Developed countries must commit and take action now
 |
| Country sizes show CO₂ emissions from energy use 1850–2011. These are historical (or ‘cumulative’). Source: The Carbon Map |
We hear a lot about ambition in relation to the Global Biodiversity Framework, but what exactly does this mean? And where is the evidence for it? So much of what is proposed is simply inadequate to halt the loss of biodiversity. It is also very discouraging to see such deep divisions on basic principles reflected in the [much bracketed] Geneva text. How are these divisions to be addressed? Parties need to pull together but at present it appears as though they are still pulling further apart.
The co-chairs are calling for compromise, but this could result in the progressive watering down of potential commitments until they become meaningless.
Much of the responsibility lies with developed countries that have still not made the commitments required according to the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR). Those with the most responsibility for biodiversity destruction should be leading the way to reversing it and regulating the corporations under their jurisdiction. Above all they need to allocate immediate and adequate funding to addressing the biodiversity crisis.
Instead some seem bent on promoting ‘innovation’ (undefined) to address it. However, optimism about new technologies to address issues of biodiversity loss and inequity is almost certainly misplaced and potentially dangerous, whether it is geoengineering or gene editing.
So in Nairobi we need to see all sides coming together in a spirit of real cooperation and unity to urgently address the biodiversity crisis. We are watching you.
__________________________________________________________________________
The opinions,commentaries, and articles printed in ECO are the sole opinion of the individual authors or organizations, unless otherwise expressed.