World biodiversity meet 2012 ford

Rio+20 Earth Summit: campaigners decry final document | Environment | The Guardian

world biodiversity meet 2012 ford

The Hyderabad Conference of the Parties to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) it was held from 1–19 October in Hyderabad, India. Environment Ministers and Forests Ministers of about countries attended the Conference; international organisations like World. The eleventh meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP 11) to the . Decisions on biofuels and biodiversity, the Global Strategy for Plant. Connecting global priorities: biodiversity and human health: a state of knowledge review. 1. was adopted at the tenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the .. ). However, it is widely accepted that many of the adverse impacts of biodiversity loss are (e.g. Dermo and MSX diseases, Ford & Trip ).

But the gems have not yet been chosen, let alone cut, polished and set. Negotiators at Rio were unable to agree on themes, which will now be left to an "open working group" of 30 nations to decide upon by September Two years later, they will be blended with Millennium Development Goals.

world biodiversity meet 2012 ford

The new goals look set to be the focus of tussles between rich and poor nations over the coming years. The G77 group of developing countries is adamant that the goals must include strong social and economic elements, including financing and technology transfer. The G77 insist that it also has strong economic and social pillars.

It needs to be better and bolder than the millennium development goals," said Bhumika Muchhala, of the Third World Network.

The page document contained many other — mostly loosely defined — steps. The UN Environment Programme UNEPlong a poor relation of other UN organisations, will get a more secure budget, a broader membership and strong powers to initiate scientific research and coordinate global environment strategies. Instead, the green economy was merely named as an "important tool" that countries could use if they wished.

Nations agreed to think about ways to place a higher value on nature, including alternatives to GDP as a measure of wealth that account more for environmental and social factors, and efforts to assess and pay for "environmental services" provided by nature, such as carbon sequestration and habitat protection. Among the many vague, but potentially promising developments, was a recognition by all governments that "fundamental changes in the way societies consume and produce are indispensable for achieving global sustainable development".

This appeared to mean different things to different people. EU officials suggests it could lead to a shift of taxes so workers pay less and polluters and landfill operators pay more. Hillary Clinton said it should be reflected in the way products are advertised and packaged. All nations "reaffirmed" commitments to phase out harmful fossil fuel subsidies. Such changes will cost, but nobody wanted to put money on the table, which was cited by the G77 as a major cause of the weak outcome.

Instead, there was a promise to enhance funding, but by how much and by whom were left to future discussions. Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff said rich nations had not kept Copenhagen promises on "green funding" and so were in no position to criticise others for a lack of ambition: Nobody can point the finger. Uganda suggested adding text to encourage parties to ratify the Protocol.

GRULAC underscored the key role of indigenous and local communities ILCs for implementation and the need for building their capacities and suggested that activities to support implementation and early entry into force be supported by the core budget.

Discussions focused on future work, particularly with regard to the global multilateral benefit-sharing mechanism and the ABS clearing-house. The EU, Namibia and Canada, opposed by Bolivia and Venezuela, proposed deleting a request for a study on a global multilateral benefit-sharing mechanism, including non-market-based approaches, and text remained in brackets. Delegates agreed to add to the ICNP 3 agenda an exchange of views on the development and use of model contractual clauses, codes of conduct and guidelines, and on the state of implementation of the Nagoya Protocol.

They also approved the annexes as forwarded by ICNP 2. Following consultations, delegates agreed to: It further decides to add to the ICNP 3 agenda: On the need for and modalities of a global multilateral benefit-sharing mechanism, the COP requests the Secretariat to convene an expert group, subject to available funds, to review information provided and identify areas of common understanding and areas for further examination for ICNP 3 consideration of the need for an additional study, including on non-market-based approaches.

On the ABS clearing-house, the COP endorses the indicative work plan and timeline for activities and decides that the informal advisory committee will hold one meeting, subject to available financial resources. On capacity-building measures, the COP requests the Secretariat to organize an expert meeting to develop a draft strategic framework, subject to available financial resources. Indonesia stressed involving relevant stakeholders in all aspects of updating NBSAPs to remove barriers to implementation.

Many requested removing brackets around text urging the provision of financial resources, technology transfer and benefit-sharing. Delegates urged establishing capacity-building networks, while requesting clarification on the classification and criteria for selecting centers of excellence that make up the proposed capacity-building networks.

The Philippines urged technology needs assessments be funded and undertaken as a matter of priority. The EU supported enhancing the CHM and developing a consistent approach on technical and scientific cooperation. Switzerland proposed the Secretariat facilitate a voluntary peer-review process to enhance information exchange on good practices.

China proposed emphasizing that studies for capacity needs assessments and identification of baselines should not delay implementation of commitments by developed country parties under CBD Article 20, which was bracketed. During the closing plenary, China, supported by Malaysia and Somalia, made an alternative proposal to emphasize that provision of financial resources in accordance with CBD Article 20 should not be affected by the lack of capacity needs assessments and baseline information on financial resource flows.

The EU, supported by Japan, Switzerland, New Zealand and Australia, requested that language remain bracketed until conclusion of ministerial consultations on resource mobilization. The brackets were removed and the decision adopted following conclusion of the consultations on resource mobilization. It calls for the provision of support for timely review, revision and updating of NBSAPs, and requests the Secretariat to facilitate the continued exchange of best practices and lessons learned from preparing, updating and revising NBSAPs, as well as continuing to promote and facilitate activities to strengthen implementation of the Strategic Plan and progress towards the Aichi targets at all levels.

The COP agrees to: It further decides to extend the mandate of the informal advisory committee and requests SBSTTA to develop guidance on effectively addressing barriers to data access to achieve the Aichi targets. It also requests the Secretariat to, inter alia, establish a standard information exchange mechanism for the CHM to interconnect the central and national CHMs, and collaborate with other biodiversity-related conventions to ensure mutual compatibility.

On scientific and technical cooperation and technology transfer, the COP requests the Secretariat to, inter alia: Under other matters, the Secretariat is requested to undertake a review of the impact of disasters and conflicts on biodiversity; and to collaborate with IPBES in developing a work programme that includes the preparation of the next global assessment on biodiversity and ecosystem services, to be launched infocusing on status and trends, the impact of biodiversity and ecosystem services on human well-being, and the effectiveness of responses.

The EU supported developing global indicators. Canada supported reaching consensus on a small set of indicators during COP 11, and further developing the draft list of indicators for discussion at COP While generally welcoming the proposed indicators, delegates urged keeping the proposed indicators as a flexible framework and noted that more work would be needed for their implementation at the national level.

Brazil questioned the inclusion of certain proposed indicators. Bolivia suggested recognizing different visions in achieving the CBD objectives. Kiribati called for including the source data used for establishing the indicators.

The IIFB Working Group on Indicators called for support of community monitoring systems, through partnerships between governments and indigenous peoples. On traditional knowledge TK indicators, New Zealand highlighted the value of working with existing forest assessment processes to help reduce data burdens.

Ecuador and Malaysia called for developing indicators specific to indigenous peoples. It also requests the Secretariat to, inter alia: The Secretariat is requested to provide regular progress reports on the development and use of the indicators and associated monitoring systems to each meeting of SBSTTA.

Norway underscored the need to combine efforts on resource mobilization, track biodiversity funding, and create enabling conditions. Australia opposed setting quantitative targets specific to official development assistance ODA. Peru highlighted the need for capacity building, and Argentina for funding, for countries to undertake national assessments of needs and gaps.

Kiribati emphasized the importance of agreeing on funding targets at this meeting, noting that available data is sufficient. India explained that setting targets now, even on an interim basis, would build confidence among parties. The Philippines supported adopting the preliminary reporting framework for resource mobilization. Highlighting the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, China noted the framework should be voluntary for developing countries.

Negotiations continued throughout the meeting. Delegates could not agree on: Developed countries called for needs assessments and robust baselines before establishing resource flow targets, noting that national financial plans are fundamental preconditions. They proposed a target of doubling biodiversity financial resource flows from developed to developing countries bynoting it stems from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development OECD Creditors Reporting System and the Rio markers, which establish a robust baseline.

They also argued that reporting and assessment-related targets should not be a precondition for the target on financial flows.

Convention on Biological Diversity - Wikipedia

He underscored that, unless COP 11 addresses the issue of targets for the Resource Mobilization Strategy, the gains of Nagoya will be negated and the momentum towards realizing the Aichi targets lost.

He noted that developing countries made major concessions and agreed to work on interim targets, hoping that developed countries will reciprocate, agreeing on specific targets and commitments. He feared that failure to reach agreement on a target will result in suspension of implementation of the Aichi targets until sufficient resources are available. Some developed countries also noted that their ODA model does not include issue-specific targets but responds to needs and priorities set by recipient countries, underscoring the need for developing countries to identify biodiversity as a priority for ODA.

Other debated items included: In the early hours of Saturday, the closing plenary was presented with a compromise decision resulting from ministerial-level consultations.

Switzerland expressed concern that COP 11 set quantified targets for resource mobilization considering that robust baselines have not been identified and highlighted that the decision is exclusively related to the CBD, further noting difficulty to subscribe to the interim goal but commitment to reach the goal.

Japan highlighted that the interim target was agreed without sufficient discussion and recognized that it relates to CBD parties as a whole, while each party is expected to make efforts within its capabilities and resources.

2012 Hyderabad Biodiversity Conference

It invites parties to submit their information through the preliminary reporting framework using the average of annual biodiversity funding for the years as a preliminary baseline.

The COP decides on an overall substantial increase of total biodiversity-related funding for the implementation of the Strategic Plan from a variety of sources, and resolves to achieve the following preliminary targets: During discussions on the review of GEF-5, delegates expressed concern regarding the timeliness of disbursements, and suggested language on this. Numerous delegates called for simpler, streamlined methodologies for allocating funds. Many delegates cautioned against suggesting a figure and target for the GEF-6 replenishment.

India highlighted the need to monitor the impact of GEF-6 projects in reaching the Aichi targets. Following deliberations in the Friends of the Chair group, delegates included two bracketed options on funding needs and increased contributions to GEF Japan highlighted the importance of establishing an ABS clearing-house, and Switzerland called for additional resources from the core budget.

Bangladesh urged establishing a fast-track process within the NPIF. Delegates also addressed, inter alia: It further asks the GEF to: It also requests the Secretariat to make the report of the fourth review of the effectiveness of the financial mechanism available to parties. The COP urges parties and invites other governments, the financial mechanism, and funding organizations to provide adequate, timely and sustainable support for implementing the GSPC, and training and capacity building and other activities related to ecologically and biologically significant marine areas EBSAs.

It invites the GEF and its implementing agencies to facilitate aligning the development and implementation of PA projects with the actions identified in national action plans for the programme of work with a view to facilitating the systematic monitoring and reporting of the results of those projects as they contribute to achieving Aichi Target 11 protected areas and other related targets.

It recommendsthat the GEF make funds available for activities to support ABS and the early entry into force and implementation of the Nagoya Protocol and further recommends that GEF operational focal points carefully consider the urgent need to finance activities related to ABS and the Nagoya Protocol when consulting national stakeholders on the distribution of the STAR allocation.

It further recommends that the GEF continue to finance technical support to parties for the speedy ratification and early entry into force of the Nagoya Protocol, and its implementation at the national level. It requests the GEF to ensure that the NPIF will specifically support activities related to early ratification and capacity building, and be used for access to and utilization of genetic resources only when such activities have been approved by appropriate government authorities and endorsed through the GEF operational focal point.

The COP also calls upon the GEF, donors, parties and others to consider providing technical support and financial resources for work on indicators on TK and customary sustainable use and invites them to provide adequate and timely financial support for the preparation of the fifth national reports.

It reiteratesits invitation to the GEF to consider establishing a South-South biodiversity cooperation trust fund and welcomes ongoing discussions on this matter.

Appendix I of the decision sets out the guidance to the GEF to support implementing the Nagoya Protocol, which highlights the need for support for capacity building for, inter alia: On incorporating links between biological and cultural diversity into CBD implementation, delegates agreed to add language on consistency and harmony with the Convention and relevant international obligations.

Convention on Biological Diversity

On the joint work programme with the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization UNESCO on biological and cultural diversity, Australia proposed language on consistency with international obligations, while India called for considering specific national contexts. On forest biodiversity, the International Tropical Timber Organization ITTO presented on projects on tropical forest biodiversity and many delegates supported expanded work.

world biodiversity meet 2012 ford

On health, China requested deleting text inviting parties to collaborate with national health sectors to integrate biodiversity into national health strategies and programmes. The EU called for enhanced use of the guidelines on biodiversity and tourism development.

Brazil and Ecuador suggested inviting the World Tourism Organization and other relevant organizations to cooperate on identifying critical tourism and conservation hotspots. It requests the Secretariat to: Belarus proposed calling on parties to step up activities related to the UN Decade and report on them annually. They also agreed to include a section on the Decade in the decision on review of progress in implementation of NBSAPs and related capacity-building support.

The Arab Group recommended that partnership initiatives focus on national plans and actions, with financing from the private sector. Switzerland encouraged businesses to report on their impacts on biodiversity. Delegates debated, inter alia, references related to: Mexico called for capacity building to develop local plans to implement the Aichi targets.

Singapore called for cities to develop indicators to monitor progress in implementation.