More

UN Biodiversity Convention Delegates Reach Agreement To Protect 17% Land, 10% Oceans By 2020

MALCOLM FOSTER   10/29/10 04:37 PM ET   AP

Un Biodiversity Convention

TOKYO — Representatives to a U.N. conference on biodiversity agreed early Saturday to expand protected areas on land and at sea in the hopes of slowing the rate of extinction of the world's animals and plants and preventing further damage to its ecosystems.

After marathon negotiations that stretched hours past the designated time, delegates also managed to overcome divisions between rich and poor countries to agree to share access to and the benefits of genetic resources such as plants whose extracts have been developed into medicines – a key sticking point that had threatened to doom the entire two-week meeting in Nagoya, southwest of Tokyo.

Scientists estimate that the Earth is losing species 100 to 1,000 times the historical average, pushing the planet toward the greatest extinction age since the dinosaurs were wiped out 65 million years ago. They warn that unless action is taken to prevent biodiversity loss, extinctions will spike and the intricately interconnected natural world could collapse with devastating consequences, from plunging fish stocks to less access to clean water.

Delegates from 193 countries at the U.N. Convention on Biodiversity agreed to protect 17 percent of the world's land areas and 10 percent of oceans by 2020. Those gains will be difficult to ensure, however, since there is no way to enforce these agreements, and many poor nations lack the funds to manage reserves properly.

Currently, 13 percent of the world's land areas and less than 1 percent of marine areas are protected – which can range from natural parks or marine sanctuaries to areas where there is sustainable fishing or land use.

The series of agreements – which each required a consensus – squeaked through after hours of debate, relieving many delegates who feared the conference would suffer the kind of collapse that befell U.N. climate talks last year. Participants stood and cheered when it was announced that agreements had been reached in all areas, attendees said.

"We are very glad for this, very happy with the outcome," said Braulio Ferreira de Souza Dias, Brazil's Secretary for Biodiversity and Forests. "We had some doubts, but in the end we were confident we would get results."

Some developing countries balked at how to pay for larger protected areas, and delegates agreed to set up a fund from developed nations and other donors by the convention's next meeting in India in 2012, Dias said.

Eager to make the meeting a success, host Japan on Thursday offered $2 billion to help developing nations reach the goals set by the conference.

Environmental groups welcomed the agreement, but said many of the targets were not bold enough.

"At a certain point in the evening, it looked like it was all going to fall apart, so this is good news," said Nathalie Rey, an oceans policy adviser with Greenpeace International. "I would've liked to have seen more ambitious targets, especially on protected areas."

Japan proposed a compromise text Friday to break a logjam in the prickly area of sharing genetic resources, called access and benefits-sharing, or ABS, in U.N. parlance.

Developing nations and indigenous peoples argue they haven't benefited from the bounty of their resources, such as native plants, that have been developed into drugs by wealthy Western pharmaceutical companies. But in the end, delegates reached an agreement to set up a system that seeks to share these profits and benefits more equitably.

Some 193 governments have joined the biodiversity convention. Only three have not: the United States, Andorra and the Holy See.

____

Online:

Nagoya meeting site: http://www.cbd.int/cop10/

Convention on Biological Diversity site: http://www.cbd.int/

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

TOKYO — Representatives to a U.N. conference on biodiversity agreed early Saturday to expand protected areas on land and at sea in the hopes of slowing the rate of extinction of the world's anim...
TOKYO — Representatives to a U.N. conference on biodiversity agreed early Saturday to expand protected areas on land and at sea in the hopes of slowing the rate of extinction of the world's anim...
Filed by Travis Donovan  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 67
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
09:12 AM on 12/27/2010
The UN should tackle human rights (i.e. in the mid-east) before it even starts to think about the environment. All it's interested in castigating capitalism as evil. Meanwhile, women are still not allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ramkshrestha
Lumbini-Kapilvastu Day Movement
05:00 PM on 12/21/2010
What about 83% land and 90% ocean?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tomteboda
05:29 PM on 11/12/2010
For those who are particularly upset at the USA not signing such a treaty, please consider that our Constitution prevents signing away sovereign rights and allowing another nation lawmaking decision over us. The way that this treaty, as many environmental ones, has been written, cannot pass our Constitutional requirements. Failure to sign it does not mean the US will not work towards solid ecological policy, only that we are not making ourselves subject to a greater world body of opinion.
05:37 PM on 11/07/2010
Yet another example of the rest of the world moving on without us. All the other countries are actually doing something about global warming, while over here, we've been hijacked by a bunch of corporate paid for conspiracy theories designed to get people to believe that global warming is a big hoax thought up by scientists in order to do... something, I'm not quite clear on that part.

Seriously, somebody explain it to me. I can see some twisted logic behind thinking that health care reform was a socialist plot to take over the country, and the whole Birther thing makes perfect sense if you just think of it as closet racism, but I honestly can't think of any good explanation for the whole global warming hoax beyond simple knee-jerk "SCIENCE BAD!" reactions. Is that really all there is to it?

Besides, since when was saving the environment a bad thing? Last time I checked, wasn't protecting our planet a good idea? I thought that was something all but the worst polluters could agree on. What's going on here?
03:30 PM on 11/05/2010
Wont Canada and Russia be big winners if the climate heats up..Lot of Permafrost acreage opened up and a Northwest passage. Seems like we best get our minds into adapting to the coming changes.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
thawalkingman
11:01 PM on 11/01/2010
We're screwed.

The only initiative that would save the environment would be a plague that knocked the human population back by 90-95%.

Even that wouldn't cure the human disease but it might buy us some time to grow a tad more wise.
03:39 PM on 11/05/2010
Or Nuclear war..Might end up being better for the Environment than US..Couple years of Nuclear winter but them Blam!! you got a 70% reduction in human population and a destroyed world economy..Will probable return to 19Th century tech...
09:13 AM on 12/27/2010
It's easy to say those things as long as you don't count yourself part of the "90-95%." Let's count you as part of the plague and see how much you like it.
photo
GirlUsingBrain
The most dangerous animal in the forest is man.
06:19 PM on 11/01/2010
While this may be a start, I really don't believe this is enough ... 17% of the land mass and 10% of our oceans? Not enough.

AND this will tie everyone's hands behind their backs until 2020.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bcgd
11:32 AM on 11/01/2010
Can anyone say Bottle Neck.
This one is going to be big and our defense system will be completely worthless.
Hope they can hold it off for 60 years. Listen to me I sound like a republicant.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
logicanada
Blogger, radio co-host, writer, editor, voice-over
12:42 AM on 11/01/2010
pushing the planet toward the greatest extinction age since the dinosaurs were wiped out 65 million years ago.

BBLLLEEEEEEPPPPP !!!!!

Hang ooonnnn. 65 million years ago ??????????

The bible says . . .
09:56 PM on 10/30/2010
Did we join? Ofcourse not. Do we care about saving the world? Nah...We destroy the world, we don't save it. That's just who we are......
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:25 PM on 10/30/2010
Gotta give 'em credit. The Chicken Little's of the world sure are tenacious.
07:33 AM on 10/31/2010
No sense saving the world for future generations, right?

You'll be long dead before it really matters, so no big deal.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
thawalkingman
11:03 PM on 11/01/2010
Not as tenacious as all of you ostriches with you heads buried in the sand.
08:53 PM on 10/30/2010
What does it mean that USA has not joined biodiversity convention? That we didn't sign onto Nagoya?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Fred Sanders
Please unban me. Unjustified.
02:30 PM on 10/30/2010
"Developing nations and indigenous peoples argue they haven't benefited from the bounty of their resources, such as native plants, that have been developed into drugs by wealthy Western pharmaceutical companies. But in the end, delegates reached an agreement to set up a system that seeks to share these profits and benefits more equitably.

Some 193 governments have joined the biodiversity convention. Only three have not: the United States, Andorra and the Holy See."

Obviously the U.S. and the Vatican stand against the world, 193 to 3? We got 2 others to support our position? MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sabrina1
10:56 AM on 10/30/2010
The last line, "Some 193 governments have joined the biodiversity convention. Only three have not: the United States, Andorra and the Holy See." Maybe we really are a Third World Country.
This is appalling.
jerryatthebeach
Till Death Do You Barrier Island...
09:07 AM on 10/30/2010
Adaptation, Born to Die, continuing evolution in the 21st century. Only the strongest will survive...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
thawalkingman
11:06 PM on 11/01/2010
Only the strongest will die last.