Twice in recent memory, the international community has missed the target to halt biodiversity loss.
The first time was in 2010 — the International Year of Biodiversity — when a significant cut in the rate of biodiversity loss was supposed to have happened. Instead, pressures on biodiversity were increasing.
The world tried again in 2011 with the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, setting a 10-year goalpost of 2020. By the look of things, stemming the destruction of species’ habitats or halting overfishing will not be achieved.
As ever, the human species — homo sapiens (“the wise one”) — is an optimistic one. This week in Rome, Italy, more than 1000 delegates from Malaysia and more than 140 countries are hard at work negotiating the initial draft of a landmark post-2020 global biodiversity framework and targets for nature to 2030.
The new framework will be considered by the 196 Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) at the 2020 United Nations Biodiversity Conference (CBD COP15) in Kunming, China, from Oct 15 to 28.
To quote Elizabeth Maruma Mrema, CBD’s acting executive secretary: “I know that the world is eagerly waiting out there for demonstrable progress towards a clear, actionable and transformative global framework on biodiversity.
“They want a framework that can be implemented at all levels, namely, at global, regional levels, national and subnational levels. They want a framework that builds upon the existing Biodiversity Strategic Plan 2011-2020 and its accompanying Aichi Biodiversity Targets and a framework that aligns with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.”
To which I’d add that we must ensure that we are not going to be disappointed again 10 years down the road. Sir Robert Watson, a close friend and my successor as chair of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystems Services (IPBES), says it well:
“The continued loss of biodiversity is not only an environmental issue. It risks undermining the achievement of most of the UN sustainable development goals. It is central to development, through food, water and energy security. It has significant economic value, which should be recognised in national accounting systems.
“It is a security issue insofar as loss of natural resources, especially in developing countries, can lead to conflict. It is an ethical issue because loss of biodiversity hurts the poorest people, further exacerbating an already inequitable world. And it is also a moral issue, because we should not destroy the living planet.”
Ten years ago, nations promised to at least halve the loss of natural habitats, ensure sustainable fishing in all waters, and expand nature reserves from 10 to 17 per cent of the world’s land by 2020. But many nations have fallen behind, and some have done little to police the protected areas that were created. “Paper reserves” can now be found from Brazil to China.
Some inroads have been made.
Several species in Africa and Asia have recovered (though most are in decline) and forest cover in Asia has increased by 2.5 per cent (though it has decreased elsewhere at a faster rate). Marine protected areas have also widened. Many countries now have in place their National Biodiversity Strategic Action Plans to combat biodiversity loss. However, it is a case of one step forward and two steps backward.
The problem in part is awareness, or the lack of it. We need higher levels of political and citizen will to support nature. Conservationists, who believe that biodiversity loss is as harmful as climate change, are desperate for a biodiversity accord that will carry the same weight as the Paris climate agreement.
Countries must be bold enough to commit to lofty goals, such as setting aside 30 per cent of their land and seascapes to Protected Areas for future generations.
At the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 30 years ago, where the CBD was first agreed, Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad committed to preserve 50 per cent of its landmass under forests. The 2016 statistics suggest that 55.3 per cent, or 18.28 million hectares of forests in Malaysia, are still intact.
However, as noted previously, we should object to backsliding, such as the Selangor government’s plans to remove protection for a large forest reserve and permit a mixed development project. French President Emmanuel Macron recently noted that the climate issue cannot be solved without a halt in biodiversity loss.
Hopefully the preparatory meeting in Rome this week lays out the framework to reinvigorate actions at the global, regional, national and local levels to transform economic, social and financial systems in order to reduce biodiversity loss and put biodiversity on a path to recovery.
As someone quipped recently, we wouldn’t want to be the first species to document our own extinction.
The writer is a senior fellow of the Academy of Sciences Malaysia and the founding chair of IPBES
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of the New Straits Times