World biodiversity meet 2012 honda

Hyderabad Biodiversity Conference - Wikipedia

Designation of IDB on the theme of marine ecosystems provides an unprecedented worldwide collaboration by scientists around the world set out to try. Progress in Meeting Environmental Targets. Global. Global Initiatives .. FY data were calculated based on standards set in FY . We created the Honda Biodiversity Guidelines to set priorities in this effort, focusing our. The Hyderabad Conference of the Parties to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) it was held from 1–19 October in Hyderabad, India. Environment Ministers and Forests Ministers of about countries attended the Conference; international organisations like World.

It is now widely recognized that biodiversity and climate change are interconnected.

CBD COP 11 Summry and Analysis, October , Hyderabad, India

Biodiversity is affected by climate change, with negative consequences for human well-being, but biodiversity, through the ecosystem services it supports, also makes an important contribution to both climate change mitigation and adaptation. Note that functioning means showing activity and does not imply that organisms perform purposeful roles in ecosystem-level processes. A functioning ecosystem is one that exhibits biological and chemical activities characteristic for its type.

The biotic compartment consists of the community of species, which can be divided functionally into plant producers, the consumers that feed on producers and on each other, and the decomposers. The abiotic compartment consists of organic and inorganic nutrient pools. Energy and materials move between these two compartments, as well as into and out of the system. Plants are a kingdom of life forms that includes familiar organisms such as trees, herbs, bushes, grasses, vines, ferns and mosses.

Through photosynthesis, they convert water and carbon dioxide into the oxygen we breathe and the sugars that provide the primary fuel for life. Plants were instrumental to evolution as a whole in that they produced the oxygen that made life on Earth possible — not only by "breathing" it into the atmosphere and transforming it, but also by crushing rocks with their roots, which created soils and released nutrients on a large scale.

Management of urban green space directly influences the micro-environment and can create conditions favorable to a range of plants, which in turn can increase habitats for, and therefore the diversity of, other species groups. Because of this, farm animal breeds that don't thrive in factory farming operations are becoming more rare. The three domains of life, bacteria, archaea and eukarya are present in the marine environment. In addition there are viruses. Aboutspecies of marine plants and animals have been scientifically described and a few thousand bacteria and archaea.

Species diversity in the oceanic pelagic environment is extremely low. Habitat diversity and the number of marine habitats are difficult to define. Studies of zonation have typically demonstrated the existence of very narrow zones in intertidal areas, where direct observation is possible, and broader and broader zones as one goes deeper. These include the production and mineralization of organic material, the storage of carbon, the storage of pollutants and waste products from land, the buffering of the climate and of climate change, coastal protection mangroves, dune-beach systems, coral reefs.

Most of these services are delivered by microscopic organisms. They are the result of arduous and often courageous efforts of small and large teams of experimenters and innovators who care about the source of all life: In this book, we bring together seven of these teams.

They share their motivation, ideas, research designs and results to ensure fair and equitable access to the agricultural genetic resources that sustain both local communities and nations at large. Many people have contributed to the case studies that aim to capture their experiences and the lessons they learned in a few pages. Adnan Al-Yassin, the author of the Jordan case study, is very grateful to the farmers for their interactions and interest in adopting newly developed varieties.

Their innovative ideas and enthusiasm were the driving force behind the work. He also thanks the Jordanian researchers in the project, in particular Ms Siham Al-Louzi, for her technical assistance in preparing the manuscript; and Ronnie Vernooy and Salvatore Ceccarelli for providing the opportunity to the farmers in Jordan and this chance to address their rights, access to and benefits from their genetic resources.

The Honduras team would like to thank their farmer research partners in the CIALs, who have been working with them for many years as collaborators in plant breeding and research. It is their enthusiasm for improving their seeds and for learning along with the team that motivates its work. However, motivation alone is not enough. Without the support of generous donors, none of the breeding work would have been possible. These donors have provided more than financial assistance; they have provided moral support and guidance over an extended period.

Finally, the team recognizes the technical support provided by the Pan American Agricultural School, Zamorano. The ideas contained in this article and any errors, however, are the responsibility of the authors alone.

The China team would like to thank the hundreds of women and men farmers in the southwest part of the country who have inspired their efforts, the courageous plant breeders from the Guangxi Maize Research Institute in Nanning and the Institute of Crop Science of Chinese Academy of Agricultural Science in Beijing who dared to walk unknown paths, the management team and other colleagues from the Center for Chinese Agricultural Policy who have supported them all these years and program officers at the Ford Foundation and IDRC, Canada, who had faith in their ideas and dreams.

Special thanks go to Jose Roberto from the National Institute of Agricultural Sciences for being patient, enthusiastic and friendly in discussing the ideas and implementing the program. Enormous thanks to all researchers, technicians and farmers of the team: Thanks to Nathaniel and Julia for reviewing the Cuba chapter and for all the discussions.

Shrestha and Mr Pashupati Khaniya, and to the communities in Begnash, Kachorwa, Jogimara, Bachhayauli and Tamaphok for their contribution in collection and making sense of the information. The editors thank the seven teams for their inspiring contributions that are the heart of this book.

Sandra Garland harmonized the various voices artfully. This page intentionally left blank Part 1 This page intentionally left blank 1 Introduction Widening the horizon Ronnie Vernooy and Manuel Ruiz Everywhere, local practices in biodiversity conservation, crop improvement and natural resource management are under stress.

Existing laws and mechanisms, such as intellectual property rights, are unable to protect indigenous and traditional knowledge and are inadequate when it comes to collaboratively developed innovations such as varieties resulting from participatory plant breeding PPBbecause, it is argued, they protect individual as opposed to collective rights.

In PPB, farmers, researchers and others join forces to improve existing varieties or develop new ones, based on shared knowledge and resources. The improved or new varieties have multiple creators, whose efforts often build on the field experiments of previous generations.

To whom do these varieties belong? Rights of access, use and sharing of benefits no longer reside with a professional plant breeder, and new definitions of these terms are required Vernooy A number of national and international policy processes are underway to allow for the development of sui generis systems—in simple terms, locally grown and appropriate systems—to protect local natural and genetic resources and related knowledge about their management, use and maintenance.

2012 Hyderabad Biodiversity Conference

Adopted inthe International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture ITPGRFAwhile recognizing national sovereign rights over plant genetic resources, represents a multilateral system for facilitated access to a limited number of agricultural crops for the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from their use.

However, so far and despite the recent agreement on an International Regime on Access and Benefit Sharing the Nagoya Protocol; more about this in Chapter 2progress has been painful and slow, and few concrete, workable results have been produced so far. Effective implementation of the Nagoya Protocol by national governments now looms on the horizon. One challenge has been to broaden the policy and legal debates beyond the sphere of policymakers, lawyers and other experts by including knowledge-holders themselves, i.

Another challenge is the fragmentation and confusion among those involved in national and international debates on access and benefit sharing ABS.

  • Conference Highlights
  • Biodiversity Congress-2019
  • How Much Life Is in the Sea?

Disputes abound, reflecting different and what are perceived to be opposing interests. This book presents promising examples of feasible and fair local ABS practices, as inputs for the development of innovative policy and legal alternatives at international, national and local levels. The examples are grounded in the practices of local and indigenous farming communities and linked to new partnership configurations of multiple stakeholders interested in supporting these communities.

The results fill an important gap in current scientific and policy work and complement a number of interesting studies that have been completed and published recently e.

The effective and fair implementation of mechanisms supported by appropriate policies and laws will ultimately be the most important assessment factor of any ABS regime. Local-level learning examples are key inputs for the development of national and international agreements and, most of all, for their effective implementation. Access and benefit sharing and the Convention on Biological Diversity Not long ago, the concepts of genetic resources, genetic diversity and biodiversity were confined to the closed realm of scientific discourse, with only marginal day-to-day use by non-scientists and citizens in general.

Political, economic and legal analysis of these concepts was also very limited. This situation changed with the CBD, which was adopted on 22 Maysigned during the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development on 5 June and took effect on 29 December Today, these concepts are more and more part of everyday policy- social- development-and environment-related discussions.

Globally, a broad set of social actors is more conscious and aware of the critical importance of genetic resources and components of biodiversity, in general, in ensuring future viability of the planet and humanity. Today, most people are aware that plant and animal species are under pressure in many areas around the globe, even though they may not be directly engaged in activities to halt this trend.

The social, economic and environmental importance of biodiversity cannot be overlooked.

Convention on Biological Diversity

Whether in terms of molecules for pharmaceutical research, food to support a hungry world or farmers in arid regions maintaining drought-resistant varieties of grains that may hold the key to adapting crops to climate change, biodiversity is the only hope if we are to achieve sustainable rural and urban livelihoods. Seeds, for example, are an illustrative and hugely important component of biodiversity—although they are not always valued as such.

The last decade or so has seen considerable global progress in efforts to raise awareness of biodiversity conservation. This has gradually resulted in policy and legal initiatives that have led to national biodiversity laws, biodiversity strategies and action plans, a vast array of biodiversity conservation programs and projects, and continued calls for concerted global action to conserve biodiversity some of these initiatives are reviewed in Chapter 3.

In this regard, the CBD has played a pivotal role in triggering national and global action toward realization of its three main objectives: Peru highlighted the need for capacity building, and Argentina for funding, for countries to undertake national assessments of needs and gaps.

Kiribati emphasized the importance of agreeing on funding targets at this meeting, noting that available data is sufficient. India explained that setting targets now, even on an interim basis, would build confidence among parties.

The Philippines supported adopting the preliminary reporting framework for resource mobilization. Highlighting the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, China noted the framework should be voluntary for developing countries. Negotiations continued throughout the meeting. Delegates could not agree on: Developed countries called for needs assessments and robust baselines before establishing resource flow targets, noting that national financial plans are fundamental preconditions.

They proposed a target of doubling biodiversity financial resource flows from developed to developing countries bynoting it stems from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development OECD Creditors Reporting System and the Rio markers, which establish a robust baseline.

They also argued that reporting and assessment-related targets should not be a precondition for the target on financial flows. He underscored that, unless COP 11 addresses the issue of targets for the Resource Mobilization Strategy, the gains of Nagoya will be negated and the momentum towards realizing the Aichi targets lost.

He noted that developing countries made major concessions and agreed to work on interim targets, hoping that developed countries will reciprocate, agreeing on specific targets and commitments. He feared that failure to reach agreement on a target will result in suspension of implementation of the Aichi targets until sufficient resources are available. Some developed countries also noted that their ODA model does not include issue-specific targets but responds to needs and priorities set by recipient countries, underscoring the need for developing countries to identify biodiversity as a priority for ODA.

Other debated items included: In the early hours of Saturday, the closing plenary was presented with a compromise decision resulting from ministerial-level consultations.

Switzerland expressed concern that COP 11 set quantified targets for resource mobilization considering that robust baselines have not been identified and highlighted that the decision is exclusively related to the CBD, further noting difficulty to subscribe to the interim goal but commitment to reach the goal.

Japan highlighted that the interim target was agreed without sufficient discussion and recognized that it relates to CBD parties as a whole, while each party is expected to make efforts within its capabilities and resources.

It invites parties to submit their information through the preliminary reporting framework using the average of annual biodiversity funding for the years as a preliminary baseline.

The COP decides on an overall substantial increase of total biodiversity-related funding for the implementation of the Strategic Plan from a variety of sources, and resolves to achieve the following preliminary targets: During discussions on the review of GEF-5, delegates expressed concern regarding the timeliness of disbursements, and suggested language on this.

Numerous delegates called for simpler, streamlined methodologies for allocating funds. Many delegates cautioned against suggesting a figure and target for the GEF-6 replenishment. India highlighted the need to monitor the impact of GEF-6 projects in reaching the Aichi targets. Following deliberations in the Friends of the Chair group, delegates included two bracketed options on funding needs and increased contributions to GEF Japan highlighted the importance of establishing an ABS clearing-house, and Switzerland called for additional resources from the core budget.

Bangladesh urged establishing a fast-track process within the NPIF. Delegates also addressed, inter alia: It further asks the GEF to: It also requests the Secretariat to make the report of the fourth review of the effectiveness of the financial mechanism available to parties. The COP urges parties and invites other governments, the financial mechanism, and funding organizations to provide adequate, timely and sustainable support for implementing the GSPC, and training and capacity building and other activities related to ecologically and biologically significant marine areas EBSAs.

It invites the GEF and its implementing agencies to facilitate aligning the development and implementation of PA projects with the actions identified in national action plans for the programme of work with a view to facilitating the systematic monitoring and reporting of the results of those projects as they contribute to achieving Aichi Target 11 protected areas and other related targets.

It recommendsthat the GEF make funds available for activities to support ABS and the early entry into force and implementation of the Nagoya Protocol and further recommends that GEF operational focal points carefully consider the urgent need to finance activities related to ABS and the Nagoya Protocol when consulting national stakeholders on the distribution of the STAR allocation.

It further recommends that the GEF continue to finance technical support to parties for the speedy ratification and early entry into force of the Nagoya Protocol, and its implementation at the national level. It requests the GEF to ensure that the NPIF will specifically support activities related to early ratification and capacity building, and be used for access to and utilization of genetic resources only when such activities have been approved by appropriate government authorities and endorsed through the GEF operational focal point.

The COP also calls upon the GEF, donors, parties and others to consider providing technical support and financial resources for work on indicators on TK and customary sustainable use and invites them to provide adequate and timely financial support for the preparation of the fifth national reports. It reiteratesits invitation to the GEF to consider establishing a South-South biodiversity cooperation trust fund and welcomes ongoing discussions on this matter. Appendix I of the decision sets out the guidance to the GEF to support implementing the Nagoya Protocol, which highlights the need for support for capacity building for, inter alia: On incorporating links between biological and cultural diversity into CBD implementation, delegates agreed to add language on consistency and harmony with the Convention and relevant international obligations.

On the joint work programme with the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization UNESCO on biological and cultural diversity, Australia proposed language on consistency with international obligations, while India called for considering specific national contexts.

On forest biodiversity, the International Tropical Timber Organization ITTO presented on projects on tropical forest biodiversity and many delegates supported expanded work. On health, China requested deleting text inviting parties to collaborate with national health sectors to integrate biodiversity into national health strategies and programmes.

The EU called for enhanced use of the guidelines on biodiversity and tourism development. Brazil and Ecuador suggested inviting the World Tourism Organization and other relevant organizations to cooperate on identifying critical tourism and conservation hotspots. It requests the Secretariat to: Belarus proposed calling on parties to step up activities related to the UN Decade and report on them annually.

They also agreed to include a section on the Decade in the decision on review of progress in implementation of NBSAPs and related capacity-building support.

Unity in Biodiversity - World's Biodiversity Conference 2012, Hyderabad

The Arab Group recommended that partnership initiatives focus on national plans and actions, with financing from the private sector. Switzerland encouraged businesses to report on their impacts on biodiversity. Delegates debated, inter alia, references related to: Mexico called for capacity building to develop local plans to implement the Aichi targets.

Singapore called for cities to develop indicators to monitor progress in implementation. Youth called for their participation in decision-making processes at all levels.

Brazil and others proposed considering additional text on workers and trade unions. Canada proposed that the Secretariat collaborate with relevant organizations to provide guidance on mainstreaming gender in all CBD work programmes; and, with the EU, opposed establishing an expert group on indicators to monitor gender mainstreaming by parties.

Japan called for further discussion at COP New and Emerging Issues: China suggested that the issue could be discussed under the Biosafety Protocol. Bolivia, the Philippines, Ecuador, Gabon and several NGOs supported text urging parties to ensure that products of synthetic biology are not released into the environment or approved for commercial use until there is adequate scientific basis for such activities.

Norway, New Zealand and Brazil favored deletion. Debate focused on language on information-gathering by the Secretariat on synthetic biology in relation to the process for SBSTTA addressing new and emerging issues; and the bracketed paragraph on a moratorium on the release or approval of synthetic genetic parts and organisms.