The UN biodiversity initiatives that began in Rio in 1992 were bold.
Heads of government joined their environment ministers in committing to this new description of nature — initiatives to support and save the diversity of life.
There was hope as the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD) was born that species loss and habitat destruction could slow, perhaps even be halted.
Then it all went belly up.
Ever since the heady days of the first Rio Earth Summit in 1992 when diplomats and politicians came up with the Convention on Biological Diversity I have had this feeling that we had invented a fad.Alloporus | Ideas for healthy thinking
Nearly 20 years later in October 2010 at 10th meeting of the Conference of the Parties, in Nagoya, Aichi Prefecture, Japan, a revised and updated Strategic Plan for Biodiversity, including the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, for the 2011-2020 period was declared with the following fanfare…
an overarching framework on biodiversity, not only for the biodiversity-related conventions, but for the entire United Nations system and all other partners engaged in biodiversity management and policy development.UN Aichi Biodiversity Targets
A new set of targets for biodiversity.
A tacit admission that in two decades the original convention had done little to combat biodiversity loss and habitat degradation. Instead, announce another decade to achieve new bold goals.
In a separate post, we review reasons for biodiversity loss and provide a commentary from the sustainably FED perspective.
A decade on and reports are out now that suggest almost all of those Aichi targets were not met. There was a movement towards some of them, in others no change or further decline.
This is rocket fuel for those who believe that the United Nations and other global collaborations are just a waste of time. Talk fests for the privileged to travel around the world to posh hotels and conference centres to have long convoluted conversations that mean nothing.
Just getting people together into the same room is a start but is not enough to declare success.
The reality of course is that in the decade since the Aichi targets were set the human population has increased by 800 million, the global economy has increased by 24% (US$17,600 billion increase in global GDP) and food production has risen by 15% (cereal production up by 0.35 billion tonnes and livestock taking up 97% of the land mammal biomass).
Oh yes, and the climate has begun to change dramatically in large parts of the world. We now see fires in places that haven’t seen fire in historical times. We now see wetlands drying not as a result of draining the catchments but as a result of changes in weather patterns.
It is no surprise, really that the Aichi biodiversity targets were not reached. And that the best we could hope for was a movement towards them.
To target or not?
All this begs the question of whether we should even have targets. Whether presenting desires for biodiversity outcomes in international forums actually makes any difference at all.
The obligation of course is that once agreed at the international level, individual countries would take legislative action themselves in order to make things happen within their jurisdictions. Some countries have taken those commitments seriously and some have used creative accounting to demonstrate some progress.
And that accounting principle is actually one of the biggest problems with this whole story. How do we account for something that is diffuse and nebulous and hard to define?
It’s easy to account for dollars. They exist as a currency to exchange for goods and services and can be converted to all sorts of other currencies. There are standard practices for understanding how to count, figure out debt and opportunity down the track.
Biodiversity is not so easy.
It’s a combination of the composition, function, and structure of assemblages of animals and plants. It’s a complex set of ideas. There’s no single currency to describe or measure its elements and characteristics. It can’t be defined by rare species or the total number of species or the performance of individual processes. It’s a combination of all of these things.
So we have no obvious accounting tool with which to make measurements against targets. There is even a question mark over whether or not an accounting target is worth setting.
However, biodiversity is critical to our future.
And in this instance, ‘our’ means individuals, societies, and humanity as a whole. All that biology wrapped up in species, assemblages and ecosystems is the engine of our food supply and crucial for provisioning and regulating ecosystem services.
It makes sense to want to look after biodiversity.
Indeed, humanity would be crazy not to.
So why are we failing?
Why we fail to meet biodiversity targets
Take a look at this image from Google Earth of central NSW, Australia that has a population density of 8.6 people per km2, less really in this area as two-thirds of the population live in Sydney.
Here is another image slightly greener on a similar scale this time for central England with a population density of 281 per km2.
It is very hard indeed to meet biodiversity targets when humans are not just occupying but altering just about every square meter of the landscape.
There will be complaints and arguments that we fail to meet targets because there is a lack of will, too much rhetoric and not enough commitment. Perhaps that there is no hope for resolution given the vested interests, greed and lack of empathy between nations and decision-makers.
No doubt these are factors.
Hero image modified from Google Earth