China must play a leading role if the world is to draw up a new and more effective strategy to halt the collapse of life on Earth, senior delegates at the close of last week’s UN biodiversity conference said.
With the US absent, Europe distracted and Brazil tilting away from global cooperation, the onus has shifted toward Beijing, the diplomats said after two weeks of slow-moving talks on how to maintain the natural infrastructure on which humanity depends.
China will host the next high-level negotiations in 2020, which is to be the most important in more than 10 years. This is the deadline for nations to agree on fresh global targets for the protection and management of forests, rivers, oceans, pollinators and other wildlife.
Conservationists hope this “new deal for nature and people” becomes as much of a priority as the Paris climate accord and helps to reverse the current wave of extinction, which is at the highest rate the world has seen since the age of the dinosaurs.
Over the coming two years, China should champion the cause of nature as France championed the cause of climate in the run-up to the Paris deal in 2016, the diplomats said.
“China is very important. It can be a great leader,” said Mexican Director-General of International Cooperation Hesiquio Benitez Diaz, who helped organize the previous global biodiversity conference. “We’re reaching the point of no return for many species. It’s really bad, but people don’t see this issue.”
Rather than leaving biodiversity on the fringes, where it has until now been dealt with mostly by politically weak environment ministers and non-governmental organizations (NGO), he hoped Beijing would use its clout to ensure the subject was high on the agenda of G8 and G20 summits, and to press for participation by heads of state in 2020.
They also want the issue to be taken up by communities, companies and individuals.
The message was echoed by Cristiana Paca Palmer, executive secretary of the biodiversity convention.
“We tell China that the biodiversity agenda needs a lot of championing,” she said. “They were instrumental in the success of Paris and they can play a very important role.”
Until recently, China’s dire pollution problems and woeful record on wildlife conservation meant it would have been an unlikely champion of nature.
However, under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) perceptions have started to shift.
The government has promoted the concept of “ecological conservation,” established hundreds of environmental courts and played a positive role in global climate talks.
At the conference, Beijing sent mixed messages. It initially ignored a proposal to get involved in preparations with Mexico (the previous host) and Egypt (the host this year), and it remained low-key in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, over the past two weeks of talks.
“We were very nervous about their silence,” one foreign diplomat said.
However, those familiar with the Chinese delegation said this reflected a difference of approach.
Rather than set ambitious public goals, they said the country preferred to set expectations low and work at a higher level behind the scenes.
“They are really determined to succeed, but they don’t know how to do it,” another source said.
A shift in pace and priorities is essential. Delegate after delegate in Sharm el-Sheikh warned of risks to food production and human wellbeing from the loss of corals, forests and the 60 percent loss of biodiversity since 1972.
There was recognition that the current global management plan has been a failure: Among the 20 Aichi biodiversity targets, only one — on the creation of protected areas — is measurably close to being met.
Highlighting the low priority that even the host government put on nature, a shop near the conference center was openly selling an illegal lion hide for US$1,500.
This convention established a process to draw-up a “Post-2020 Road Map” with more forceful and effective goals.
However, the political winds are even less favorable than in 2010. Brazil, which played an important role eight years ago, will soon have a far-right government and its diplomats spent much of the time on niggling issues that could have an impact on exploitation of its world-leading biodiversity. At one point the conference spent 35 minutes debating whether to be “concerned” or “deeply concerned” about the impact of climate change.
A row broke out between developing and developed nations over how to share the economic benefits from genetic sequencing information. Tense negotiations were also needed to set new guidelines for gene drive technology, which can be used to eradicate entire species.
Governments stopped short of imposing a moratorium, but built in strong precautions by insisting that no research be allowed without risk assessment, risk management and the consent of any communities who might be affected by the release of modified organisms.
Crucially, the delegates struggled to identify what kind of target should be set. There was widespread agreement that biodiversity needed a single measurable headline goal — equivalent to the 1.5oC to 2oC in climate negotiations.
However, there is, as yet, no single metric that can cover the complex interaction of life on Earth. Instead, discussions centered on setting either zero net loss of natural habitat or a broad goal to “bend the curve,” which means reverse biodiversity loss worldwide through a series of bottom-up national commitments and wider demarcations of nature reserves, protected areas and traditional or indigenous community land.
Pooven Moodley, executive director of the NGO Natural Justice, said that the conference had seen progress in terms of greater recognition of the need for improved environmental rights and more land tenure for indigenous groups.
However, overall the negotiations had failed to take into account the urgency of the crisis, he said.
“It does feel like rearranging the deckchairs as the Titanic sinks,” he said.
Frustrations were also expressed by Ruth Davis, deputy director of global programs at the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.
“I am used to the UN — its ups and downs — but it’s still disorienting listening to hours of wrangling over single words in obscure documents in empty rooms when this is supposed — quite literally — to be about a plan to save life on Earth,” she tweeted.
Despite occasional grumbles, delegates said the situation would be worse without the convention, which at least obliges governments to assess biodiversity and report every four years — with the exception of the US, which is the only nation that does not take part.
Protected areas — the one concrete target from 2010 — have expanded substantially in the past eight years. Conservation efforts have also helped to pull a few species, including whales and mountain gorillas, back from the brink of extinction.
UN head of biodiversity Pasca Palmer said she too wanted more urgency, but she remained optimistic that a deal could be done in 2020.
“The best possible outcome would be to have a clear recognition that biodiversity is infrastructure affecting life and development. We have to govern in a holistic way, not just one species, and we need to make it clear in people’s minds that without it, we won’t have a healthy planet,” Palmer said.
China will have its work cut out.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
The Chinese government on March 29 sent shock waves through the Tibetan Buddhist community by announcing the untimely death of one of its most revered spiritual figures, Hungkar Dorje Rinpoche. His sudden passing in Vietnam raised widespread suspicion and concern among his followers, who demanded an investigation. International human rights organization Human Rights Watch joined their call and urged a thorough investigation into his death, highlighting the potential involvement of the Chinese government. At just 56 years old, Rinpoche was influential not only as a spiritual leader, but also for his steadfast efforts to preserve and promote Tibetan identity and cultural
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
RSS