost Nobody talks about the underlying causes of biodiversity loss. And if we don't change these intrinsic values and behaviors, which are currently at the core precisely of biodiversity loss, and which means continuing doing business as usual, we risk ourselves as humans to be in the line of extinction alongside of other species of flora and fauna. And later, in 2024, because everybody was asking, okay, IPBES, you're talking about transformative changes, that is the call coming from the IPBES Global Assessment, but what it means? And at the same time, the Convention on Biological Diversity was negotiating the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. So, the Convention requested, and, well, other organizations and multilateral agreements requested IPBES to be more clear about the message and to set the actions to incorporate those into the implementation of the Kunming-Montreal and other plans of action. So, in 2024, IPBES approved a new assessment, a thematic assessment, on the underlying causes of biodiversity loss and transformative changes. In short, the platform identified the needs of fundamental system-wide shifts in views, in structures, and in practices. And to do so, first of all, they identified that there were three root causes that are threatening the transformative changes. The first one is that disconnection from and domination over nature and people. What it means that? Treating nature as an external resource to be exploited rather as a sustainable life, life-sustainable system. The second one relates to the concentration of power and wealth. And of course, I don't have to explain that so much. It means that we are allowing a number of corporate, a number of political entities to control global resources and to influence policies. And the third underlying cause is the prioritization of short-term individual and material gains. which means that we're driving economic models and daily behaviors towards immediate financial profits. In that sense, and if you see how biodiversity loss is really in front of us, and how human behaviors and actions are causing that, we have to understand Also, that this crisis of biodiversity is deeply intertwined with climate change, with pollution, and with desertification. And as such, it affects all aspects of human life, including our economy, our health, our food, our security, labor. Housing, social stability, although it appears that is not related to biodiversity, it's totally related to biodiversity. And, of course, affects cultural maintenance and territorial development. Therefore, discussing how to address the underlying causes of biodiversity loss is not a naive endeavor. It has become an urgent call of action. And during this Conference of the Parties, you have heard repeatedly that we have to act. There is a continuous call for action. So, now, how to achieve this, if we are here at the multilateral scenario, and how to land that into really substantive actions. We have to start locally, joining forces across all sectors and all knowledge systems. And we need to mobilize changes in how we relate to how we depend on and how we live within nature. We have to return to our foundational values, and that was one of our key messages all these days. Look, I think that there is a very important message here. Our well-being cannot depend on the overexploitation of biodiversity and of society. And we only have one planet. our common home. In this context, SNAP Quebec, together with IUCN, Humboldt Institute, ECLAC, CBD Alliance, and Giving, hosted a three-day forum here during the COP 17 to open a space for dialogue on plausible actions and solutions to underlying causes of biodiversity loss, and to mobilize society as a major force for transformative change. We really had a tremendous opportunity to listen to scientists, politicians, politics, indigenous peoples, local communities, really experts and people that are caring about our nature and our future. From this exchange, I would love to highlight two major things. First, that we must to address our societal values, to really being able to spark any real change. And the second one is that we must recognize that there is no other planet, and we cannot wait until, okay, two years, 10 years, 15 years, because we are running out of time. We must act now, and we must act together. And to move forward with concrete examples on how to address these challenges, it is really my pleasure to give the floor to Alain Branshow, the Executive Director of SNAP Quebec, who is going to show us that it is possible to act, it is possible to bring solutions to the table, and The reality is coming to invitation to all of us. So, Alain?

Thank you, Ana Maria. You see on the screen this initiative that we're launching today. You see the B, B-E, as in being in English, in French, in Spanish, in Armenian. the economy of being. And so this press conference resumes eight sessions of work on trying to give a trend, trying to mobilize civil society towards action on transformative change. So, what we heard, and Ana Maria alluded to that, we have simply two options with the current economic model, which depends on continuous growth. We can find a planet B, or we can develop a plan B. Let's say we find a planet B. We would need a really big moving truck to bring all our stuff to the other planet. So anyone realistic would conclude that what we need now is a plan B, not trying to find alternative planets. So let's build together. The B economy, rooted in values, rooted in being. So this system B tackles the underlying causes of biodiversity loss identified by IPBES, which Ana Maria just presented to us. It creates a space for dialogue and action to transform our dominant economic system and our dominant value system so that we can live in harmony with nature. What we heard during the forum was surprising. In each session, not only on the value session, but in each every session, including the scientific one, the idea of being guided by different values was really put up front by all panelists. And we kind of summarized seven of these values that came up, reciprocity, respect, connection, mutual aid, community, generosity, and humility. Humility, because we cannot do that alone. We need to mobilize people. We need to work together and try to develop this, co-create this new model, new economic model, plan B. So, whoops, going back. Yeah. So you saw that they were proposed values, and again, they are proposed guiding principles. Proposed is important because we need to continue that dialogue. We need to continue to have other perspectives. We don't have the pretension of having all perspective within eight sessions of work. So this dialogue needs to continue, but there are really interesting stuff that came out as guiding principle to develop this alternative economic model. Serve people, nature, society, not the other way around. So an economic model should serve people, nature, society, not the other way around. Does not depend on continuous growth. Respect social foundation and ecological ceiling. Value being over having can coexist with the current model because we need a realistic transition. Respect the diverse values within the territory of life. It is built by including the perspective of all sectors of society and government as an inclusive governance structure based on respect, power balance, equity. So many of these guiding principle, proposed guiding principle were during our forum on advancing the work, advancing solutions to the underlying causes of biodiversity work, lost, sorry. And I won't name all of these, but this is some of the shift in values that we need to undertake to move that forward. Unlimited abundance to sufficiency, overexploitation to reciprocity. If you take something, you need to give back something. Accumulation, no, sharing. These are shift in values that we need to have. Opacity to transparency, and performance to robustness, having more to live, living better. So that economic model must be rooted in values and a shift in values. So I went too fast. Can we move back? No, that's not us.

I am a woman.

Yeah. Okay. All right, so what's next step in all this? So we are convening people to that website. We wish that it will be a hub so that people can get together, that those who want to be involved have a space for exchanging. We don't want to wait until COP 18 to move forward. borrowed the words of Yemi Katere, who was part of our closing event yesterday. And he said, essentially, so we need to work on this. And he said, if not now, when? And if not you, who? So be part of the endeavor. Thank you.

Thank you, Alain. Thank you, Anna Maria. My name is Steven Guilbeault. I was Canada's Minister of Environment from 2021 to 2025 and host of COP15 in Montreal in 2022. I think people watching here or online might question this idea that we can change our values, how feasible it is. to do something like that. And yet, in Montreal, in 2022, 200 countries agreed to do that. If you read the text of the KMGBF, if you go to some of the targets, and of course, we tend to hear mostly about the 30 by 30, super important. Why 30 by 30? Because science told us that it's not a ceiling, it's a floor. It's a minimum we have to reach as fast as we can, but you have to go beyond that. There are other targets as part of the KMGBF, and targets that talk about the fact that we need to change our values. Right now, collectively, globally, we spend 30 times more to destroy nature than we do to protect it. That's a value statement. Whether or not we talk about it openly, whether or not we're willing to admit it, it is a reality. So we hear, and I was in government for six years, we hear all the time, governments don't have enough money. They're cash trapped. There's all those investments that are being done in defense. We are investing at least half a trillion dollars every year to destroy nature. All we have to do to get a whole lot more money to protect nature is stop doing that. That's a value chain. That's a value change. That's us saying collectively, we no longer value the destruction of nature. We now value the protection, the conservation, the restoration, the living in harmony with nature. That's what we have to do. And we're not asking countries to do something they haven't agreed to already. They have. They have in Montreal, so let's make sure, remind them, continue to force them to have those conversations that may be uncomfortable. And yes, the financial sector will not necessarily, or at least big parts of it, won't be happy because their financial models, the one that they're using today, most of the financial institutions on this planet are using financial models that say that nature is infinite, that all of the resources that we use can be used forever and there's no limit to it. That's complete madness. This has to change, and the conversation that many here had over the last three or four days were about this and how we can do that. Thank you.

Well, thank you very much. With this, maybe we can receive a couple of questions, if there's any, from the audience or online. Yes, please.

Good afternoon. My name is Sabelong Gosi from Tuguni Municipality, which is the city of Durban in South Africa. Thank you for this presentation, and I think it's welcome. Maybe the question and a comment for me, I think for all of us in the room, is that perhaps we are with you in terms of sharing the same message. I think for me, it's a question about How do we convince others who are not here in this room, who are not here part of this COP, that are actually involved in making some of these decisions? I think for me, that is what I would like to take away with me in terms of when I'm faced with people who might not think in the same way as we might do. Thank you.

Yeah, that's a really good question. And, you know, as this illustration shows, Many people here heard that message, and we wish that they will bring it to others and start the discussion elsewhere. And we also wish that we will be able to be supported to empower those across the world who want to engage in that discussion. So yes, you're right, this has to be all of society. approach, this has to involve everyone. And so, you know, it's a start. It's a beginning. This hub, this website, we want it to be a gathering point, but the work starts right now, you know, and on the shoulder of, you know, what happened in Montreal, and there's Section C of the Global Biodiversity Framework that's already there to be there, and there's all the work that IPBES has done. So it's not, you know, it's not a start, it's a continuity, but my own personal view on this is that The government right now cannot lead that discussion. It needs to start from civil society, because all the policy since the Second War are based on continuous growth, and we know it's impossible. So the civil society has an important role in triggering the discussion, opening the space for dialogue, and that's what we have been trying to do, and we hope that at COP18, we won't have a forum on transformative change. We won't have a forum on solutions to the underlying causes of biodiversity. I wish we will have a full pavilion, a full space to continue that. And that between now and then, A lot of initiative across the world will happen, and the dialogue and the connectivity between people will be there. So that we'll try to do. We don't know if it will succeed, but with you and others, it will happen.

You want to go ahead? And again, I mean, you're from South Africa. Your government agreed to that. Targets 15, 16, 17, 19, section C that Alain just referred to. My government, Canada, agreed to that. The European Union agreed to that. China agreed to that. India agreed to that. Japan agreed to that. They made a commitment, collectively, 200 of those countries, saying, we need to change the way we do things. So it's not about forcing them to agree to something they haven't already agreed upon. It's about telling them, You said you were going to do this, what are you doing about it? What's your plan? What's the next step? And I think we need, governments sometimes have a short attention span, so I think our collective work, our collective task, is to continue reminding them of those commitments that they've made and to ensure that they deliver on them.

For those that does not know me, I am Ana Maria Hernandez, I didn't introduce myself, I am the former IBEST chair. And I'm going to talk about from that perspective. As you know, our IPBES assessments have had a big impact worldwide. And not only because they're good science, but because a lot of decision makers Lawmakers are incorporating the messages coming from IPBES into new legislation, new programs, new actions. And also, that happened with the Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and with decisions at the Convention on Biological Diversity. So, from the point of view of the decision-making processes, This messages of we need to shift, we need to change, is permeating. What I find really difficult is to permeate the behaviors in society, because maybe there are fantastic ministers of environment that have been trying to change things. But maybe the people does not copy that. Maybe the people loves to continue doing the things as usual. So we need, and for example, in this forum, we said, we need to start with education. We need to start teaching our youth, our children, our youth, on really what it matters. Teaching them that it's better to be a good person and in balance with nature, and not to have a lot of things that at the end you're not going to use. To teach them to control overconsumption. To teach them to really value the things that has around them. that in a couple of years they are not going to have if we continue destroying. And, for example, I want to stress how important is this, for example, for health. The health policy goes along of care of nature, reduce risks and creates a good environment for prevention. So reduce costs also. And we are seeing at economic level that impacts. So it is something that we are starting to build, but also we have to be very critical on how we are starting to look things. We have to start to change at home. in our neighborhood, in our schools, to change and to scale up that messages at the international level. So we are starting, but we need to have a platform to mobilize and to understand and to dialogue each other on how to continue doing things and having better ideas and improve that ideas and implement them. Thank you.

Can I add one thing on? You spoke about health, Ana Maria. When I was environment minister in Canada, we piloted a project with Parks Canada, our national park society. As you know, modern medicine is largely about drugs. synthetic drugs made for by pharmaceutical companies. And that pilot project was to work with one association of doctors in one of our provinces to prescribe nature as a medicine. So your doctor could prescribe a walk in nature. That's the best thing you need for your health, and Parks Canada would provide free passes for people who wanted to go in our national parks as part of this program. And now this program is going across the country. I mean, this is a type of value shift, of mind shift we have to look for in health, as in so many aspects of our society.

Maybe you talk about overconsumption, and one of the panelists in our forum was the mayor of Grenoble, and he shared the experience of Grenoble in forbidding public advertisement in the city. And that's a clear example of what we can do. And what they did is they got rid of the advertisement and the panel, the boards, and they put trees instead. So, and one thing he said is that nobody complained about the disparition of these board, publicity board, but Would people complain about losing trees? Yes. So that's a shift in value, and that's also a clear solution to join the education. But we need also this kind of solution to work through systemic changes. So that's another clear example of what we can do.

Thank you. I don't know if there is any other question. Yes, one and two, please.

Thank you. Hi, my name is Michelle Sheather. I'm the convener of the Biological Diversity Working Group for the Federation of Green Parties all around the world. One question, I think, that's on many people's lips is how can we divert the harmful agricultural subsidies into real meaningful, not very niche, but meaningful mainstream biodiversity protection measures? Because that's money that we could access, basically, if we re-diverted it. And I hear Perhaps at this meeting there might be some discussions about even putting a quota on how much that might be able to be, and then it's starting to move forward. But I'm thinking that's a way that we could stop the destruction of nature very quickly by stopping as many of those subsidies as we can, as well as diverting them. So it's actually got a two-fold advantage. So I'm just wondering 'Cause it's useful for me to get your ideas too, 'cause I'm out there lobbying for these things. You know, what mechanisms do you think we could do, or how do you think we could actually make that more real? Thank you.

I can start, but I think that the first step is, I think we are at the point where we need mobilization. We need civil society to stand up and ask for these change. I was seeing a post from a reporter that's here in Yerevan to cover COP17, and on LinkedIn, she mentioned that the press room is completely empty. There's no reporter covering this COP. We need to show interest, we need to mobilize people. And that step in the social movement is not being reached so far for the systemic change that we need to undertake. So I would say that's the next step.

We need to measure. Each country must do an assessment of how much of those subsidies they're putting into, whether it's the agricultural sector, the forest sector, how much of those subsidies are going to destroy nature, and how can we repurpose them? And it's a very politically complicated things to do, because I was a minister for many years, and I tried to start having this conversation, and the first thing you hear is, "Oh my God, we can't do that." The farming sector will say, we're trying to take money away from them. And then the opposition party will say that, oh, the government is trying to take money away from our farmers, from the people who feed us. So it's a very politically charged conversation. But it needs to be about, and I spoke about it earlier, it's about redirecting those subsidies, but not taking them away, but giving different kinds of subsidies for different kinds of activities, still supporting our farmers and our farming communities But not to destroy nature, but to protect it.

Well, short and sweet, and maybe taking some of the last ideas from Steven is that maybe along with subsidizing agriculture as itself, We can subsidize also conservation of biological diversity in agroecosystems, because, as you know, agroecosystems, the equilibrium in the agroecosystems includes pollinators, includes biodiversity in soils, so it includes, of course, water. In that sense, if you can subsidize the conservation of those agroecological sites, you are going to give to the farmers options for better income also. So I think that can be something that it is interesting to discuss together. Thank you.

I'll ask a question for here as well. My name's Skyler, I'm with Regenerate Media, I'm from Vermont. And it seems to be my sense that a lot of the people that understand the significance of the ecological challenge we face and the economic roots are hesitant to really engage with the economic dialogue and with economic instruments. So my question is, What's your take on some of the financial discussion that's happening at the COP?

I think we need to keep this dialogue open. I think there's no one solution. There are many solutions to move forward. What we're presenting and what came out of all these discussions during the forum is that we must not put aside the importance of systemic change. So that needs to happen. So the other initiatives that the finance sector is promoting are helping, especially to address direct causes of biodiversity loss, but we must not forget the underlying causes of biodiversity loss, which are the same as the one that's creating the climate crisis, which are the same that are creating inequity across the world. So it's really strategic to address these underlying causes of biodiversity loss. And unfortunately, I don't think that the finance sector is ready to have these deep discussions right now. So we need to keep the channel of communication open. We need to continue all these endeavor to help protect biodiversity, but to some extent, We need to focus on the underlying causes of biodiversity loss if we want to have a real future. Continuous growth, economic growth, is impossible.

During this conference of the parties, always discussion on financing biodiversity is tough. It is complicated because there is a fight between those who says that there is a lot of money around there and others that said that it's not enough money. Others that says that we need innovative mechanisms and others that say that what do we have is enough for everybody. But maybe we have to change the way that we are looking about this discussion on financing biodiversity. We need, as Alain said, we need to start thinking about a systemic change. Finances are not only monetary fluxes. Financing biodiversity means financing well-being is in what way I am able and I am interested and invest for the long term of my well-being, of my economy, of my health. So to see financial biodiversity is to see investing in the future, investing in health, investing in economy. rather than a really heavy burden to the companies, to the countries that has to put money or waste money, no? So, shift in this way in which we see the need of finance biodiversity as an investment. That is maybe the message here. Okay, thank you very much. Any other question? If not, thank you very much for being with us, and I hope that you're going to write a very good messages about this proposal of transforming our culture, our behaviors, and our society towards a better planet be for us. Thank you.