Rich Nations & Biodiversity

grbarry@students.wisc.edu
04 Nov 1996 15:39:28


[ I am relaying this article to the NATIVE-L mailing list on the grounds
that the effects of policies such as those which come out of conventions
such as the one described here have major effects on the lives of Native
peoples. Though those who produce these bulletins rarely mention these
effects explicitly (a major oversight, in my opinion), I think it would
be well for us to keep in mind that it is important to develop a good
understanding of global politics and how they impact indigenous peoples
if we hope to become effective in advocating for their legitimate rights,
as well as the way in which threats to biodiversity are linked to damage
to traditional cultures in that they generally come from mindsets that
arise from within and support industrial culture and its values (or lack
thereof). --Gary (gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us) ]

From: Glen Barry <grbarry@students.wisc.edu>

***********************************************
WORLDWIDE FOREST/BIODIVERSITY CAMPAIGN NEWS
Rich Nations Take Rap at Biodiversity Forum
***********************************************
Forest Networking a Project of Ecological Enterprises
11/4/96

OVERVIEW & SOURCE by EE
Rich nations' promises to respond to the current biodiversity crisis
have gone unkept, and they are under increasing pressure to live up to
their commitments. Following is a photocopy of Reuters coverage of the
Third Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biodiversity
being held in Buenos Aires.
g.b.

*******************************
RELAYED TEXT STARTS HERE:

Rich nations take rap at biodiversity forum
11/4/96
Copyright 1996 by Reuters

BUENOS AIRES (Reuter) - Rich countries came under pressure to live up
to their commitments to finance conservation efforts in the developing
world at the start of an international conference on biodiversity
Monday.

"There is compelling evidence that the developed countries, with the
sole exception of Norway, are failing to meet their financial
obligations," the Global Biodiversity Forum said in a statement
released at the opening session.

The forum, specialists from public and private groups, has drawn up
recommendations for the Third Conference of the Parties to the
Convention on Biodiversity. Over the next two weeks the conference
will debate a broad agenda of topics including alternative sources of
funding for biodiversity, forest management, agriculture practices,
food safety, intellectual property rights and indigenous knowledge.

The conference brings together delegates from 162 countries that
signed the Convention on Biodiversity drafted at the 1992 Earth Summit
in Rio de Janeiro. The treaty aims to protect the diversity of the
world's ecosystems, species and genuses and to ensure that these
resources are used in a sustainable manner and that the benefits are
equitably shared.

But participants said the new funds pledged in 1992 by industrialized
nations to help implement the convention in developing countries have
not been forthcoming.

"If you look at whether the developed countries have really come up
with new money, the short answer is no," Rob Lake, senior policy
officer of the biodiversity network BirdLife International, told
Reuters. "In 1992 there was a big peak in donations because everybody
wanted to be seen to be green. But since then it's fallen off."

Lake presented the conference with an analysis of data provided to him
by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
He found total OECD development aid peaked at $60.8 billion in 1992
and dropped to $56.7 billion in 1994. Preliminary data for the last
two years suggest a similar downward trend, both in terms of global
overseas development aid and in specific funds for biodiversity.

Experts said Monday that because donor contributions were decreasing
innovative financial mechanisms were needed to boost biodiversity
programs at a national level, such as debt swaps and tax incentives.
They also called for an end to subsidies on environmentally unsound
agricultural practices.

"Efforts should be redirected toward changing the incentive structure
for private-sector actors, making it more profitable to conserve than
to destroy biodiversity," Charles Barber, senior associate at the
World Resources Institute, told Reuters.

"However, this is politically difficult because when you talk about
trying to get rid of subsidies for industry, agriculture or commercial
fisheries there are vested interests. You get people marching their
cows down the Champs Elysees or piling their nets up in front of the
Canadian Ministry of Fisheries."

###RELAYED TEXT ENDS###
This document is a PHOTOCOPY and all recipients should seek permission
from the source for reprinting. You are encouraged to utilize this
information for personal campaign use. All efforts are made to
provide accurate, timely pieces; though ultimate responsibility for
verifying all information rests with the reader. Check out our Gaia
Forest Conservation Archives at URL= http://forests.org/

Networked by:
Ecological Enterprises
Email (best way to contact)-> grbarry@students.wisc.edu