COP10 - Nagoya Protocol

On my recent trip to Nagoya as a participant in the Youth Biodiversity Conference, I learnt the ways of politics. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a politician nor am I inspired to be one. Let's just say that my overall experience there was rather an eye-opener. 100 participants from 66 countries were involved in this 8 day conference - we had our fair share of cultural exchange and fun, and we also had our share of arguments and sleepless nights, not to forget the rebellious feeling in us!

All in all, the conference outcomes (Youth Statement) was what matters since it would be presented to the high-level bodies at the COP10 - Convention of Parties 10th session. A total of 193 countries including little Singapore were part of this major event. After decades of argument (and much more active participants internationally), the level of awareness and consciousness of our dying earth have finally been brought to our attention - we need to do something.

The outcomes were desirable and much to everyone's surprise, the outcomes of the Nagoya protocol were proclaimed to be great... Hmm... According to the press release, the highlights were as follows:

1) Agreed to at least halve and where feasible bring close to zero the rate of loss of natural habitats including forests (What happen to species?! Though I understand that preventing the loss of habitats can reduce species loss, this isn't specific enough because what are we going to do with illegal poaching??)

2) Established a target of 17 % of terrestrial land and inland water areas and 10 % of marine and coastal areas (This seems good but according to a report, almost 10 % of terrestrial parts have already been set aside, so an additional 7 % doesn't seem any much more significant. Then again, establishment of such targets require concurrent legislation to protect the propriety of these habitats.)

3) Through conservation and restoration, governments to restore at least 15 % of degraded areas (hmm... I wonder how Singapore will do that, or does this only apply to some countries e.g. underdeveloped countries?)

4) Will make special efforts to reduce the pressures faced by coral reefs (erms.... OK, so how? What 'special efforts'? Marine conservation is possibly one of the most difficult task because coastal resources are so important in our human food chain. We kill, we eat, we destroy - we have exacerbated the loss of beautiful reefs because of our habits... So are we going to compromise and adjust our feeding behaviour??)

Another important outcome would be the access-and-benefit sharing (ABS) protocol - thus allowing countries to have access to and share genetic resources equitably. Hmm... I must say good on you forks! With the increasing losses of biodiversity, sharing resources is really important especially for research and discoveries of our elusive biodiversity. These studies can really fill in the gaps, and hopefully bring attention to our mother nature's wonders.

Is this really historic? Just like the Kyoto Protocol? I have my reservations about it. Being a new participant in this field, I say I'm more practical and realistic. With my science background and some insights on the workings of the politics, we still have a long way to go in order to make things work like a clockwork. Who knows, perhaps a mass extinction of humans can help recreate a better world. By then, even I have no idea what will happen. :P

One more thing, this hasn't been ratified by the respective countries! Everyone are representatives of the countries but as long as the country has not ratified the protocol, the protocol would be worthless. Sadly...

Psst! My country (beaming!) has came up with the BiodiverCities Index! Who says cities have no biodiversity? Don't keep putting us down! Check out Ria's post about it. :D