RSS

The Convention on Biological Diversity promotes Social Diversity, not Biological

09 Nov

From the 18’th to the 29’th October this year the tenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP 10) was held in Japan. This conference is held because of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which is an United Nations international agreement which came into force in 1993. The purpose of the Convention is stated on their website:

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) entered into force on 29 December 1993. It has 3 main objectives:

1. The conservation of biological diversity
2. The sustainable use of the components of biological diversity
3. The fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources

Judging by their stated objectives, the CBD exists to ensure the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, now frequently called biodiversity. However, if we take a look at the outcomes decided at COP 10 instead of their stated goals, we can see that biological diversity takes a backseat to social diversity.

First of all, both the terms biological diversity and social diversity are odd concepts. “Conservation of Biological Diversity” implies that there is some correct ecological mix which is essential to maintain. This is absurd, as anyone who knows anything about the earth’s history can tell you. The idea that nations must band together to ensure the earth remains the same in its current snapshot of time is ludicrous and impossible. Social diversity is not mentioned in the COP 10 documents per se, but their heavy emphasis on gender, local communities and indigenous groups is what I mean when I use the term.

This document is entitled “UPDATING AND REVISION OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN FOR THE POST-2010 PERIOD”. It is basically a compilation of the decisions made at the meeting. Here is what I mean when I say their focus is on Social Diversity (excerpts from various places):

(a) Enable participation at all levels to foster the full and effective contributions of women,
indigenous and local communities, civil-society organizations, the private sector and stakeholders from
all other sectors in the full implementation of the objectives of the Convention and the Strategic Plan for
the period 2011-2020;

(d) Use the revised and updated national biodiversity strategies and action plans as effective
instruments for the integration of biodiversity targets into national development and poverty reduction
policies and strategies, national accounting, as appropriate, economic sectors and spatial planning
processes, by Government and the private sector at all levels;

9. Recalls decision IX/8, which called for gender mainstreaming in national biodiversity
strategies and action plans, and decision IX/24, in which the Conference of the Parties approved the
gender plan of action for the Convention, which among other things, requests Parties to mainstream a
gender perspective into the implementation of the Convention and promote gender equality in achieving
its three objectives, and requests Parties to mainstream gender considerations, where appropriate, in the
implementation of the Strategic Plan and its associated goals, targets and indicators.

Here is another document which directly addresses ‘gender mainstreaming’. Here is another (.doc file) which specifically addresses poverty reduction.

What exactly does “mainstream gender considerations” even mean, and how does it relate to biodiversity? Poverty reduction policies and strategies? Promoting gender equality? If the United Nations wants to promote gender equality (which seems dubious) why are they doing it under the guise of conserving biodiversity? If they want to help eradicate poverty (which they have tried to do unsuccessfully for decades) why are they addressing it in a biodiversity meeting? Because these meetings have nothing to do with biodiversity. They are about governance. Just look at the new IPBES. Its own stated goals are to improve governance.

The United Nations believes that it knows how to make women equal, eradicate poverty, keep the planet at a specific desired temperature, and keep the biological diversity of the planet at the correct level (whatever that is). They believe that the only way to achieve these goals is through more effective governance, and all these panels and meetings are attempts to place more power in their omnipotent hands. If only we would all just give up our sovereignty to these wise individuals, the world’s problems could be solved….

Advertisements
 
2 Comments

Posted by on November 9, 2010 in Uncategorized

 

2 responses to “The Convention on Biological Diversity promotes Social Diversity, not Biological

  1. John Schwaner

    November 12, 2010 at 11:47 am

    Biodiversity, as practiced by the UN, is an effort to extract vast amounts of wealth from the middle class to fund environmental and other programs run by the UN. The moral consequences are mainstreaming the völkisch concept that Hitler used to justify extermination.

    Read the following:
    http://economicbiodiversity.blogspot.com/2010/11/did-you-purchase-some-biodiversity.html

     
  2. Donna Laframboise

    November 12, 2010 at 10:21 pm

    Gosh, it’s even worse than we thought (she says, unsure of whether to laugh or cry).

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: