Latest news with #WWFInternational
Euronews
28-02-2025
- Politics
- Euronews
Countries agree $200bn deal to protect nature at UN biodiversity talks in Rome
A 'make or break' meeting in Rome has ended with a pivotal agreement on how to advance global biodiversity and conservation efforts. The original COP16 summit in Cali, Colombia, was suspended without any formal conclusion on 2 November after running over by 12 hours. The reconvened meeting dragged on into the early hours of Friday, 28 February, with delegates determined to reach an agreement. As the summit concluded, the room erupted in applause at the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation headquarters in Rome. Susana Muhamad, COP16 President, said some of her team were brought to tears by the emotionally charged conclusion to the meeting. 'These days of work in Rome have demonstrated the commitment of the Parties to advance the implementation of the Global Biodiversity Framework,' says Muhamad. 'We appreciate the willingness of all countries and the Secretariat of the Convention for their dedication to continue strengthening the global biodiversity agenda. Only by working together can we make Peace with Nature a reality.' While environmental groups largely celebrate the outcome of the meeting, many still warn that this is just the beginning of the hard work ahead. 'State parties have taken a step in the right direction,' says Efraim Gomez, Global Policy Director at WWF International. 'However, this necessary step is not sufficient. Now, the hard work starts.' Gomez warns there is still concern that developed nations are not on track to deliver their commitment of raising $20 billion (€19.2 bn) a year for developing nations. 'Investing in nature is existential,' he says. 'It is a global life insurance.' 'No matter where you live, what job you have, or the economy you rely on, nature is the foundation of it all,' says Jill Hepp, biodiversity policy lead at Conservation International. 'Today, in Rome, countries broke through a longstanding policy deadlock and agreed to a timebound plan that will result in the selection of a permanent financial mechanism designed to help ensure funding reaches the most biodiverse places on earth.' What was agreed upon at COP 16? After what the parties called 'intense negotiation,' the COP16 participants hammered out an agreement that will see $200 billion (€192 bn) a year pledged by 2030. This includes a plan to raise $20 billion (€19.2 bn) in annual conservation financing for developing nations, rising to $30 billion (€28.9 bn) a year by 2030. However, a decision on a new fund, intended to help accelerate the flow of financing to projects, was deferred until 2028. African and Latin American countries demanded a new fund, arguing that the way they access this money at present is inefficient and unfair. Donor countries fought the proposal, saying it would be expensive to set up and manage. In the end, delegates agreed on a process to decide whether a new fund would be created. It was small progress, but a hard-won compromise that is seen as a victory for nature. Astrid Schomaker, executive secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity, said that through the supporting measures agreed at COP 16, 'the world will have given itself the means to close the biodiversity finance gap.' Countries have identified a biodiversity funding gap of $700 billion (€670 bn) a year. In a landmark agreement in 2022, parties agreed to mobilise at least $200 billion (€192 bn) annually by 2030 from public and private sources, with an interim target of $20 billion (€19.2 bn) in 2025. 'The money is there. Governments are using billions in support of activities that destroy nature,' says Anders Haug Larsen, Advocacy Director at Rainforest Foundation Norway. 'Now, it's time to fund activities that actively protect and restore the precious nature we have on this planet.' At the COP16 talks, participants also established the Cali Fund. It is designed to collect contributions from industries that commercially benefit from genetic resources, such as pharmaceuticals and cosmetics. At least 50 per cent of the Cali Fund's resources will be directed to Indigenous peoples and local communities, acknowledging their role as custodians of biodiversity. However, at the close of the conference in Rome, the fund remains empty. What does this mean for nature and biodiversity? The resumed COP16 talks fleshed out mechanisms for commitments made at COP15, and specifically the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) adopted in 2022. The GBF serves as a global roadmap for halting and reversing biodiversity loss by 2030, and achieving a full ecological recovery by 2050. It has been hailed as the equivalent to the Paris Agreement but for biodiversity. Among the 23 specific targets set by the framework for the next decade are measures to protect 30 per cent of the planet's land, freshwater and marine areas by 2030, known as the 30x30 target. It also contains targets to phase out subsidies that harm biodiversity, cut plastic pollution and pesticide use, and reduce invasive species by 50 per cent. While the establishment of the GBF set ambitious targets, COP16 was critical for finalising how these targets will be financed, monitored and implemented. The agreed roadmap sets out key activities and decision-making milestones leading up to the 17th, 18th and 19th meetings of the parties. 'While this is a moment to celebrate, we also need to see action and innovation immediately following these decisions,' notes Hepp. 'Now that there is a path forward on how funding will flow, we all must take ambitious action to accomplish our collective goals. It's more important than ever for countries to finalise and start to implement their national biodiversity plans, and use the monitoring framework to track progress towards 2030.'
The National
28-02-2025
- Politics
- The National
Countries seal critical $200 billion deal to save nature
Top environmental delegates worked late into the night on Thursday to seal critical negotiations and pave the way to secure $200 billion a year for biodiversity protection by 2030. The gavel came down with no objections at the extended UN Biodiversity talks in Rome, held at the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation office. The room erupted in applause as the summit concluded, following stalled negotiations at Cop16 in Colombia, which failed to reach a resolution by the end of 2024. Experts say the progress comes at a critical time for environmental negotiations as global political uncertainty hangs over climate funding. "The US pulling funding internationally not only from environment initiatives but development funding more broadly, including the defunding and shutting down of USAID, is very unhelpful and certainly hinders progress on biodiversity and climate issues." Audrey Wagner, a researcher who led Oxford University's delegation to Cop16, told The National. However, those at the conference understood the urgency of the task at hand - to prevent further biodiversity loss at a time when it's estimated that one million of the world's species teeter on the brink of extinction. Speaking to the media in the early hours of Friday morning, Cop16 President Susana Muhamad, emphasised the importance of what she has called a historic moment for biodiversity, saying: "We are seeing so much political change globally, where actually fragmentation, and conflict is increasing." Ms Muhamad, who until recently held the post of minister of environment in Columbia, added that the gathering had "sent a light of hope, that still the common good, the environment, the protection of life and the capacity to come together for something bigger than each national interest is possible." Three years ago, 196 countries agreed to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030 under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. The framework includes the closing of the biodiversity finance gap, which stands at $700 billion per year. Among the 23 targets to be achieved by 2030 include 30 per cent conservation of land, sea and inland waters, 30 per cent restoration of degraded ecosystems, and halving the introduction of invasive species. This week, the Cop16 parties agreed on a way forward in terms of getting the funds mobilised with a view to close the global biodiversity finance gap to tackle the issue of biodiversity loss. Nature groups have applauded the Cop presidency for delivering a hard-fought resolution this week on biodiversity finance. Efraim Gomez, Global Policy Director at WWF International, has warned, however, that this necessary step is not sufficient, and it is now that the hard work starts. While his colleague Lin Li, senior director for Global Policy and Advocacy at WWF International, shared that "What's left now is still an urgent need to mobilise funding from all sources – public, private, domestic and philanthropic – to ensure we reach the $200 billion a year committed by 2030.' In a bid to accelerate these efforts, parties also called for an international dialogue between Environment and Finance Ministers from both developed and developing nations. Another notable achievement hailed as a success was the establishment of the Cali Fund, which was first agreed upon in Colombia during the first part of the conference. The fund is designed to harness critical financial resources from companies using digitally sequenced genetic data. While it has yet to receive contributions, the fund marks a significant victory for Indigenous Peoples and local communities, who are set to receive 50 per cent of its resources to support local biodiversity initiatives. Next on the UN climate agenda, is the UNFCCC Cop30, in Belem, Brazil. Taking place in November, this will be the first Cop to be held in the Amazon. Cop30 is the meeting of the conference of parties under the United Nations Framework on Climate Change Conference. It is tasked with supporting the global response to the threat of climate change. The UNCCD (United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification) Cop17, will be held in Mongolia in 2026. The next Convention on Biological Diversity, Cop17, will be held in Armenia in 2026.
The Guardian
15-02-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
WWF helping facilitate trade in polar bear fur, investigation reveals
The wildlife charity WWF has been working to support the trade in polar bear fur at the same time as using images of the bears to raise money, it can be revealed. Polar bears are severely affected by the loss of Arctic sea ice, which makes seeking prey harder and forces the bears to use more energy. In some regions, polar bears are showing signs of declining physical condition, having fewer cubs, and dying younger. Despite their endangered status, polar bears are hunted commercially in Canada, the only country that still allows the practice after it was banned by Russia, Greenland, the US and Norway. An annual average of 300–400 skins are exported, primarily to China, where a full pelt sells for an average of $60,000 (£48,000) and is often used for luxury clothing or as a rug. It is estimated that there are between 22,000 and 31,000 polar bears left in Canada, meaning the trade accounts for the deaths of 1-2% of the country's polar bear population every year. A two-year investigation has found that WWF has helped facilitate the international commercial trade in polar bear furs as part of its support for the policy of sustainable utilisation. The idea is that by licensing the exploitation of a small number of animals for economic purposes – such as for fur or trophy-hunting – the status of the species overall will be improved. WWF has made clear statements about its positionregarding trophy-hunting and the trade in elephant ivory. It has said it is 'not opposed to hunting programmes that present no threat to the survival of threatened species and, where such species are involved, are part of a demonstrated conservation and management strategy that is scientifically based, properly managed, and strictly enforced, with revenues and benefits going back into conservation and local communities'. At the Convention of the International Trade in Endangered Species (Cites), the global organisation that regulates the trade in endangered species, WWF has lobbied consistently for the continuation of the commercial Canadian polar bear fur trade. In its position statement, it acknowledged there may be a significant decline in the polar bear population in the coming decades, but said trade 'is not a significant threat to the species [though there are a] number of polar bear populations in Canada where harvest may be unsustainable'. WWF lobbied against granting full protection to polar bears in 2010 and 2013 at Cites meetings when the US, supported by Russia, proposed a ban on the international commercial trade of polar bear skins. Both times WWF recommended that parties should not vote for a full ban, arguing that polar bears had not yet met the criteria for this. This view persists. When asked at the Cites meeting in Panama in 2022 whether WWF would recommend better protection in the forthcoming decade, Colman O'Criodain, WWF International's policy manager for wildlife and adviser to WWF's Arctic programme, said he '[did not] think so in terms of the numeric criteria'. WWF said in a 2013 statement: 'If, at some stage in the future, polar bear populations become so diminished by climate change and habitat loss, and/or if international trade presents a greater threat, we would want to revisit the Cites listing issue. But we're not at that point.' WWF has also claimed a ban on the international commercial trade would damage the livelihoods of Indigenous communities. However, this is contentious. Robert Thompson, an Iñupiat resident and polar bear guide from Kaktovik, Alaska, said: 'We didn't sell these animals for 10,000 years and that's why they are still here – we didn't have a commercial need.' Thompson said a better income could be made without killing polar bears. 'There can be a good income by taking people to view the animals – and that is sustainable,' he said. 'I think if we just shot the bears to have money, pretty soon we wouldn't have any more bears and then that's the end of it.' At both Cites meetings the proposal failed to reach the two-thirds majority required for a ban on the trade. Jean-Paul Jeanrenaud, a former director of WWF who worked for the charity for 27 years, said: 'The WWF name, certainly from my experience, had a lot of leverage. If I approached people, they wanted to hear what I had to say … WWF has an influence, and it still has an influence. 'I think the public will be even more than surprised, perhaps shocked. I know that it's the sort of thing that I have difficulty getting my head around.' WWF has also lobbied against granting full protection under Cites to other animals including elephants, hippos, giraffes and rhinos. This was particularly evident at the 2022 Cites meeting, where WWF lobbied successfully for changing the listing of Namibia's white rhino population from full protection under appendix I to the less restrictive appendix II. The majority of wildlife protection organisations do not support WWF's position, and at the past four Cites meetings a coalition of about 80 NGOs opposed WWF's recommendations. WWF told the Guardian that an appendix I listing of polar bears would not have prevented trophy hunting. 'Under appendix II … commercial trade, in skins for example, is also allowed and the Inuit in Canada avail of this. For this reason, on both occasions when the appendix I listing was proposed, Inuit representatives spoke passionately against it. Rejection of the proposal was also recommended by the International Union for Conservation of Nature, [the NGO] Traffic, the Pew Environment Group and the Cites secretariat.' The spokesperson said that after the 2013 debate the Cites committee had looked at the sustainability of the trade: 'Canada submitted its case to the following meeting in 2015 and the committee concluded, by consensus, that the trade was sustainable.'
