These jolting statistics on endangerment and extinction of species and habitats were addressed at talks among 193 of the world's nations in Nagoya, Japan, last month. And, after last year's dismal efforts to reach a global deal to tackle climate change in Copenhagen, world leaders showed that - on some topics at least - they are able to reach an international consensus.

The three-week long negotiations resulted in a tangible deal for a strategic plan from now until 2020, the mobilisation of financial resources to invest in programmes to protect species and a protocol to ensure that every country, rich and poor, has access to and shares in the benefits of using the genetic resources of the planet.

As Belgium currently holds the rotating presidency of the EU Council, Flemish environment minister Joke Schauvliege (pictured) was responsible for presenting the common European position at the Nagoya Biodiversity Summit. "Biodiversity is diminishing," she says. "The EU deadline to halt biodiversity loss by 2010 was not achieved. This was because we didn't have the necessary facts and figures. The Nagoya agreement now points out very clear targets."

These targets include an agreement to at least halve - and where feasible bring close to zero - the rate of loss of natural habitats; to expand protected areas both on land and at sea (currently less than 1% of the world's oceans are protected); restore at least 15% of degraded areas; and make "special efforts" to reduce the environmental pressures faced by coral reefs.

At the start of Belgium's six-month presidency last summer, Schauvliege highlighted biodiversity as one of her priorities. Her role as the chair of the EU's council of environment ministers was to forge a consensus among member states so that all of the 27 EU nations would speak with one voice in Nagoya.

After meetings of ministers in Ghent and Luxembourg, the EU agreed on what Sabien Leemans, biodiversity campaigner for WWF, describes as an "ambitious agenda".
But that was only half the work. After two weeks of preparatory research by technical experts, ministers from all 193 nations, including Schauvliege (representing Europe), had to defend their positions at the international negotiating table.

"There was a strong willingness among all the parties to reach a consensus; no one wanted to return home with nothing in their hands," says Schauvliege. "But there were three difficult points that were left for the ministers: the strategic plan, the financing and the access and benefits sharing system."

Paying the tab
Concerning the financing for biodiversity schemes, developing countries wanted a ten-fold increase on what developed countries were offering. They also wanted the access and benefits-sharing scheme - agreements on allotments of economic benefits gained from resources mined from developing nations by corporations in the developed world - to be retroactive so that they could be compensated for resources that developed countries had already farmed.

After years in which developed countries reaping the benefits of the rich plant and animal resources in regions like the Congo River Basin and the Amazon rainforest, Leemans says this was a "legitimate request". Much of the biodiversity loss in the developing world can be attributed to developed nations' exploitation.

An impasse on these points left ministers in last-ditch negotiations during the final week of the Nagoya talks, as reaching an agreement on targets was, in the minds of the developing countries, contingent upon a better offer in terms of financing and sharing benefits.

The position of the EU was that funds to protect biodiversity come not only from state coffers but also from regional projects, academic programmes and even from private investors. Environmentalists, however, were less than enthusiastic about developed countries' thinking. "It was clear from the start that developing countries did not come with their cheque books," says Leemans.

This was in spite of an acknowledgement that protecting biodiversity pays off in the long run. A report prepared by the United Nations, under whose auspices the talks were held, points to the economic benefits of protecting biodiversity and explains how we could measure its value. This is a point on which Schauvliege agrees.

"If we don't do something about soil erosion, for example, that will cost us an enormous amount of money," she says. "And if we lose a plant that is good for making medicines, then we have the cost of searching for an alternative that humans can use."

A resolution was eventually found: ministers agreed to a so-called gap analysis that will examine how much is being spent at all levels and how much needs to be spent for the new strategic plan. Technical experts will report back at the next round of international biodiversity talks to be held in 2012, when a concrete sum could be agreed.

On the subject of access and benefit sharing, nations also found a compromise. They decided to institute a multilateral fund into which countries could make voluntary contributions. Overcoming these sticking points paved the way for a compromise on the whole package, with all nations able to walk away having secured some of their aims.

"We thought the developed countries should have shown more commitment on financing, as it's a legitimate ask, and they have a big impact on global biodiversity," says Leemans. "Countries should also not see this as a cost but as an investment. Nevertheless, we were very glad that a compromise was reached."

Beyond Nagoya
Schauvliege does not plan to tick the box on biodiversity just yet. Despite the successful outcome at the Nagoya summit, she said there is still much to be done. "Biodiversity has a lot of links with other activities, and we need a multi-disciplinary approach to integrate biodiversity into other policies such as agriculture, fisheries and sustainable land use."

Another challenge is a public campaign to make citizens understand how this nebulous concept does make a difference to our lives. "We have to broaden the message and make more people aware of the impact of the loss of biodiversity," Schauvliege says, adding that reaching a deal in Nagoya during the EU's year of biodiversity was "symbolically important".

Her other goal had been to put sustainable materials management, a policy that should help Europe reduce its industrial waste mountain, onto the European agenda - this she achieved by holding a series of conferences - and ensuring better regulation for the environment.

Before Belgium's EU Council presidency ends in late December, Schauvliege will represent the European Union at the UN talks in Cancun, Mexico. These talks will already be starting in a sombre mood after the failure at last year's talks in Copenhagen to achieve a concrete result; instead of a legally binding treaty, a flimsy document - the Copenhagen Accord - was signed.

Already, the EU has acknowledged that the Cancun talks will not result in a legally- binding treaty.

Instead, they will be an "intermediate step", which paves the way for something more concrete later on. This became apparent after developed and developing countries came to blows over financing, and the United States and China refused to sign up to serious emission-reduction targets.

Nagoya offers some hope for the climate negotiations. "Everyone agreed that if Nagoya had been a disaster, it would have been a very bad sign for Cancun," notes Schauvliege. "But on an international level, Nagoya shows that an agreement can be made even after the disappointment of Copenhagen."

Cancun will have its similarities to the Nagoya negotiations - notably with the apparent split between developed and developing countries - but also its differences, with the cloud of mistrust that lingered over last year's talks hanging over ministers. Schauvliege and the rest of the EU team will go armed with a common position, but, she warns: "We have to be ambitious but realistic."

www.cbd.int