the top stories.zeera, these are the eu has pledged a billion dollars to afghanistan, but the money will be given to aid agencies, not the taliban. international funds have been frozen since the group's takeover and that has made the humanitarian crisis worse. chile's government has declared a state of emergency after indigenous people took control of forests from logging companies, demanding the preservation of ancestral lands. tens of thousands of government supporters have rallied across
bolivia following days of antigovernment protests against a proposed law that could mean authorities would not need a court order before investigating the assets of any citizen. reporter: the rallies are still going on staggered throughout the day to allow the president to and cruz, where he is now. bringing out tens of thousands of his supporters, government supporters across the country, and it very much is an attempt to show strength, to show the country, to show the opposition, there are more government supporters than there were antigovernment protesters out in the streets on monday. >> u.s. immigration officials will no longer be able to conduct mass raids at workplaces for suspected undocumented immigrants. the move is part of joe biden's shift in punishing businesses that violate labor laws rather than going after workers.
a source in the sudan security agency has told al jazeera they will implement a ban on government officials traveling abroad. one of those facing the band is a member of the countries sovereign counsel. the administration has been run by military officials and civilians marred by inviting. the president firmly rejects and will not recognize a ruling by the international court of justice which is largely in favor of somalia as an a long-running dispute. those are the headlines. ♪
>> time is running out to save the planet's wildlife. a u.n. biodiversity summit in china is demanding urgent action. the world has failed to meet any of the goals set 10 years ago to protect nature. so what will this conference actually achieve? this is "inside story." ♪ hello and welcome to the program. leaders from around the world will gather in glasgow. a closely linked to u.n. summit on biodiversity is taking place right now in china with the aim of reserving our planet's wildlife. plants and animals are disappearing at an alarming
rate. the u.n. has said human activity is leading a million species toward extinction. pollution and climate change are threatening ecosystems worldwide. the u.n.'s bio security chief opened the conference with this morning. >> we are facing our moment of truth. if we are to meet the 25th division of living in harmony with nature, we must take actions this decade to halt and reverse biodiversity loss and put biodiversity on a path to recovery by 2030 at the latest. this is the defining challenge of our time. >> china's president xi jinping has launched a 230 million dollars fund to help protect ecosystems. here is what he had to say. >> facing the task of restoring the economy, protecting the
environment, and developing countries need more support. we need to strengthen unity and work together to get through this challenging time so the results of development and better ecology will be fairer. >> the summit in china includes parties to the u.n. conference on biodiversity. representatives agreed on a 10 year plan to protect species and conserve ecosystems, but none of their goals were achieved by the 2020 deadline. countries now aim to come up with a new set of targets for the next 10 years. this includes putting 30% of the earth's land and oceans under protected status, otherwise known as the 30 by 30, and illuminating plastic waste and reducing the use of harmful pesticides. ok, here we go. let's bring in our guests. joining us from london, gavin edwards, global coordinator at
the worldwide fund international. in nairobi, we have nancy. can you country director at the african wildlife foundation. in brussels we have stephan, senior climate scientists and energy policy advisor at climate action network international. welcome to you all. nancy, we are talking about cop15. nothing apparently has changed. how come? >> as we are saying, looking back at the last 10 years, 2011 to 2020, we did not achieve the commitments that were made globally. many countries did not achieve that. almost all did not. we are saying, was their commitment? was there sufficient action? was there sufficient resources? probably not. looking at 2020 and beyond, build 2020, what should we
change if we are going to achieve what was not in the last 10 years? quite a lot, and unfortunately, it is coming at the back door, biggerhallenges of climate change, bigger challenges of covid, so commitment now as we speak about 2020, has to be matched with resources. >> climate change, one of the main aspects we are told all the time can be reversible. but once an ecosystem is lost, is it lost forever? >> you need to talk to evolution. no one knows, but the point is these species are gone forever. it is an irreversible loss. we have the same thing with climate change. some of the impacts are of course reversible. that is the reason why we are fighting for deep emissions reductions. about 50% of fossil fuel
emissions reductions by 2030, which is based on scientific recommendations. and further, phasing out fossil fuels completely and stopping and reversing the destruction and degradation of ecosystems and forests is a very strong component to protect biodiversity, which is important for many purposes. we cannot basically hold in the short-term term and reverse in the short-term the loss of polar ice caps are himalayan glacier's. once we lose glaciers in greenland or antarctica, it is very late. it is very difficult to recapture that in centuries or even millennia. the same is true for sea level rise. if sea level rise occurs, we lose very important coastal
ecosystems, populations, frontline communities. countries like bangladesh for instance, or other low-lying areas, coastal areas, mainly developing countries. it is very difficult to reclaim that land. once it is flooded, with salt water for many reasons. >> our timescale, which is the life of a person, altering climate change is not necessarily possible. it might be possible in the longer term, but this is beyond our control. it is not possible for species. if they are gone, they are going. >> we think or we are assuming there is momentum being built to set new targets for 2013. will those targets -- for 2030. will those targets be missed as well? >> we had a lost decade were not enough action was taken. this time it has to be
different. this time it feels different. compared to a decade ago, we have many world leaders, 92 world leaders have signed a pledge and endorsed that pledge. we have seen 1000 ceos from around the world commit and advocate for a strong action plan and start to adjust their own business practices. we have seen the finance sector and central bankers start to look at how they are investing in managing risks related to nature loss, particularly the agricultural sector. we see societies in greater numbers, faith organizations, humanitarian groups, raising their voice. we see new money committed. just a couple weeks ago we saw $5 billion in new philanthropic funding for conservation. today we heard president she of china -- president xi of china
commit to $230 million to help developing countries. all of these numbers are big. they are nowhere near big enough, but what they are doing is creating positive momentum for change. this time, we feel if there is a strong action plan put in place, the context is very different than a decade ago. people are starting to realize nature is no longer a luxury. this is about us. the same way climate change is about humanity, nature is, too. that is more understood by more people than ever before. that gives us a fighting chance. >> nancy, you are in a major african city. the african countries are not necessarily known for manufacturing very much. it is a continent of biodiversity.
deserts in the north of the continent, lush rain forest type countries across that, heading down to the southern half. is it particularly acute for african countries, and what are they doing to push back? >> i think for africa, most of our economies, most of our livelihoods are biodiversity based. anything happening to that biodiversity impacts the livelihoods of every single african. we will not have the huge industries, so most of us are reliant on biodiversity. when it fails and we are looking at failing economies, we are also looking at failing missions. when we have extreme rain evens
and droughts, this takes us very back in terms of economies and livelihoods. maybe more importantly, more than any other continent, it is important there are commitments and action. the last time, maybe not much was achieved. we are saying there's not enough resources. it should not be an orphan. biodiversity is impacted by climate change. the decisions that are made where we have resources set aside should be much more or equal to what would be put for biodiversity. without it we are talking of an africa that cannot survive and with a large population, all of us that are dependent on the natural resources, therefore biodiversity. this is not just a discussion. this is about our livelihoods.
>> under the chinese leadership, i expect more of the so-called 30 times 30, i.e. 3% of our land and 30% of our oceans need to be protected. how do you square that with the next donald trump, for example? a president or prime minister someplace who gets into office saying jobs jobs jobs, and or the next discovery of an undiscovered massive field of oil or gas underneath the coral reefs of australia? how do you stop people exploiting those areas in that kind of scenario? to>> that is a very challenging question. let me be honest. it is not the good chinese government against the bad potential u.s. government. the choices -- the people who are impacted.
every time we see large-scale gas and coal reserves being currently exploited, if you would carry on the exploitation of only the currently known and currently operating mines, oil fields, and gas fields, that would be enough to wreck the climate. we do not need new fields. in order to save the climate, to protect the world from climate change which affects biodiversity, we need to stop all new oil, gas, and coal development. we already have too many. even if they explore new ones, this is already much too much. what we have available -- and i trust people. i trust frontline communities. i trust communities on the ground in developing countries, but also developed countries. trust the people who have seen, experienced climate change, the
droughts, the floods, in summer, two people in africa which have seen failures of harvests, people in south america who have seen flames, people in the arctic seeing the dwindling of the ice sheets, including my own country, in germany, the horrendous floods which killed up to 300, 400 people, and the strikes that occur. people will make happen that this is not happening again and they will ensure, we hope, this kind of development is not happening, that we will come to a point where we are fighting for new development and we are getting more and more support from conventional, normal institutions, like scientific institutions, we have a choice to make. we all benefit from that.
going to renewables, energy efficiency. >> i want to knock that point forward and talk to gavin for the next minute or so. one of the driving principles is that we have 2 -- to save the planet, but also to save ecosystems and species, we have to halve the footprint of production and consumption, everything from nonelectric cars up to and including single use paper coffee cups. halving production and consumption on paper sounds like a good idea and we can all be the change we want to see, but if you do that, doesn't mean massive unemployment? >> quite the opposite. we just put out a study which estimated quite a few million -- up to 39 million new jobs could be created and in a very short timeframe by investing in the right industries .
the world economic forum estimated over 350 million jobs could be created as well. there is a clear win-win here. it is ok to protect places. we have to do that. if you protect 30% of the world, for every dollar spent, five dollars can be returned in economic development. if you couple that with the real re-think about how we sustainably produce and consume everything from the food we eat to the plastic we consume, etc., etc., it is not only possible, it is absolutely essential. with those measures, committed over the next years, we could see instead of us losing nature, we could see a nature positive world. if we can couple that with a net zero world where emissions are becoming a thing of the past because we are leaving oil and coal in the ground, we do stand
a fighting chance at the end of the decade. it is possible and it is good for the economy and it is good for jobs as well. >> a lot of what we are discussing is about overexploitation of these biodiversity areas, the ecosystems, the species that live in them, that need to carry on existing within those biodiversity areas. is it possible to exploit these areas -- not over exploit them, but exploit them, use them, utilize the minerals, the oil, the gas that is underneath them, near them, but leave them the way they were before humanity went in, utilize the resources, and left? >> a good balance maybe. it is not a choice between development and conservation. it is development with conservation. we are saying we can develop, but develop in a sustainable
way. there are critically sensitive areas on this globe. areas where we should be exploring for minerals or oil or any exploration. these are critic lease sensitive areas. those need to be left -- critically sensitive areas. those need to be left. they help balance our existence with that of nature. however, when we are looking at investments, we are pushing for sustainable investments. africa must develop, but we -- can we have developments that are sustainable so if it is infrastructure, it is sustainable infrastructure? if areas need to be left as they were, they are left as they were. in kenya, in many nations, what we are saying is this needs to stop. as we look at the u.n., we need
to restore what has been lost but still develop in a sustainable way. it is not a choice of one or the other. it is a more deliberate choice of investments and banking institutions so that when we are lending for investments, these are sustainable investments, not investments that destroy biodiversity, natural capital, which most of the africans rely on. sustainable investments is what we will be calling for across the globe. >> you were shaking your head as i was asking nancy that question. is it your sense we have to move from a wish list of, it would be good if we could achieve this together, to a list of must-achieve-this together? >> that is one of the questions we are getting asked very often. what are your key targets?
it means we have to drop 50 other targets. there is a hierarchization we have to do. government have to do the same. it is difficult, but let me tell you as a rule of thumb. although it is a good step forward to protect 30% of our land and our oceans, from future expectation, that is a good start -- but in the end, we will have 8 billion people on earth very soon. many people are still poor in developing countries. there will be more consumption, we cannot ignore that. we need to support it. it is up to the global north to reduce its consumption. i would argue we need a kind of understanding that we need to not necessarily protect, but to manage sustainably all land, all
ocean, all lakes, all rivers, all mountains. otherwise it does not work. that is the challenge we have to do. the impact on freshwater, the impact on resources' availability, we impact on soil erosion, we impact on whatever. all of it is underpinned by the glowing inequality between the rich and the poor both as a nation and among nations. >> about inequality, is part of the problem here that financing is trickle-down, top to bottom, and the conversation is the other way? it is fantastic jeff bezos gives one billion u.s. dollars to various global climate change organizations, but trickle-down financing arguably never works because it is never spent properly in the right places at the right time. the conversation is going on literally at ground level. that is why for example we need
to get to a stage where indigenous peoples rights are enshrined in the acts of parliament or the acts of legislation that cover these areas of biodiversity. >> exactly right. if you look at the large intact areas left in the world that are high-priority for conservation, they overlap very heavily with indigenous peoples and local communities. they have been traditional stewards of these lands, and to this day they have been part of ensuring they are still functioning ecosystems. clearly communities need to be able to be supported in this, their rights need to be respected. any attempts at conservation have to include the consent of communities and any development, communities have to benefit from those conservation measures as well. there are plenty of examples around the world.
this is the case, those models do and can work. that is one area that needs to be invested in. it is not the only one. the pulse institute estimated $700 billion is needed to actually fund conservation efforts. that pays back to the economy in all sorts of ways, whether it is helping avoid a future pandemic or whether it is helping a local community get out of poverty as well. that does not just come from philanthropists. it comes from governments. it comes from removing subsidies which are right now undermining nature, by for examp ensuring a food system is unsustainable and happily rewarding farmers foofunsustainable practices as well. that needs to change if we are to stand a chance on this. >> in the last minute of the program, nancy, are you optimistic or pessimistic that we will hit this 30 by 30
target? at the moment, i find it astonishing only 8% of our oceans on the planet artificially protected because underneath the surface, there is something that if we lose it, it is gone forever. >> i choose to remain optimistic. if the commitment mentioned by nations has action, there is hope. what has not been pursued is, this 30 by 30 should include areas below the just jurisdiction -- below the jurisdiction of nations. the deep-sea. if this is also part of the 30 by 30, there is hope. it is doable. the 30 by 30 should be taken as a global target where each country also sees his role to play.
but beyond the lands, the deep seas give us an opportunity. i remain optimistic. >> nice to finish a depressing conversation on an optimistic note. we are out of time. thank you to our guests. thank you for your company. you can see the show again via the website, al jazeera.com, and for further discussion, go to our facebook page. you can also join the conversation on twitter here at ajinsidestory. thanks for watching. we will do it again at the usual time tomorrow. ♪
new cuisine, you have to be kind of savvy and also a little bit careful, right? you're trying to create a market when it's not there. the fact that thai food had gained a reputation in west hollywood and other places as, you know, delicious food, but it was a certain kind of thai food.hat opened the way for these newer chefs to say, "you know what, we can be unique and different within ts food cultu." like, chefs are artists, and so they're coming up with stuff all the tim it's not to say it doesn't happen in thailand, but i think being in l.a., this kind of cross-pollination might be opening up new tastes and flavors in thai cuisine.