by Julie Sohier (POLLINIS)
Chemical assessments divide pollution into substances, uses and exposure scenarios. Living organisms encounter none of these divisions. They experience cross-contamination across landscapes and throughout their entire life cycle, alongside other pressures. Biodiversity protection can fail in the distance between these two realities.
COP17 has an opportunity to narrow that gap. The discussion on pollution and biodiversity should deliver the expertise and practical support needed to assess contamination through its consequences for species, ecological connectivity and ecosystem functions. Pollinators show why this matters. A bumble bee moves between crops and uncultivated areas, drinks water and collects pollen and nectar. Its exposure can involve several substances, recur over time and cause harm without immediate death. More flowers do not necessarily provide a safer habitat if those flowers are contaminated. “Recognizing that pollution is one of the main drivers of biodiversity loss” would be a great start. But assessments that overlook mixtures, chronic exposure, sublethal effects and cumulative impacts risk missing pressures that undermine populations. These pressures also interact with habitat loss, climate change and other drivers of biodiversity decline. Studying each separately cannot fully explain their combined consequences.
Under Target 7, Parties have committed to reduce pollution to levels that are not harmful to biodiversity by 2030, considering cumulative effects, and to reduce the overall risk from pesticides and highly hazardous chemicals by at least half. Delivering that commitment requires assessment methods that reflect the conditions organisms face in the wild.
It should examine how organisms are exposed to pollution, through sources, pathways, repeated exposure and mixtures. It should also address how that exposure harms biodiversity through sublethal and cumulative effects and interaction with other drivers. This work should lead to practical action: preventing pollution at source, monitoring contamination, reducing exposure and restoring contaminated environments. Such action needs measurable objectives, clear timelines and adequate resources.
Whether through an Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Pollution and Biodiversity or the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Panel on Chemicals, Waste and Pollution, the support of other agencies and relevant conventions and organisations should strengthen this work and avoid duplication. Such cooperation must serve a clear responsibility within the Convention: identifying what biodiversity protection requires and translating that knowledge into recommendations. Stakeholders, including Indigenous Peoples and Local communities, women, youth and civil society must have an explicit opportunity to contribute relevant expertise. Recommendations should set measurable objectives, clear timelines and the resources needed for
implementation.
Uncertainty about the full consequences of chemical pollution on biodiversity makes stronger and scientifi-cally grounded expertise essential. We cannot postpone measures against harms already established.COP17 should establish the expert group and give it a mandate grounded in the reality of contaminated ecosystems. Restoring habitats while allowing conta-mination to persist undermines the protection those habitats are meant to provide.