Researchers have argued that wealthy countries should pay for the loss and damage they caused to nature in poorer countries in the same way as for climate impacts.
At COP27 world leaders agreed to a dedicated "loss and damage" fund providing financial assistance to poor nations stricken by climate disaster. More developed countries, which are largely responsible for driving climate breakdown, are to pay compensation to poorer nations, which are typically more vulnerable to its impacts.
In a comment piece in Nature Ecology & Evolution, researchers are arguing a similar fund should be created for nature loss, as habitat loss and over-exploitation of resources in poor countries are driven by consumption in the global north.
Researchers state: "Global biodiversity loss has been disproportionately driven by consumption of people in rich nations. The concept of 'loss and damage' – familiar from international agreements on climate breakdown – should be considered for the effects of biodiversity loss in countries of the global south".
Like climate breakdown, the loss of wildlife has significant social and economic impacts. Due to the expansion of destructive mining, agriculture and deforestation by wealthy nations, people in poorer countries often have:
EU fleets overfishing in West Africa to feed consumers in Europe is an example, with researchers saying this has caused "considerable negative impacts on local communities who are reliant on fish from income and for food, resulting in poverty, unemployment, declining health and social stress in the local communities".
In the UK a recent government report calculated that our domestic consumption of crop, cattle and timber commodities was associated with 35,997 hectares of tropical deforestation in 2018.
Dr Dilys Roe, Lead Author from the International Institute for Environment and Development in London, said: "It’s the most vulnerable, poorest people that are the hardest hit by biodiversity loss and need extra support in dealing with its impacts. That’s the issue".
"There are these additional losses and damages which aren’t linked to climate change, and aren’t currently taken into account".
With climate, the "polluter pays" principle is based on the notion that those who produce pollution should bear the costs of reducing its damage to human health and the environment.
Researchers are exploring the idea of "consumer pays" for biodiversity, which means those who consume natural resources, such as timber or meat, should pay for the impacts.
Roe says: "The first step is opening up the discussion about this and whether the principle of 'consumer pays' is a valid principle in the same way as 'polluter pays'".
At COP15 it was agreed rich nations should pay more to halt and reverse biodiversity loss, but there was no discussion of compensation for historical losses.
Roe added: "I think the issue of biodiversity loss is several years, if not decades, behind climate change discussions".
"We lament the loss of species and beautiful rainforests, etc, without necessarily thinking through the social implications of that and what this actually means for people on the ground. Biodiversity loss is a social issue and a development issue as much as an environmental issue".
Roe has not explored how it could be implemented, including if nature loss could be incorporated into existing climate funding for loss and damage because of the links between them, or how or where compensation should be given, and how much.
Dr Sarah Dalrymple, Conservation Ecologist from Liverpool John Moors University, who was not involved in the paper, agreed with the premise. She said: "Nature conservation isn’t just about preserving ecosystems and species, but also needs to embed social justice at its core – that’s why I would support the incorporation of the principle of loss and damage into global agreements addressing biodiversity loss".
