Protecting Arctic Biodiversity: Limitations and strengths of environmental agreements

Page 45

• Recognition of the value of traditional knowledge for minimising the negative impacts of climate change response measures so as to ensure that traditional knowledge is respected, properly interpreted and used appropriately in adaptation planning and monitoring.

of vulnerability and impacts and the benefits realized from the inclusion of Indigenous Peoples and local communities in climate change response planning.

The meeting also recognized the need for international cooperation in linking biodiversity and climate change adaptation in the Arctic region both in terms of sharing knowledge and information and with regards to the management of transboundary species and livelihoods.

Since the Arctic is contained within eight countries, and since the issue of climate change, biodiversity and Indigenous peoples are covered under many international agreements, including the CBD, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, there is an urgent need for coordinated action.

One key example of international cooperation is the Arctic Biodiversity Assessment (ABA), an initiative led by Finland, Greenland/Denmark and the United States, with members of the Steering Committee including Canada, UNEP/GRIDArendal and UNEP-WCMC, Gwich’in Council International, and the Arctic Athabaskan Council. The ABA synthesizes and assesses the status and trends of biological diversity in the Arctic, and provides a baseline of the most current scientific research and traditional knowledge. The ABA considers and builds on the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment which includes an evaluation of impacts on natural systems. Findings from the ABA have been considered in the preparation of the third edition of the Global Biodiversity Outlook (GBO-3), the flagship publication of the CBD. The GBO-3 is an important vehicle for informing a variety of audiences of the importance of biodiversity and the progress made in meeting the 2010 Biodiversity Target to significantly reduce the rate of biodiversity loss. The Arctic region was also considered by the Ad hoc Technical Expert Group (AHTEG) on Biodiversity and Climate Change which recognized the vulnerability of the region. The AHTEG also discussed relevant issues such as the important role of ecosystem-based adaptation, the need for improved modelling

Next steps: preserving life and livelihoods in the Arctic I

The Arctic region is warming about twice as fast as the rest of the world and yet action is not yet matching this accelerated pace. There is a need for immediate capacity building and the gathering of additional knowledge on the links between biodiversity, climate change and Indigenous and local communities in the Arctic. Life and livelihoods in the Arctic need to be recognized, their value acknowledged, and their preservation made a priority.

II

I sincerely hope that the next Conference of the Parties to the CBD, to be held in Nagoya, Japan, in October 2010, will promote the idea of a joint work programme between the three Rio Conventions to address the specific needs of the Arctic region and its people. Finally, the celebration, in 2010, of the International Year on Biodiversity, including a head of state Summit in New York by the 65th session of the United Nations General Assembly, offered a unique opportunity to engage heads of state from around the world on the importance of the biodiversity of the Arctic region. The slogan of the International Year on Biodiversity, Biodiversity is Life … Biodiversity is our Life, applies also, and fully, to the peoples of the Arctic region. RELEVANCE OF MULTI-LATERAL ENVIRONMENTAL AGREEMENTS

45


Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.