Opinion Note
On January 7th, COP10 host country Japan released a long and vague set of guidelines for its post-2010 CBD target objectives (See post below).
COP10's recent preliminary docs envisioned some relatively strong language and salubrious goals:
 Image by. SantiMB . via Flickr |
• stopping the rate of biodiversity loss by 2020
• ending subsidies that harm biodiversity
• halting destructive fishing practices
• controlling the unintentional geographic transfer of species
• placing at least 15% of land and sea area under protection
Contrast the clarity and commitment of that language with Japan's most recent proposals:
- "to conduct full observations and analyses"
- "to make ecosystem services respected... and to mainstream biodiversity"
- "to expand activities... promote practical methods... and establish mechanisms"
- "to prepare systems to encourage"
- "to invite the wider participation of various stakeholders"
Even the most forthright goal - "Sub-target D: To take urgent measures against threats to biodiversity" - only addresses alien species, climate change, damaging chemicals and endangered species protection, and in the mildest language at that. Nowhere are there any clear statements about the key issues of overfishing, destructive fishing practices, deforestation, harmful subsidies (eg., those that abet ODA megadevelopment projects or Japan's factory fishing and whaling industries) or about stopping, ending or halting anything at all.
Moreover, their critical Sub-target E on protected conservation zones both strips away any firm or numerical targets and seeks to involve other unspecified "stakeholders" beyond the local people in their management regimes as well. Semantically and realistically these stakeholders could very well include the mammoth timber/mineral/seafood extraction industries that these areas need the most protection from, rendering the whole protection scheme moot or worse before it starts.
Admittedly these enfeebled objectives are still only guidelines and could be strengthened (or even further gutted) in the negotiations yet to come. The problem is that Japan has not stepped up to exploit its goodwill and authority as COP10 host to at least pretend to support meaningful action in its first official announcement of its goals. If the host is perfectly fine with a vaporware treaty, it will be much easier for other big "stakeholder" parties to make that wish come true.
by W. David Kubiak
Feb 5, 2010
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
