The central pledge of a planned new global nature pact — to protect 30 percent of the planet’s land and seas — is in doubt, with some biodiversity-rich nations refusing to commit because of jitters over funding and implementation, officials have said.
A coalition of about 70 countries — including wealthy G7 governments — have promised to conserve at least 30 percent of their land and oceans by 2030, a pledge known as 30x30, to help curb climate change and the loss of plant and animal species.
The 30x30 goal is part of a draft global treaty to safeguard plants, animals and ecosystems, due to be finalized in May next year at the COP15 nature summit in the Kunming, the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) said.
“Many countries are supporting it, but also many countries are not supporting it. It is still very much for debate,” CBD executive secretary Elizabeth Maruma Mrema said, adding that effective management of a 30x30 goal would be key.
Improving protection of natural areas, such as parks, oceans, forests and wildernesses, is seen as vital to maintaining the ecosystems on which humans depend, and to limiting global warming to internationally agreed targets.
Dozens of nations pledged to do more to conserve nature and make farming greener at the COP26 UN climate talks this month.
Brian O’Donnell, director of the US-based Campaign for Nature, which is urging leaders to back the 30x30 pledge, said it was “perhaps the most supported target in the negotiations.”
There is broad scientific consensus that protecting or conserving at least 30 percent of land and oceans is the minimum needed to curb biodiversity loss and to reach climate goals, he added.
However, the inclusion of the pledge in the final COP15 accord is far from certain, with improvements needed, some green groups have said.
“Like it or not, 30x30 will be one of the defining issues for COP15,” Greenpeace China policy adviser Li Shuo said.
“The Kunming biodiversity summit will not be a success only with this target, but it will certainly not be seen as a triumph if without [it],” he added.
WAIT AND SEE
Southeast Asia covers just 3 percent of the Earth’s surface, but is home to three of the world’s 17 “mega-diverse” countries — Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines.
It is also the only region where a significant number of countries have yet to back the 30x30 goal, with only Cambodia signing up so far, O’Donnell said.
South Africa, meanwhile, has called for a much lower target of 20 percent, he added, while others such as Argentina have questioned the science behind the flagship pledge.
On a more positive note, India is the latest country to commit to 30x30.
At the first part of the COP15 talks, held online last month, host nation China announced a new national parks project that would bring 230,000km2 of land under stronger state protection.
While China has yet to endorse the 30x30 pledge, the signs are that it might be getting ready to do so at the Kunming summit, Nature Conservancy director of biodiversity Linda Krueger said.
Opposition to the 30x30 goal is largely linked to the challenges of putting it into practice, such as financing for developing nations, high population density, low levels of biodiversity and lack of domestic laws, environmentalists said.
However, Krueger said she had only heard Brazil clearly speak out against it.
“Many countries seem to be on the fence, and the support of others is conditioned on adequate financing being made available,” she added.
Some political leaders have yet to grasp the economic benefits of conservation, with many still relying on exploitation of natural resources to lift people out of poverty, green groups said.
Others are home to a large proportion of the planet’s biodiversity and want a protection target higher than 30 percent.
Despite these hurdles, there is significant momentum to land the 30x30 goal in the deal, said Susan Lieberman, vice president of international policy at the Wildlife Conservation Society.
Some countries are still studying how it would play out in their own contexts, she added.
“Many governments do not realize this is a global target and each country will contribute to achievement of the targets in different ways,” Lieberman said.
“Governments need to look not only at area-based conservation within their own territories, but at what their ‘footprint’ is globally,” she said, pointing to procurement of commodities such as timber and fish.
There are also concerns that the 30x30 target threatens the rights of indigenous and local communities, and that new protected areas could dispossess those groups, said Guido Broekhoven, head of policy research and development at World Wide Fund for Nature International.
These are the very people who for generations have done the most to sustain, defend and restore biodiversity, Broekhoven said.
The 30x30 pledge should be far more effective in halting and reversing biodiversity loss if protected areas are situated in the most important parts of the planet for biodiversity and ecosystem services, he said.
That means achieving the target should be “a collective, global effort,” he added, calling for more financing.
Countries with relatively few suitable areas should contribute as much as they can to conservation efforts in other biodiversity-rich nations, Broekhoven said.
However, 30x30 is not “a panacea,” he said, adding that the goal should be complemented by reforms to ecologically harmful investment, agriculture and consumption.
“On its own, it will be insufficient to reverse the loss of nature,” he said.
Russian President Vladimir Putin is an expert at bluffing and keeping the West on its toes, pushing relations to the edge before pivoting without warning. However, hemmed in and fuming, he is deadly serious about being heard on Ukraine. Those close to the Kremlin said that the Russian president does not want to start another war in Ukraine. Still, he must show he is ready to fight if necessary in order to stop what he sees as an existential security threat: the creeping expansion of the NATO in a country that for centuries had been part of Russia. After years of disillusionment
The Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) sixth plenary session has ended and from all appearances, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) has set the stage to rule for the rest of his life. Some might be tempted to declare that this calls for Xi to do a victory lap, but all is not well on the other side of the Taiwan Strait. To parody a line from Ya Got Trouble, a song from Broadway musical The Music Man: “There’s trouble in River City, (aka, Beijing). Trouble with a capital T, which rhymes with C for CCP.” Why? Taking control of a nation is always much
When analyzing Taiwan-China tensions, most people assume that the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) consists of rational actors. Embedded within this belief are three further suppositions: First, Beijing would only launch an attack on Taiwan if it were in China’s national interest; second, it would only attack if the odds were overwhelmingly in its favor; and third, Chinese decisionmakers interpret information objectively and through the same lens as other actors. These assumptions have underpinned recent analyses — including by Minister of National Defense Chiu Kuo-cheng (邱國正) — concluding that there is no
Frequent incidents of violence in society, such as a near-fatal assault with baseball bats in Taichung and a deadly shooting in New Taipei City, are making people anxious. Media commentators blame police chiefs and mayors, calling for their resignations. President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) said she would review the situation and take firmer action, such as the Cabinet calling a conference on law and order, and proposing countermeasures, while former New Power Party legislator Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) has urged the government to declare “war” on gangsters, and not just as a slogan. When thugs get into brawls and beat up or even kill