The “Appendix” lists obstacles to the implementation of the Convention. Is it necessary to revise the list of obstacles?
Appendix 6.a.
Now:
Lack of appropriate policies and laws
Should read:
Lack of appropriate policies and laws
Lack of individual determination and job security to enforce the policies and laws
Lack of internal checks to ensure appropriate enforcement takes place
Background:
First, I think we have appropriate policies and laws in Finland. Our village association is fighting to save an ecosystem which we believe to be the densest group of small lakes, ponds, streams, brooks, trickles, springs, and whatever other small scale waters in the whole European Union. The same area in Kuhmo's Vuosanka is a central habitat of wild forest reindeer, Rangifer tarandus fennicus, an EU directive species. Vuosanka, an ancient Same language name, stands for reindeer calf. It sounds as if it should be easy for us to achieve our goal. Not so. The same patch of land of around 2000 hectares, with appr. 100 small lakes and ponds interconnected by an intricate stream system, happens to belong to a target area of heavy artillery of the Finnish army. Small arms units started there in the sixties but the major "development" of the area has taken place since 2000. Only now that the first master plan covering the area and showing the army activity is under preparation, did we have any say in the matter. And we have said a lot. No one has even tried to challenge our main findings nor claims. Yet it has been extremely difficult and laborious to make people act. The reasons are clear to us. The Kajaani Regional Environment Center & others all know having made terrible mistakes in allocating that place to the military. The documents we obtained from the military, the local Regional Environment Center and others clearly show that the parties have collaborated closely to find excuses and knowingly missed to implement the laws meant to protect small waters etc., i.e. such a jewel. Most likely they didn't fully comprehend the value of the area, and now that it is known they refuse to write a word of the value. So, they think it is in their interest to stay the course. Our main obstacle in their favor is the lack of a clear enough definition of such an ecosystem and it to be worth protecting. The counterparts prefer to see the system water by water. Maybe none of them alone is invaluable, but we refuse to accept that such a unique system (No. 1 in Europe!) could be destroyed. At the end the laws will be implemented, we hope, but it is shocking to realize that without our persistence that unique ecosystem would be gone for ever. We should be pleased if our experience is of any use for the Convention.
Happy New Year to you!
Best regards,
Timo Niskanen
direct e-mail: timo.niskanen@vieksi.fi
submitted by Thomas Huber
We would to propose the addition of the following obstacles:
Under 1 (Political/societal obstacles)
Lack of political will to recognise the role of indigenous peoples and local communities and to empower them to manage local resources
Lack of political will to address the direct and indirect drivers of biodiversity loss (including corruption)
Under 3 (Lack of accessible knowledge/information)
Lack of translation into local languages
Under 5
Change 5a: lack of synergies at the local, national and international levels (added ‘local’)
Maurizio and Caroline, Forest Peoples Programme
submitted by Maurizio Ferrari
Add under 4) or 6): Insufficient national and international policies that penalize, prohibitively tax or outlaw “conspicuous” consumption that drives biodiversity loss.
The wording of 6 (a) is not very meaningful. Better: “Lack of policies that aim at…, provide incentives for…., reduce…, enhance…
submitted by Leonora Kurdow
Oui, elle doit être révisée
Propositions :
Point 1 Obstacles politiques/sociétaux
Il faut rajouter les conflits armés
Point 2 Obstacles d’ordre institutionnel et technique en matière de capacités
Ajouter après le b)
Manque de disponibilité de personnels disposant de la formation adéquate
Point 3 Manque de connaissances/informations accessibles
Reformuler ce point en Manque de connaissances et de formation/ manque d’accessibilité à l’information
Point 4 Politique économique et ressources financières
Ajouter un point « Absence de redistribution des bénéfices résultant de l’utilisation de la diversité biologique et des services des écosystèmes vers les politiques de connaissance, de conservation et de gestion de la diversité biologique »
Point 6 Entraves juridiques
Ajouter un point « manque de moyens pour faire appliquer la législation »
Rajouter un point 9 Risques technologiques
Et inclure
a) manque de politique de prévention des risques technologiques
b) absence de prise en considération du principe de précaution
c) manque de moyens de réparations des dommages liés à des accidents technologiques
d) manque de contrôle du respect des règles et prescriptions imposées aux établissements ou transports présentant des risques technologiques
submitted by Jean-Patrick LE DUC
There are some common factors running through many if not most of the obstacles listed as interfering with implementation of the Strategic Plan. Explicitly identifying these underlying factors may facilitate the development of more effective ways to address obstacles individually and as a group. For example, a lack of effective communication about both the importance of stemming biodiversity loss and the specific drivers that need to be addressed in order to do so is contributing to many of the obstacles listed. A better understanding of this communication problem and the development of strategies to address it may then help reduce or eliminate some of these obstacles to implementation.
For example, experience with the Ecological Footprint indicator has shown its ability to translate abstract notions of sustainability into a more concrete and easily understood question, “Is there enough productive area (in a nation, or on the planet) to meet the demands of human activities for resources and waste absorption?” In so doing, it makes it much easier for technical and non-technical stakeholders alike to understand the nature of the ecological limits being addressed, and why exceeding them is problematic and has consequences for biodiversity. Once this common understanding has been achieved many of the political, social, educational and other obstacles to implementation of the strategy become that much less insurmountable.
submitted by Oscar Mejia
What about dropping the list? If not, it would be better to link them to strategies/action.
submitted by Anonymous
