Highlighting what to monitor during CoP 16, one article asks, “Will Indigenous groups play a role in decisions?” going on to say, “The importance of the Indigenous role in decision-making has become a common slogan in the nature sector in recent years – but many Indigenous communities are waiting to see what it means in practice.”, continuing, “there is significant scepticism”. Good, first nations people globally need to question the underlying reason for this relatively recent change of heart in the conservation sector.
As the linked article also states, “Indigenous peoples are mentioned 18 times in this decade’s targets to halt and reverse biodiversity, something that was celebrated as a historic victory. It followed decades of exclusion and bad treatment by the conservation sector”. While 18 times in a decade is hardly gushing, something certainly did change, so what was it?
WWF’s Living Planet Index Report would have contributed to why things have changed. According to the most recent 2024 report, global wildlife populations have plunged by an average of 73% in 50 years; the average decline in Latin America and the Caribbean being 95%. The landmark 2019 IPBES report into the global extinction crisis confirmed that direct exploitation for trade is the most important driver of decline and extinction risk for marine species and the second most important driver for terrestrial and freshwater species.
So, trade is a key driver of decline and the trade in wild species is one of the most lucrative legal trades in the world. But with mounting evidence that trade is causing the 6th mass extinction event how do you justify maintaining this trade? Growing public awareness of biodiversity loss means businesses are also aware that they need to do something – anything – to prepare for when their years of greenwashing are going to be challenged.
Could this be the reason that indigenous groups are now, finally, being invited to the decision-making table? As the natural world is reaching the point of no return, but companies want to keep commercialising the little that is left, and investors can make money banking on extinction, is it simply about covering this neoliberal greed by creating the illusion that extraction is supported by indigenous people?
When indigenous groups offer their support for extraction of species, are they offering their support for small scale community, cultural use or large scale global industrial scale extraction? The point is we don’t know because these are lumped together in the discussions. Exploitation of nature by big business is being enabled to hide behind the skirts of community livelihoods.
We know that hiding the corporate mode of exploitation is a tried and tested smokescreen by large corporations, and primary industries, to divert public attention from what is really happening. When there is a threat of increased regulation or reduction of subsidies, corporate, industrialised agriculture hides behind small, family farmers struggling to survive.
The fishing industry also uses the exact same playbook when it comes to fighting reductions in quota or any attempt at actual monitoring of catch levels and compliance with fishing regulations. The media will be guided to the small boats and struggling fishermen that make up most of the fleets but are largely irrelevant when it comes to catch levels and destructive practices. The EU is very helpful in providing a detailed breakdown of its fishing fleet from which we can learn that the total fleet comprised of 65,500 vessels in 2017, landing a total catch of 5.3million tonnes. Of those vessels nearly 80% (49,500 vessels) comprise the small-scale coastal fleet, those proverbial ‘little’ boats from the news. Yet these small-scale vessels land only 8% of the total catch. The rest is big business and big boats.
When it comes to the trade in wild species, it is the richest countries and multinational corporations who are making the biggest profits from this continued exploitation. Over decades these countries and businesses have shown little interest in investing what is needed to demonstrate they understand and can manage a sustainable offtake.
At the start of the next round of discussions, at the CDB CoP16 in Columbia, I can 100% state that there is No Chance of achieving Target 5 – that trade is sustainable and legal – by 2030. The first step of achieving this will fail if small scale community, cultural use and large scale global industrial scale extraction continues to be lumped together. This will neither benefit indigenous people or the planet – but it is likely to achieve its real, unstated, goal: to defer needed government regulation.
Lynn Johnson is a physicist by education and has worked as an executive coach and a strategy consultant for over 20 years. In her work she pushes for systemic change, not piecemeal solutions, this includes campaigning for modernising the legal trade in endangered species, to help tackle the illegal wildlife trade.
