Countries commit more funds for biodiversity

Efforts to reverse the worrying loss of Earth’s dwindling natural resources received a substantial boost yesterday when a UN conference in India agreed to double biodiversity aid to poor countries. Governments reached an early-morning deal after long nights of tough bargaining in Hyderabad that once again saw battle lines drawn between developing and affluent states. In a week that saw 400 plants and animals added to a “Red List” of species at risk of extinction, negotiators clashed over the extent and timing of additional aid required to halt the decline in species and habitats that humans depend on for food, shelter and livelihoods. In the end, they agreed to double biodiversity-related funding to developing countries by 2015, from a baseline of average annual aid in the period 2006-2010 - and to maintain this level until 2020. No figures were mentioned. The deal requires at least 75% of recipient countries to have reported on their spending by 2015 and to draw up national biodiversity plans in return for the aid. Canada told the closing plenary that it did not agree with the agreement reached because many recipient countries had failed to report on their biodiversity spending and needs, as agreed at an earlier meeting, but added it would not block the adoption. At the conclusion of the two-week-long Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) meeting, member countries urged one another “to consider all possible sources and means that can help to meet the level of resources needed.” And they lamented in a joint document that “the lack of sufficient financial resources” was hampering progress towards a 20-point biodiversity rescue plan agreed in Japan two years ago. The so-called Aichi Biodiversity Targets include halving the rate of habitat loss, expanding water and land areas under conservation, preventing the extinction of species on the threatened list, and restoring at least 15% of degraded ecosystems - all by 2020. But the global economic troubles have left governments less keen to divert money to conservation, especially in developing countries battling inflation, poverty and unemployment.