A simple plan could raise the billions needed to halt biodiversity loss

16^th The United Nations Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, or CBD COP16, opens this week in Cali, Colombia. The summit will discuss a series of key actions needed to halt biodiversity loss, including protecting 30 percent of the planet’s land and water by 2030.

In 2022, the world agreed on an ambitious plan to protect nature in Montreal. The Global Biodiversity Framework sets out 23 goals, but the reality is that achieving any of them depends on one thing: money. The United Nations estimates that about $700 billion is needed annually. Of this, $500 billion is expected to come from biodiversity-damaging subsidy reforms, leaving a $200 billion funding gap. But rich countries have so far committed only $30 billion a year by 2030, far short of what is needed. Where will the rest of the cash come from?

One solution being considered in Cali would be to levy a 1 percent profit-sharing tax on global retail sales and direct the funds to support biodiversity conservation and sustainable use. This is a suggestion. Global retail sales are expected to soon reach $25 trillion, and “Penny in the Pound for Life on Earth” could mobilize $250 billion annually. It would be a simple solution to the complex problem of how everyone, including nature, can benefit from rich biodiversity.

This proposal was first submitted in June 2021 by the Group of African States, for which I have been the lead negotiator on biodiversity-related issues for more than a decade. The idea arose from discussions about how to equitably distribute the benefits from exploiting the Earth’s biodiversity. This is the third, lesser-known purpose of the Convention on Biological Diversity, after conservation and sustainable use. This long-standing question has been reignited by debates about how to manage the large amounts of electronic biology data made possible by DNA sequencing and other technologies.

By converting biological information such as DNA into electronic data (known as digital sequence information or DSI in the esoteric language of UN negotiations) that can be shared online or manipulated by computers, virtually all living things can be Science was fundamentally transformed and many industries were revitalized. But the benefits are not shared equitably, and digital data is creating new opportunities to profit from nature without giving anything back. Profitable biotechnology companies are concentrated in high-income countries, but the biodiversity that forms the basis of much of their research and development is concentrated in low-income countries. The existing framework for benefit sharing, known as the Nagoya Protocol, deals only with physical specimens and is woefully inadequate in the digital age.

Solving this problem creates an opportunity. After six years of deliberation, we reached a breakthrough on this issue in Montreal, agreeing to create a multilateral mechanism for all countries to share the benefits from biological digital sequence information. . Cali’s job is to put this into action. But exactly how this is done is of great importance, especially for the users of such data: scientists and other innovators. If countries are serious about solving the biodiversity crisis, they need to design appropriately sized mechanisms.

A 1% tax on global retail would accomplish that. Such a predictable flow of funds to environmental privileges would completely change the “mood music” of global environmental governance. And it will come while we humans still have time to preserve the vast majority of life’s most precious remnants before we drive it into oblivion.

The retail sector occupies a unique position in modern capitalism, collecting consumer spending on behalf of all actors in the value chain. Charging ‘nature’s share’ at the retail level means that everyone involved contributes their bit and no one has to shoulder a huge burden. This system doesn’t have to be perfect either. If the richest half of humanity paid $1 a week, $200 billion a year would be within reach.

This approach is also the simplest of the options currently being considered. Both alternatives would require scientists and companies that use genetic data to report their research and business activities and pay a percentage of their gross sales or profits from their products. This would create unnecessary complications such as reporting, monitoring, opportunities for avoidance, red tape, and other legal work. The total revenue derived from biodiversity would be orders of magnitude less than 1% of all retail sales.

That simplicity is why most scientists, businesses, and governments I’ve talked to informally support this proposal in principle. But they don’t say so in public because they think it’s too idealistic to actually work. I reminded them of the wise words of Nelson Mandela. “It always seems impossible until it’s done.” Since governments have never met global biodiversity targets and businesses have been forced to contribute minimally, why not give the world’s consumers a try?

Any agreement in Cali regarding the sharing of DSI benefits is not legally binding. However, a retail 1 percent plan does not need to be legally binding to be successful. If governments around the world unanimously required all retailers to collect a profit-sharing tax and required transparent reporting on whether they did so, the final answer would be who is a good corporate citizen. It is up to the court of public opinion to decide. As already agreed in Montreal, this funding will be used by the Global Biodiversity Fund to support the conservation and restoration of biodiversity, particularly by indigenous peoples and local communities, who are nature’s best custodians. It will be spent through.

If Colombia’s COP16 Presidency can lead the world to agree to this simple but ambitious plan, Cali will mobilize the vast resources needed to halt the loss of biodiversity and create a “nature and peace” initiative. He may be remembered for having accomplished his mission of “creating something.”