Can nature have its own Paris moment?
It is the question facing countries negotiating a new UN agreement aimed at stemming the global loss of wildlife.
Last week, the UN Convention on Biological Diversity released a draft of an agreement that would unite countries behind a shared ambition to halt and reverse the decline of the variety of life on Earth.
Illustration: Mountain People
Much like the Paris climate agreement set a target to limit global temperature rise, the new global biodiversity framework would set targets for protecting and restoring nature.
Environmental advocates argue that Australia — as the only developed, megadiverse country that has ratified the treaty — should be a leader in the process.
However, they say that it is running with what one observer of the negotiations described as “the middle of the pack.”
What is the proposed agreement?
The agreement would set new ambitions for nature under the UN biodiversity convention and replace targets set in Aichi, Japan, in 2010.
This would be articulated as a series of milestones and goals to be reached over decades, with an ultimate goal of living in harmony with nature by 2050.
Scientists have warned that human activity is driving the sixth mass extinction, threatening 1 million species and the healthy functioning of ecosystems that produce food and water, and support human life.
The latest draft proposes milestones to be reached by 2030 to improve our relationship with nature.
It includes a global milestone to protect 30 percent of all land and 30 percent of all sea areas, halving the introduction and establishment of invasive species, reducing public subsidies for industries that harm wildlife by US$500 billion a year, eliminating plastic waste entirely, and reducing pesticide use by two-thirds.
There are also targets to reduce the risk of extinctions by 10 percent and for countries to find ways to factor the benefits nature provides to society into their accounting. There are also larger goals to be achieved by 2050, including a 10-fold reduction in the rate of extinctions and a halving of the risk of extinction for all species.
By 2050, countries would be expected to show that nature’s contribution to people is properly valued, maintained and enhanced through conservation, and a much more sustainable approach to development.
The agreement was due to be reached later this year at a conference in Kunming, China. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, it is expected that it will be delayed, with negotiations continuing into next year.
The response to the draft has been mixed.
One of the long-standing criticisms of the convention is that targets are not binding on nations.
James Watson is a professor at the University of Queensland’s School of Earth and Environmental Sciences. In a comment article last week, he and colleagues argued that the agreement needed more ambition.
He said that the latest draft, while an improvement on previous iterations, does not come close to what is needed to achieve the goal of living in harmony with nature, adding that countries had largely failed to meet the Aichi targets.
“What we know is many nations celebrate signing these 10-year plans and then spend the next few years gaming it so they do not have do anything to achieve the targets they set,” he said.
There has been much talk that the proposed agreement could represent a Paris-style moment for nature, uniting countries behind a singular goal.
For the climate accord, this was to limit global heating to well below 2?C and preferably 1.5?C.
“One of the things we’re hoping to achieve from this process and this draft is the one clear goal for nature that’s equivalent to the 1.5?C goal that unites nations all around the world,” WWF Australia chief conservation officer Rachel Lowry said. “Zero extinctions was put up as a potential, and that’s where this framework does fall short.”
The WWF has been an observer and participant in the international negotiations, and says the proposal for a 10-fold reduction in the rate of extinctions by 2050 does not go far enough.
It wants a commitment to zero extinctions by 2050 and a halving of the effects of unsustainable food production.
Lowry said that such goals, combined with the 30 percent protection targets for land and sea by 2030, could lead to significant change.
“Halt the decline. How do we sign up to anything less than that?” she asked. “We’re basically signing up to a future with less species richness. How can we do that for future generations?”
Invasive Species Council conservation director James Trezise said that one upshot of the negotiations is that countries appear to be coming to a consensus that the world is facing an extinction crisis.
“The UN is hoping to create a Paris moment for nature conservation, but it will need to have more ambition and a clearer call to action that resonates with the community to get there,” he said.
AUSTRALIA’S ROLE
There are 17 megadiverse countries in the world. Australia and the US are the only two developed megadiverse countries, and the US has not ratified the convention.
Megadiverse countries are highly regarded within the convention, and Australia is looked to provide leadership.
Nat Pelle, a campaigner at the Australian Conservation Foundation, said that on the international stage, Australia is not presently “the pariah on biodiversity that we are on climate” and is well respected at the convention.
“What we can’t afford to do is turn up at Kunming and undermine the global biodiversity targets that nature needs when we have the genuine potential and more reasons than most to be one of the leaders,” he said.
The Australian government and its negotiators have a good reputation in the forum for commitments relating to marine protection, reducing plastic waste, and the establishment and funding of protected areas.
However, the country’s record on mammal extinctions is well-known and the government has shown some reluctance to commit to specific targets with regard to halting extinctions.
There has been another sticking point. The current draft of the agreement sets a disaggregated target to protect 30 percent of land and 30 percent of sea areas globally by 2030 — known as the 30x30 target.
Last month, Australia signed up to an international coalition of countries — known as the high ambition coalition — that committed to reaching a global deal to halt the loss of biodiversity.
At that time, the government was advocating for an aggregated target to protect a combined 30 percent of land and sea areas by 2030.
This is significant for a country like Australia, which has a vast marine protection system that already protects 36.7 percent of the country’s sea areas. The amount of terrestrial area protected is 19.7 percent.
An aggregated global target of 30 percent would significantly reduce the work the government needs to do to increase protections on land.
The Australian Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment said that the government now supports a disaggregated global target, adding that it was a relatively new addition to the draft.
However, it is unclear whether this means it would then support setting a domestic target to increase the amount of land Australia has protected to 30 percent.
Pelle said that the current wording of the draft could mean that some countries would do more and others less in terms of domestic land and sea protections.
“Australia as a rich country that is megadiverse, really big and sparsely populated has an obligation to do its fair share and that means protecting at least 30 percent of our own land,” he said.
A department spokesperson said the government was considering what many of the proposed milestones would mean for Australia.
“This is early in the drafting process of the new post-2020 global biodiversity framework, and Australia is committed to addressing the challenges facing biodiversity through a disaggregated global target,” he said. “The inclusion of a disaggregated global 30x30 target is a new addition to the draft framework, which was released on July 12.”
The spokesperson said that a target to halve the risk of extinction for all species was another new addition to the draft and the government was considering what this could mean for Australia, which has close to 2,000 species and habitats listed as threatened.
The department “remains committed to recovering threatened species and preventing species extinction,” he said.
He pointed to a recently launched 10-year threatened species strategy, funding through regional land partnerships, Indigenous protected areas and a bushfire recovery fund.
Trezise said that whatever the outcome of the UN process, Australia has an opportunity to improve conservation and address threats to wildlife as part of its response to a review of the country’s environmental laws.
“The world is clearly coming to a consensus that we are facing a global extinction crisis. The reality is the best time to start strengthening our environmental planning frameworks was yesterday,” he said.
Many foreigners, particularly Germans, are struck by the efficiency of Taiwan’s administration in routine matters. Driver’s licenses, household registrations and similar procedures are handled swiftly, often decided on the spot, and occasionally even accompanied by preferential treatment. However, this efficiency does not extend to all areas of government. Any foreigner with long-term residency in Taiwan — just like any Taiwanese — would have encountered the opposite: agencies, most notably the police, refusing to accept complaints and sending applicants away at the counter without consideration. This kind of behavior, although less common in other agencies, still occurs far too often. Two cases
In a summer of intense political maneuvering, Taiwanese, whose democratic vibrancy is a constant rebuke to Beijing’s authoritarianism, delivered a powerful verdict not on China, but on their own political leaders. Two high-profile recall campaigns, driven by the ruling party against its opposition, collapsed in failure. It was a clear signal that after months of bitter confrontation, the Taiwanese public is demanding a shift from perpetual campaign mode to the hard work of governing. For Washington and other world capitals, this is more than a distant political drama. The stability of Taiwan is vital, as it serves as a key player
Yesterday’s recall and referendum votes garnered mixed results for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). All seven of the KMT lawmakers up for a recall survived the vote, and by a convincing margin of, on average, 35 percent agreeing versus 65 percent disagreeing. However, the referendum sponsored by the KMT and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) on restarting the operation of the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant in Pingtung County failed. Despite three times more “yes” votes than “no,” voter turnout fell short of the threshold. The nation needs energy stability, especially with the complex international security situation and significant challenges regarding
Most countries are commemorating the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II with condemnations of militarism and imperialism, and commemoration of the global catastrophe wrought by the war. On the other hand, China is to hold a military parade. According to China’s state-run Xinhua news agency, Beijing is conducting the military parade in Tiananmen Square on Sept. 3 to “mark the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II and the victory of the Chinese People’s War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression.” However, during World War II, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) had not yet been established. It
RSS