Our long-term prosperity and the well-being of future generations are in jeopardy, as biodiversity loss and the collapse of critical ecosystems not only threaten our environment, but also raise risks for the economy, public health, national security and global stability.
At this year’s UN Biodiversity Conference, currently taking place in Cali, Colombia, leaders must finally meet this crisis with the level of political commitment and funding that it warrants.
Biodiversity is often understood in terms of the variety of life on Earth — the number of species of plants, animals, and microorganisms. Its significance cannot be overstated. Biodiversity underpins the ecosystem services that sustain human life, such as water purification, flood control and climate regulation. The rapid decline of species and ecosystems — 1 million plant and animal species are on the brink of extinction — thus amounts to an existential threat.
Illustration: Mountain People
If left unaddressed, biodiversity loss will accelerate climate change and amplify its consequences, contributing to more natural disasters and market shocks. It will also leave our agricultural systems increasingly vulnerable to hazards — from pests and pathogens to extreme weather — and deplete the ocean of critical fish stocks. This will affect the price and availability of food, causing scarcity in the Global South and compounding insecurity in already-fragile societies.
These trends will leave a growing number of people with little choice but to flee their homes in search of better living conditions.
According to the Institute for Economics and Peace, natural disasters and other ecological threats could displace as many as 1.2 billion people by 2050. These “environmental refugees” could destabilize destination countries, strain international relations and challenge security frameworks. As the planet’s total habitable area shrinks and competition for resources grows, conflict will become all but inevitable.
Biodiversity loss also threatens public health, which is inextricably linked to the ecosystems that surround us. Many diseases — including emerging infectious diseases such as mpox — can be tied directly to changes in biodiversity. As the destruction of habitats forces wildlife into closer contact with human populations, the risk of zoonotic diseases like COVID-19 rises.
To prevent such a future, all countries must recognize biodiversity loss as a security issue. This means integrating biodiversity considerations into defense and foreign policymaking. And it means financing the response — including investments in practices that protect ecosystems and ambitious measures to address the root causes of biodiversity loss, such as habitat destruction and climate change — as robustly as they would for any other security crisis.
It is estimated that tackling the biodiversity crisis will require an additional US$700 billion per year by 2030. Fortunately, at the 2022 UN Biodiversity Conference (COP15), world leaders agreed to close this gap by phasing out or repurposing harmful subsidies worth US$500 billion and raising the remaining US$200 billion. Financing from developed economies to their developing counterparts is supposed to reach at least US$20 billion per year by next year and at least US$30 billion per year by 2030.
That might seem like a lot, but it is peanuts compared with the cost of inaction.
According to projections by the Environmental Change Institute at the University of Oxford, the shocks to the global economy caused by biodiversity loss and ecosystem damage could cost as much as US$5 trillion over just five years. The world’s biodiversity-financing needs are also dwarfed by its defense spending, which totaled US$2.24 trillion in 2022.
As investing in nature amounts to one of the most cost-effective long-term defense strategies, it should be embraced by the world’s major defense spenders, beginning with the US.
As with any good security strategy, finance must be paired with international cooperation. The consequences of biodiversity loss know no borders. Countries must work together to protect critical habitats, enforce environmental regulations, and promote sustainable development practices.
As such, multilateral groups, such as the High Ambition Coalition for Nature and People, should continue to take the lead in forging international agreements and action plans that establish biodiversity conservation as a cornerstone of global security. Policymakers must continue to focus on working to meet the biodiversity framework’s “30x30” target, by encouraging and facilitating government action to protect 30 percent of the planet’s land and ocean by 2030. Furthermore, members from the Global North should increase financial support for countries in the Global South to implement necessary designations, specifically by meeting their commitment to deliver at least US$20 billion of nature finance annually by next year.
Finally, we must engage and inform the public. Education and awareness campaigns that explain the importance of protecting biodiversity can empower individuals and communities to advocate for policies that protect our natural resources, thereby helping to generate the necessary political will.
If an enemy state threatened the economy, public health, national security and global stability, we would throw everything we had at it to defend ourselves.
The biodiversity crisis is no different.
Hailemariam Desalegn is a former prime minister of Ethiopia.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS