Objectifs nationaux

Belgium is a Party to most major international and regional agreements related to biodiversity. It is necessary for Belgium to ensure its continued involvement with these agreements. To this end, Belgium needs to review the status of implementation of all international agreements relevant to the protection of biodiversity and take the necessary steps to ensure their full implementation where needed. Belgium will also continue to adopt other relevant agreements when appropriate.

Belgium is a Party to most major international and regional agreements related to biodiversity. It is necessary for Belgium to ensure its continued involvement with these agreements. To this end, Belgium needs to review the status of implementation of all international agreements relevant to the protection of biodiversity and take the necessary steps to ensure their full implementation where needed. Belgium will also continue to adopt other relevant agreements when appropriate.

Belgium is a Party to most major international and regional agreements related to biodiversity. It is necessary for Belgium to ensure its continued involvement with these agreements. To this end, Belgium needs to review the status of implementation of all international agreements relevant to the protection of biodiversity and take the necessary steps to ensure their full implementation where needed. Belgium will also continue to adopt other relevant agreements when appropriate.

The decisions of biodiversity-related conventions must be implemented in a coherent and harmonised way. To this end, Belgium needs in the first place a global view of the package of decisions related to issues crosscutting different biodiversity-related conventions (such as deforestation, sustainable use of natural resources, inland waters, climate change, etc.) in order to use and distribute its resources in an optimal fashion. This overview will also help to identify mutual obligatory actions (projects can be designed jointly) and possible conflicting actions between the different biodiversity-related conventions.

One issue particularly relevant in this context is the issue of national reporting. National reports are useful tools to evaluate the degree of implementation of international agreements and to improve implementation. However, reports rarely meet these objectives.

As the national reporting exercises for several conventions are mainly based on similar environmental data, it is important to streamline and harmonise reporting processes across different biodiversity-related conventions to allow countries to meet their reporting requirements and avoid duplication of work.

Furthermore, more communication is needed between the national focal points of biodiversity-related conventions to ensure a more coherent implementation of biodiversity-related commitments and optimise opportunities for synergies. This can be facilitated within existing institutional structures (such as steering groups within the CCIEP) but implies also the development of means at national level to enhance coordination and collaboration between biodiversity-related conventions’ focal points on planning, capacity-building, research, reporting, information systems, etc., i.e. through more sharing of information and experiences.

The decisions of biodiversity-related conventions must be implemented in a coherent and harmonised way. To this end, Belgium needs in the first place a global view of the package of decisions related to issues crosscutting different biodiversity-related conventions (such as deforestation, sustainable use of natural resources, inland waters, climate change, etc.) in order to use and distribute its resources in an optimal fashion. This overview will also help to identify mutual obligatory actions (projects can be designed jointly) and possible conflicting actions between the different biodiversity-related conventions.

One issue particularly relevant in this context is the issue of national reporting. National reports are useful tools to evaluate the degree of implementation of international agreements and to improve implementation. However, reports rarely meet these objectives.

As the national reporting exercises for several conventions are mainly based on similar environmental data, it is important to streamline and harmonise reporting processes across different biodiversity-related conventions to allow countries to meet their reporting requirements and avoid duplication of work.

Furthermore, more communication is needed between the national focal points of biodiversity-related conventions to ensure a more coherent implementation of biodiversity-related commitments and optimise opportunities for synergies. This can be facilitated within existing institutional structures (such as steering groups within the CCIEP) but implies also the development of means at national level to enhance coordination and collaboration between biodiversity-related conventions’ focal points on planning, capacity-building, research, reporting, information systems, etc., i.e. through more sharing of information and experiences.

The decisions of biodiversity-related conventions must be implemented in a coherent and harmonised way. To this end, Belgium needs in the first place a global view of the package of decisions related to issues crosscutting different biodiversity-related conventions (such as deforestation, sustainable use of natural resources, inland waters, climate change, etc.) in order to use and distribute its resources in an optimal fashion. This overview will also help to identify mutual obligatory actions (projects can be designed jointly) and possible conflicting actions between the different biodiversity-related conventions.

One issue particularly relevant in this context is the issue of national reporting. National reports are useful tools to evaluate the degree of implementation of international agreements and to improve implementation. However, reports rarely meet these objectives.

As the national reporting exercises for several conventions are mainly based on similar environmental data, it is important to streamline and harmonise reporting processes across different biodiversity-related conventions to allow countries to meet their reporting requirements and avoid duplication of work.

Furthermore, more communication is needed between the national focal points of biodiversity-related conventions to ensure a more coherent implementation of biodiversity-related commitments and optimise opportunities for synergies. This can be facilitated within existing institutional structures (such as steering groups within the CCIEP) but implies also the development of means at national level to enhance coordination and collaboration between biodiversity-related conventions’ focal points on planning, capacity-building, research, reporting, information systems, etc., i.e. through more sharing of information and experiences.

The decisions of biodiversity-related conventions must be implemented in a coherent and harmonised way. To this end, Belgium needs in the first place a global view of the package of decisions related to issues crosscutting different biodiversity-related conventions (such as deforestation, sustainable use of natural resources, inland waters, climate change, etc.) in order to use and distribute its resources in an optimal fashion. This overview will also help to identify mutual obligatory actions (projects can be designed jointly) and possible conflicting actions between the different biodiversity-related conventions.

One issue particularly relevant in this context is the issue of national reporting. National reports are useful tools to evaluate the degree of implementation of international agreements and to improve implementation. However, reports rarely meet these objectives.

As the national reporting exercises for several conventions are mainly based on similar environmental data, it is important to streamline and harmonise reporting processes across different biodiversity-related conventions to allow countries to meet their reporting requirements and avoid duplication of work.

Furthermore, more communication is needed between the national focal points of biodiversity-related conventions to ensure a more coherent implementation of biodiversity-related commitments and optimise opportunities for synergies. This can be facilitated within existing institutional structures (such as steering groups within the CCIEP) but implies also the development of means at national level to enhance coordination and collaboration between biodiversity-related conventions’ focal points on planning, capacity-building, research, reporting, information systems, etc., i.e. through more sharing of information and experiences.

The three Rio conventions address a number of common substantive and procedural issues. For example, measures to reduce negative impacts from deforestation are relevant to the implementation of the three conventions. Each of these conventions calls for capacity-building, scientific and technical cooperation, the development of specific national plans and strategies, periodic reporting, etc.

The rising impact of climate change on biodiversity as well as the effects of some actions to combat climate change may be relevant to the objectives of the CBD. On the other hand, protection of biodiversity can contribute to climate change mitigation (healthy forests, peat lands and other habitats can limit atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations by storing carbon) and can protect against natural hazards aggravated by climate change.

Desertification has significant impacts on biodiversity. It leads to decreasing soil productivity, has an impact on the hydrological cycle, has the potential to cause local extinction of wild species, etc.

It is important to check that projects initiated by Belgium are in line with the objectives and recommendations of the three Rio conventions. Indeed, numerous climate change, biodiversity or desertification projects face challenges beyond those of a single sector project.

For example, initiatives such as reforestation, adaptation and Clean Development Mechanism projects, as foreseen in the Kyoto Protocol in the framework of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, may have significant impacts on biodiversity and should be designed to enhance biodiversity or, at least, avoid negative impacts on biodiversity (for example by planting multiple species of native trees rather than monospecific plantations of exotic species). Supporting biodiversity to adapt to climate change is fundamental as well as enhancing positive effects of climate change mitigation measures to strengthen biodiversity’s resilience. But preventing and minimising potential negative impacts from certain climate change mitigation measures are as important, such as promotion and development of bio fuels and other forms of renewable energy sources. The external dimension of the relation between climate change and biodiversity should therefore be emphasised.

Therefore, Belgium will develop mechanisms to assess that projects initiated in the framework of one of the Rio conventions are in line with the requirements of the other two.

The three Rio conventions address a number of common substantive and procedural issues. For example, measures to reduce negative impacts from deforestation are relevant to the implementation of the three conventions. Each of these conventions calls for capacity-building, scientific and technical cooperation, the development of specific national plans and strategies, periodic reporting, etc.

The rising impact of climate change on biodiversity as well as the effects of some actions to combat climate change may be relevant to the objectives of the CBD. On the other hand, protection of biodiversity can contribute to climate change mitigation (healthy forests, peat lands and other habitats can limit atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations by storing carbon) and can protect against natural hazards aggravated by climate change.

Desertification has significant impacts on biodiversity. It leads to decreasing soil productivity, has an impact on the hydrological cycle, has the potential to cause local extinction of wild species, etc.

It is important to check that projects initiated by Belgium are in line with the objectives and recommendations of the three Rio conventions. Indeed, numerous climate change, biodiversity or desertification projects face challenges beyond those of a single sector project.

For example, initiatives such as reforestation, adaptation and Clean Development Mechanism projects, as foreseen in the Kyoto Protocol in the framework of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, may have significant impacts on biodiversity and should be designed to enhance biodiversity or, at least, avoid negative impacts on biodiversity (for example by planting multiple species of native trees rather than monospecific plantations of exotic species). Supporting biodiversity to adapt to climate change is fundamental as well as enhancing positive effects of climate change mitigation measures to strengthen biodiversity’s resilience. But preventing and minimising potential negative impacts from certain climate change mitigation measures are as important, such as promotion and development of bio fuels and other forms of renewable energy sources. The external dimension of the relation between climate change and biodiversity should therefore be emphasised.

Therefore, Belgium will develop mechanisms to assess that projects initiated in the framework of one of the Rio conventions are in line with the requirements of the other two.

The three Rio conventions address a number of common substantive and procedural issues. For example, measures to reduce negative impacts from deforestation are relevant to the implementation of the three conventions. Each of these conventions calls for capacity-building, scientific and technical cooperation, the development of specific national plans and strategies, periodic reporting, etc.

The rising impact of climate change on biodiversity as well as the effects of some actions to combat climate change may be relevant to the objectives of the CBD. On the other hand, protection of biodiversity can contribute to climate change mitigation (healthy forests, peat lands and other habitats can limit atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations by storing carbon) and can protect against natural hazards aggravated by climate change.

Desertification has significant impacts on biodiversity. It leads to decreasing soil productivity, has an impact on the hydrological cycle, has the potential to cause local extinction of wild species, etc.

It is important to check that projects initiated by Belgium are in line with the objectives and recommendations of the three Rio conventions. Indeed, numerous climate change, biodiversity or desertification projects face challenges beyond those of a single sector project.

For example, initiatives such as reforestation, adaptation and Clean Development Mechanism projects, as foreseen in the Kyoto Protocol in the framework of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, may have significant impacts on biodiversity and should be designed to enhance biodiversity or, at least, avoid negative impacts on biodiversity (for example by planting multiple species of native trees rather than monospecific plantations of exotic species). Supporting biodiversity to adapt to climate change is fundamental as well as enhancing positive effects of climate change mitigation measures to strengthen biodiversity’s resilience. But preventing and minimising potential negative impacts from certain climate change mitigation measures are as important, such as promotion and development of bio fuels and other forms of renewable energy sources. The external dimension of the relation between climate change and biodiversity should therefore be emphasised.

Therefore, Belgium will develop mechanisms to assess that projects initiated in the framework of one of the Rio conventions are in line with the requirements of the other two.