Biodiversity and Climate COPs: How Can We Think Transversally About Our Equilibriums?

The end of the year is traditionally marked by major international conferences on environmental issues. In 2024, COP29 on climate, held in Baku, and COP16 on biodiversity, hosted in Cali, highlight a fundamental paradox in global environmental governance: the persistent separation between processes that aim to address crises that are inherently interconnected.

Fragmented Governance in Addressing Systemic Issues

The origin of this dichotomy dates back to the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio, where the international community established separate legal frameworks for climate (the UNFCCC, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) and biodiversity (the CBD, Convention on Biological Diversity). Since then, these two processes have evolved in parallel, with distinct objectives, funding mechanisms, and negotiators. The Climate COP focuses on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, while the Biodiversity COP aims to conserve ecosystems. Yet, these themes share the same root cause—human activities impacting our environment—and are deeply intertwined: the climate crisis exacerbates biodiversity loss, while biodiversity loss reduces our resilience to climate disruptions (among other effects).

As early as 2004, however, discussions on ecosystem adaptation to climate change laid the groundwork for “nature-based solutions,” which are now essential in addressing the environmental crises of the 21st century. These exchanges also highlighted the critical role of ecosystems such as forests, oceans, and wetlands in sequestering atmospheric carbon.

It was not until 2015, with the Paris Agreement, that the conservation and restoration of biodiversity were recognised as key elements in mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and helping societies adapt to the impacts of climate change.

On the ground, this interdependence is evident. The Amazon is the most emblematic example, serving both as a critical carbon sink and a biodiversity hotspot. Its destruction affects not only the global climate but also food security, human health, and the overall ecological balance. The cumulative impacts of these crises demonstrate that addressing them separately is not only ineffective but can also lead to maladaptation.

Pathogenic Solutions or Maladaptations of Sectoral Policies

The lack of a global vision leads to fragmented policies that overlook possible synergies between the two crises, resulting in solutions that can literally be ecocidal and/or pathogenic, such as:

• Subsidies for biofuels, intended to reduce carbon emissions, have driven deforestation and the intensive use of pesticides. This was the case in Indonesia, where palm oil cultivation (among other uses, for biodiesel production) forced wildlife into contact with domestic poultry farms, triggering the avian flu pandemic.
• Carbon offset projects involving monoculture tree plantations often replace more complex natural ecosystems such as grasslands or wetlands. These plantations deplete biodiversity, exhaust soils, and increase fire risks (as seen in 2022 in Gironde). They also disrupt local wildlife unable to adapt to the plantations, while erasing the carbon sink role of the pre-existing ecosystem.

These examples highlight the need for integrated governance based on recognising the synergies between climate and biodiversity. Yet, current structures perpetuate the fragmentation of efforts, including in financing, where climate and biodiversity compete for already limited resources.

The Urgency of a Transversal and Global Approach

The separation of mandates and legal frameworks limits the ability of COPs to address environmental crises coherently. While the topics discussed (health, food, human rights, education, Indigenous peoples, etc.) often overlap, the COPs continue to operate in silos, exhausting negotiators and observers. This verticality hinders both the effectiveness of potential solutions and the credibility of international institutions.

This compartmentalised sectoral approach involves distinct delegations: climate negotiators primarily come from energy and economic sectors, while those involved in biodiversity discussions mostly represent the environment and agriculture sectors. This division complicates the development of integrated and coherent policies.

This fragmentation is also evident in funding, where competition for financial resources, already difficult to mobilise, is increasing. Recently, COP29 on climate ended with a financial agreement deemed disappointing (only 30% of the expected amount), while COP16 on biodiversity did not even have time to address the crucial issue of financing for ecosystem preservation.

A verticality that obscures the interconnectedness of planetary boundaries

The climate crisis has been (relatively) present in the media for 15 years, and we are still struggling to unravel the first chapter. Some journalists are still surprised by global warming when faced with a snowfall… In such a context, how can we address the nine planetary boundaries, six of which have already been crossed?

Unfortunately, there are not just two major environmental crises to manage but at least a dozen, all of which are interconnected and interdependent.

With the Climate COP barely concluded, the world was asked to reconvene in South Korea to finalise a global treaty aimed at ending plastic pollution—a crisis that is part of one of the six planetary boundaries already exceeded: the “introduction of novel entities into the biosphere.”

Plastic—a highly climatic and environmental issue. Its lightness and durability have made it a favoured solution for the ecological transition. However, its resilience is also its weakness: of the 9,000 million tonnes of plastic produced since 1950, 7,000 million tonnes are now waste, polluting soils, oceans, and even our bodies, with traces found as far as the amniotic fluid of pregnant women.

Produced from fossil fuels, its annual production of 430 million tonnes requires 215 million barrels of oil, with a largely overlooked carbon footprint. This very characteristic recently prevented the adoption of a binding treaty on plastic production in Busan, South Korea, mainly due to opposition from oil-producing countries that see plastic as a “new” market to sustain themselves through the energy transition.

The Basel Convention, which addresses international waste movements, was already amended in 2019 to include plastic pollution. However, these measures were deemed insufficient in 2022, postponing the agenda to the end of 2024. The failure of the Busan negotiations paves the way for annual plastic production to reach 700 million tonnes by the end of the decade…

Towards Governance Suited to the Challenges of the 21st Century

Negotiations that would have been relevant to coordinate with the two preceding ones, as well as with the six other themes: the nitrogen and phosphorus cycles, land-use change, freshwater use, ocean acidification, ozone layer depletion, and the increased presence of aerosols in the atmosphere.

The convergence of all these planetary boundaries confronts us with the ultimate frontier: that of our humanity, embodied in our health limits.

While we possess some adaptive capacity, our physiology remains governed by insurmountable barriers. It has been tested by a virus against which our immune system was powerless. It is equally vulnerable to the plastic pollution we ingest daily, the additives introduced by agribusiness to counter the threat of food insecurity, or the fine particles we breathe every moment. And what of the humid heat that, under extreme conditions, gives our bodies only six hours before succumbing?

The challenge is enormous and deeply multisectoral, transversal, and global. To try to mitigate the impact of human activities on our environment, we must use the same tools: transversal thinking, cooperation, and coordination—not hiding behind an obsolete legislative framework inherited from the 20th century, which is a real handicap in addressing planetary boundaries.

Faced with a wall of resistance, we must reinvent ourselves if we are to avoid the mistake of addressing one “boundary” at a time while neglecting the others. This imprudence has already struck us hard, as with the COVID-19 pandemic—a real turning point marking the beginning of the 21st century. This pandemic cruelly illustrates the interconnection of challenges: the globalisation of people and goods allowed an airborne virus to spread at unprecedented speed, exposing the fragilities of a hyperconnected world unable to anticipate the consequences of its own global dynamics.

Today, it is imperative to shake the system to its core and initiate a radical transformation capable of reinventing our models while keeping a fundamental goal in mind: reducing the impact of human activities on the environment and, by extension, on our health. The challenges of climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution can no longer be addressed in isolation. A systemic and transversal approach is essential to reconcile our development aspirations with planetary boundaries.

A Global Legal Framework for an Integrated Vision

The creation of a global legal framework that integrates both climate and environmental challenges emerges as a priority. Such a framework would go beyond the current silos of international conventions (climate, biodiversity, pollution) by adopting a holistic approach. A legal system that consolidates responsibilities, sets common objectives, and measures progress using combined and relevant indicators. These could include: the ecological footprint to assess the pressure human activities exert on ecosystems; the ecological integrity index to measure ecosystem health and their ability to provide essential services; and nutrient flows to monitor imbalances in nitrogen and phosphorus cycles, which are key drivers of eutrophication and the degradation of aquatic ecosystems.

A shared compass to ensure that efforts undertaken at local, national, and international levels converge toward sustainable, equitable development that respects planetary boundaries.

A Unified Financing Mechanism for Transversal Projects

In parallel, the creation of a unified fund capable of financing transversal projects that simultaneously address multiple issues has become imperative. Such a fund would support initiatives combining ecosystem restoration, greenhouse gas emission reductions, and improved living conditions for vulnerable populations. Examples include wetland restoration, which acts as carbon sinks, water regulators, and biodiversity habitats; promoting agroecology, which reduces climate impacts and enhances food security; and implementing green infrastructure to mitigate urban heat waves while capturing air pollutants.

Moreover, by centralising funding and supporting projects with multiple benefits, this unified fund could also reduce conflicts of interest between sectors and foster stronger international cooperation.

It is clear that this transformation requires a paradigm shift. Aligning efforts around unified frameworks and shared tools, while ensuring effective funding, is key to addressing the environmental and health challenges of our time. This systemic approach is not only an urgent necessity but also an opportunity to build a fairer and more sustainable future, where human and environmental health are closely linked under the concept of “One Health”: protecting environmental health to preserve human health.