“The disappearance of animals could jeopardize our way of life”
Mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, amphibians: Vertebrate populations have been reduced by 60% since 1970, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) reported in its 2018 report . The causes of this hecatomb are known. The first is the destruction of natural habitats, as a result of logging or mining, intensive agriculture and urbanization. In addition, there is over-exploitation, pollution, invasive species and diseases, as well as climate change.
Arnaud Gauffier, head of agriculture and food at WWF-France, analyzed this relationship with Internet users in a chat.
Internet user: We are talking about the sixth mass extinction on the planet. There have been five previous ones with sometimes 95% disappearance of the species. Is it not an anthropocentric vision to want to freeze nature at instant T?
Arnaud Gauffier: Certainly, the Permian-Triassic crisis, 250 million years ago, saw the disappearance of 95% of species. However, it is the pace of the current disappearance that is dramatic: it is one hundred to one thousand times greater than that of the five great previous extinctions.
Question stupid and that may seem provocative: in what the disappearance of the wild animals is serious?
Their disappearance could undermine our lifestyles in a profound way, both economically and in terms of security. For example, ecosystem services provided by nature are estimated at $ 125 trillion a year, or 1.5 times the world’s GDP. If we had to pollinate the rape fields by hand, because of the lack of pollinating insects, or build storm protection dikes following the disappearance of the corals around the atolls, this would have dramatic consequences for the country. Mondial economy.
Loss of biodiversity combined with climate change are also major causes of destabilization in some regions such as the Sahel and the Middle East, and may therefore have consequences for global stability and security.
Finally, the emblematic species (orangutans, elephants, tigers, polar bears) are just the tip of the iceberg and are indicators of ecosystem health. When they disappear, it is often the sign that the whole ecosystem on which they depend also disappears.
I read with interest and sadness the article yesterday, but it does not speak for a moment about human overpopulation, which seems to me to be the number one reason for this massacre …
WWF is pointing to rising global population as one of the causes of species extinction. But it’s far from being the major cause. An average American, for example, has an ecological footprint six times larger (five times for a European) than an inhabitant of Africa. It is above all our consumption patterns that are the cause of this decline, well before the rise in the world population.
How can we mobilize politicians and big companies?
Excellent question! Show that the protection of the environment is not incompatible with an economic activity. At the international level, continue to mobilize for an ambitious agreement on biodiversity, just like the one we had in Paris in 2015 on the climate. Being able to link the two topics (climate and biodiversity) in the minds of leaders is also a good track, as some measures such as the fight against deforestation are favorable to biodiversity and the fight against climate change.
For companies, help them measure their impacts on biodiversity and implement corrective measures. Campaigns of denunciation and boycott can also be a formidable weapon for those who refuse to move.
What are the obstacles to increasing the number and size of protected areas?
It is essentially a problem related to the opposition of a part of the local populations, who fear that the enhanced protection of some territories “hangs” their living environment and prevents any economic activity – think of the opposition to the future national forest park in Burgundy for example. This is not the case, as the French national parks show, in which economic activities can continue, contrary to a more conservative vision in force in the United States for example.
On the other hand, economic activities that are extremely destructive of biodiversity, such as the Montagne d’Or project in French Guiana, should not be possible near these protected areas.
We have good recent examples with the creation of the largest coral protection zone in the world off New Caledonia, which should however see its status strengthened.
Which French consumer goods cause this phenomenon?
All animal products (meat, milk, eggs, farmed fish) have a significant impact on deforestation via imports of South American soybeans to feed them. Cocoa also contributes significantly to deforestation, with France accounting for 10% of world production.
Fishery products also have a strong impact on species decline – 60% of stocks are exploited to the maximum and 30% are over-exploited globally, not counting bycatch of non-commercial species such as dolphins, turtles, sharks …
Finally, consumers do not know much about it, fuel and especially diesel are a major factor in deforestation. More than 70% of imported palm oil in France is now used to make biodiesel for vehicles. One more reason to trade your old diesel for a less polluting vehicle!
Are there indicators that remain positive: changes in mentality, new policies … to hope for a reversal of the trend?
Mentalities are beginning to change, with a rise of 20% per year in the consumption of organic products in France, the mobilization for the climate, but not fast enough, especially at the level of decision-makers. One way to place the decline of biodiversity at the top of the political agenda could be to put the ecological debt at the same level as the financial debt. If European governments were for example bound to the “golden rule” – no more than 3% of public deficit per year – in ecological matters, things would change quickly! This is a strong demand from WWF.
On the other hand, we also aim to obtain an ambitious international agreement in 2020 during the COP biodiversity in Beijing. This is to reiterate the success of the COP 21 on climate in Paris in 2015, but on biodiversity.
Another positive indicator is related to nature: it regains its rights when given a little time. See: return of the wolf in France (disappeared in 1939), lynx (disappeared in 1970), or Atlantic salmon in the Loire and the Allier (almost disappeared); increase of whale populations … But it is still necessary first to preserve these species of complete disappearance.