Those of you following the news on biodiversity will already be aware of the snail’s pace progress of negotiations for a new Post 2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF). Meetings in Geneva, Switzerland in March achieved little except to make the situation more complex.
A special session of the working groups was hastily arranged and was held in Nairobi, Kenya just two weeks ago (21-26 June).
But sadly progress remains slow.
From what I have heard, it is coming down to arguing about words – and that is never going to work. Different languages interpret a given word in different ways; so when you end up in an argument about whether the word “protected” or “conserved” should be used, just imagine translating those English words into the native language of the hundred-plus nations involved in the negotiation. And think about how those words will be interpreted in a local context and culture.
You can see the problem.
As my friend Richard is keen to relate, some Western nations are adopting the practice of defining their personal pronouns on things like LinkedIn profiles. Nothing wrong with that. But when you bring that mindset into a region that doesn’t really use personal pronouns…can you see the potential for confusion?
And I think that’s what is happening.
One target seems to be attracting more attention than some of the others. That’s target 3, the so-called “30x30 target”. It calls for protecting (or conserving?) 30% of the world’s land and marine areas (I’m paraphrasing!).
The original target was three lines of text long; it ended up about 20 lines long at the end of the Geneva meetings because so many nations intervened and wanted their own little spin put on it.
Not good
It seems as though the negotiation process has lost sight of its goal: a treaty that can drive biodiversity conservation over the next decade. This is something we are increasingly told is crucial, to avoid further mass extinctions.
I’m not going to get into the details of that, but if – as I am told – the talks are now arguing terminology – do we use the word “oceans” or the word “seas”? – then clearly something is wrong.
The talks are now arguing terminology – do we use the word “oceans” or the word “seas”?
That’s why we are suggesting a different approach to marine conservation in Malaysia. And this will work for other countries, too.
Our proposal has two broad parts:
- First, acknowledge the validity of the target of 30% of land and marine areas in protected areas.
This 30% is scientifically sound there’s plenty of published research suggesting that we should protect at least 30% of our various ecosystems – and some papers suggest it should be more. So as a global aspiration, let’s agree that protecting 30% of …well, pretty much everything, is a good thing.
Let’s just stop having that fight – it’s sucking up energy that is needed elsewhere.
- Second, make a clear statement about what Malaysia (or any other country) will do to contribute to this target being achieved.
We can’t do it on our own, obviously; and different nations have different abilities, needs, capacities…not to mention areas of land and sea. So each has to proceed unto his own.
We recommend a three-stage process:
o 2022-2024: develop a comprehensive map of key marine biodiversity areas
o 2024-2025: identify important areas for protection equivalent to 30% of the total
o 2025-2030: put in place a management system that effectively conserves (or protects) these areas.
Let’s agree that protecting 30% of everything is a good thing.
Why does this work? For two reasons.
First – it is locally appropriate. A good argument can be made that much of Malaysia’s EEZ does not really need much protection because there is not much habitat there. Yes, fisheries need to be managed; but protected areas for habitat conservation? Not so clear.
Secondly – it is achievable. Finding out the important habitats that support livelihoods and food security; then protecting a scientifically valid 30% of those – what’s not to like? These areas will largely be coastal, so easily accessible; and they will have local stakeholders with a vested interest in looking after them, so natural stewards to strengthen management agencies.
Perhaps it’s time for the negotiation process to take a step back and develop a clearer view. At the moment, they don’t seem to be able to see the forest for all the trees in the way.
