Posted on behalf of Anjali Nayar
International biodiversity negotiations taking place in Nagoya, Japan, have been given a much-needed boost, with the announcement of US$2 billion in funding over the next three years from Japan to help implement the outcomes of the discussions.
News of Japan’s “Life in Harmony” initiative to fund projects in developing countries came from the country’s Prime Minister Naoto Kan, during the opening of the high-level segment on Wednesday morning.
In the same meeting, Monique Barbut, chair of the Global Environment Facility (GEF), said she would push her organization for a million dollars to help kick-start a secretariat to deal with the logistics of sharing the access to and benefits generated from genetic resources – one of the other issues up for debate – if parties are able to reach a consensus on how it should work.
Leading into the 10th meeting of the Convention on Biodiversity (COP 10), there was a lot on the table, including tougher biodiversity targets, a ramp-up of funding and more equitable terms for how the benefits of resources should be shared
But over the last week, some scientists and non-governmental organizations have expressed concern that the biodiversity negotiations could end up as fruitless as last year’s Copenhagen climate change talks. In the corridors, the nickname “COP-10-hagen” is brewing.
Although headway has been made on minor biodiversity targets, more difficult issues, like the expansion of global protected areas from current levels of around 13% (terrestrial) and 1% (marine) to as high as 25% and 20%, respectively, have sparked disagreement, says Frank Wugt Larsen, a conservation scientist from Conservation International. Similarly the wording of targets aimed at reducing the loss of biodiversity has met resistance.
Apart from the new Japanese fund, global funding for biodiversity will remain for the most part “business as usual”, says Joshua Bishop, the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s chief economist. Gustavo Fonseca, the GEF’s team leader for natural resources agrees. “There is no money,” he says.
New funding may stem from what Bishop calls “boutique” sources, such as bilateral agreements and investment from the private sector. Private funding for biodiversity conservation is a source of funding that environmental organizations, like Conservation International, have been relying on for years.
“We are always leaping into bed with the ‘bad guys’,” says Frank Hawkins, Conservation International’s Vice President for Africa and Madagascar. “That’s our stock and trade.”
Talks concerning access to genetic resources and how to best share the benefits arising from their use, have been some of the most heated. Several issues that were agreed on in working groups had to be re-opened for discussion, including whether derivatives from genetic resources should be included, and how stringent the reporting process needs to be, according to Sonia Peña Moreno, a biodiversity policy officer at the International Union for the Conservation of Nature.
As the meeting enters its final days, pressure is rising for negotiators to come to an agreement, says Carlos Fonseca, a negotiator from Brazil’s Ministry of Environment. “It’s clear for us that we cannot have a weak agreement [about genetic resources], which would mean to keep the status quo,” he says. “ We are working all day and night to delete all the brackets in the agreement by Friday.”
Hideki Minamikawa, Japan’s Vice-Minister for Global Environmental Affairs, is more positive about the genetic discussions. “We are not deadlocked, we are still moving,” he says.
The previous 10-year biodiversity target for 2010, aimed at “a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss,” was not met. A weak result this time will present problems for the conservation community, says Hawkins.
“If nothing comes out of this, everyone is going to forget about [biodiversity],” he says.