World Conference on Nature: “A very good day”

The decisions of the World Conference on Nature could be more ambitious – but overall he is very satisfied, says the naturalist Settele in an interview. Now the measures that have been decided must actually be implemented.

tagesschau.de: One of the main points of the final declaration is that 30 percent of the sea and land areas will be protected by 2030. How important is that?

Joseph Settele: I think this point has more than just a symbolic function. The point is that we become aware of how much space is actually necessary to preserve nature and the very different services that nature provides for us. And “30×30” was a daring suggestion. But it turned out quite well and I think it’s a very good story.

tagesschau.de: What does it mean what we need from nature or how much protection area we need? Why is nature so important at this point?

settle: For us, nature is the basis of life. That means we are also part of nature, we survive in nature, have become part of nature through evolution and we use nature for our daily lives. All cultivated plants are natural products, we take animals that we eat or otherwise keep from nature.

Different definition of protected areas

tagesschau.de: Now there is slight criticism of this 30×30 target, because there are no correct criteria as to when what is a protected area.

settle: This is a difficulty that was to be expected and also discussed, since we define protected areas very differently depending on where we are. Let’s take Central Europe or Germany: there we have a lot of areas that essentially represent old cultural landscapes, which are therefore only protected areas if they are also partly used. This is partly different in many other regions of the world. Little use is the case almost everywhere, but it is often the case that these areas are very close to wilderness. This means that it is not possible to determine in a general way how exactly the usage looks like. We have to be able to implement this regionally and nationally.

tagesschau.de: If you look at the world: In your opinion, what areas would be included that absolutely had to be included in these protected areas?

settle: Of course we have the well-known tropical regions. The Global South has many of these protected areas, for example in Central Africa, Central South America or Asia. The rainforest regions with many species that only occur there are certainly a very essential component of it.

On the other hand, we also have areas where we have very special species that are just as worthy of protection. Here, too, it is about using the corresponding areas only minimally, placing them under protection and preserving the diversity there that supports our lives.

“There’s still room for improvement in Germany”

tagesschau.de: Which areas are these in Germany?

settle: On the one hand, there are old cultural landscapes, such as the Swabian Jura in the south or the Lüneburg Heath. So areas that are used by people or animals, for example through grazing, where very special species – which are now often on the red list – could survive or develop. That means many areas that are so marginal in use, but which are distributed in the landscape and thus also represent a kind of bridgehead for nature.

tagesschau.de: Is Germany already well positioned? I think a good six percent of the area in Germany can be described as a nature reserve, right?

settle: Essentially one can say that there is still room for improvement. But we still have a good basis for protection. We have different categories of areas: nature reserves, landscape protection areas, which are a little less strict, which belong together to the protection network, but which contain different types and are used with different degrees of intensity. So we are already in a pretty good position, but there is still a lot of room for improvement, as we need to compensate for the loss of biodiversity – often in agricultural landscapes – with areas that still contain these specific species.

“Measures really have to take place”

tagesschau.de: Federal Environment Minister Steffi Lemke also traveled to this conference with money. What she and the others have achieved is that by 2025 there should be around 20 billion dollars a year that poor countries are getting from richer countries in order to be able to practice conservation effectively. Is this the right move?

settle: The step goes in the right direction. The countries of the Global South originally demanded up to 100 billion per year. The 20 billion are certainly a compromise and what we are currently prepared to do from the perspective of the North. And then it must be a matter of ensuring that the measures that are decided are actually implemented. And we’ll have to see how that goes over time.

Therefore, this agreement also provides for certain control cycles. This means that after a certain number of years we check whether things have actually been implemented and whether resources have been used appropriately.

tagesschau.de: What has to be implemented?

settle: That depends on the areas. It is often about the fact that we need national park rangers to protect the areas, but at the same time we give the local population a chance of survival by staying in the region. There it is then a question of combining agriculture with the protection of near-natural areas. And that’s not exactly cheap, since the main thing is to have staff and to further develop usage systems that are sustainable.

Tropical areas particularly worthy of protection

tagesschau.de: What areas would you put at the top of this protected list?

settle: This applies to the entire tropical regions, because they are very endangered. Amazonia is a good example of where we run the risk of reaching a so-called tipping point, i.e. the rainforest turning into savannas. It’s about climate and nature and both in combination. There it is very important that we do not intervene any further.

The same applies to the remaining semi-natural areas of Central Africa in the Congo, for example. We also have to save the remaining regions in Southeast Asia and Asia, different islands or different areas on Borneo, for example.

tagesschau.de: This final paper states, among other things, that the use of pesticides should be halved worldwide. How do you rate that?

settle: That is exactly the idea that we are also pursuing at EU level: 50 percent reduction. And I do think that the potential for this is there without us suffering any major losses in terms of earnings. As far as grain is concerned, for example, we can prove that savings of up to 70 percent can be made without major losses in yield. This is especially true for insecticides. The 50 percent applies to all pesticides, i.e. insecticides, fungicides or herbicides, and I believe that as an average it is quite realistic to aim for, even though it will be a long way to achieve it.

Redirect harmful subsidies

tagesschau.de: How far along is Europe on this path?

settle: Europe has set itself the goal, but is currently a bit hesitant to implement it. We may still have too many different interest groups trying to delay that. We’re on the right track, but not far enough.

tagesschau.de: The final paper also states that there should be a call for the abolition of harmful government incentives and subsidies. What do you mean with that?

settle: We have a lot of subsidies with which we have previously promoted fossil fuels, i.e. coal, gas and oil. Some of these only became usable as a result of the subsidies, but then caused a correspondingly large amount of damage. So reducing subsidies in these areas would be essential in order to pave the way for other nature-based solutions and to use the subsidies usefully there. The same applies to agricultural policy in Europe, where we continue to invest a large proportion in systems that are not considered very sustainable.

“Overall a very good day!”

tagesschau.de: If you now look at this paper as a naturalist, are you satisfied? Or do you say: Well, first step, there is still a lot to come?

settle: It’s both. I’m satisfied and I think we’ve made good progress there. However, this is far from sufficient. But the path is right, the direction is right, and I’m glad we’ve come this far. Also in view of the large number of diverging interests and the almost 200 countries worldwide – reconciling them all is not exactly trivial.

And I think that some have pulled themselves together quite well so as not to stand there alone and let the whole thing fail. I think it’s an important step in the right direction. But maybe even more ambition is a good thing.

tagesschau.de: Now the whole thing is actually “just” a piece of paper – you don’t have to stick to it. Does that pose a risk?

settle: First of all, a paper is a prerequisite for something to happen. Then it is that we through the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) also have a legally binding process. Nevertheless, the details are of course not so tightly tied that you know exactly what you can and must do everywhere. But it’s already more than just a paper. It’s a legal agreement, which – when it comes down to it – also has consequences if you don’t stick to it.

tagesschau.de: So actually a good day?

settle: Overall a very good day! I wasn’t so optimistic at first: just a week ago when I was in Montreal it was hard to say how it would go. But the trend of the last few days has been very positive, so today is a good day. There are better days, but I’m hoping that progress will be made in future meetings.