Nobody is in favor of extinction and all countries have laws intended to reduce extinction risks for native species of plants and animals (although never explicitly microbes, as far as I know). Zero extinction at the national scale is potentially achievable for plants, at least in the temperate zone, and is an implicit target for birds and other vertebrates for most countries. But does any country have a broader commitment to zero extinction for all (or all non-microbial) native taxa?
I expected Bhutan, New Zealand, and Sweden! How is New Zealand's commitment worded? How broad is it?
France : According to data from the Global Red List of IUCN, France is one of the host countries for the largest number of animal species and globally threatened plants. This situation is mainly due to species found in French overseas territories, which are home to a very high level of biodiversity.
France thus bears a primary responsibility at global and European levels to halt extinction of biodiversity. This counntry had therefore strengthen its action at the national level (with the Law for the recovery of diversity, nature and landscapes presented to the Council of Ministers on 26 March 2014 and definitively adopted by Parliament on 20 July 2016, the Government is strengthening and renewing public policies in favour of biodiversity) and at the international level (implementation of international agreements...).
Sweden introduced a huge piece of legislation in 1998 (updated from previous legislation with the addition to new legislation) concerning environmental factors such as protecting species, avoiding invasive species, environments and their health, cultural heritage and similar. In Swedish it is called 'Miljöbalken' (it can be read in Swedish or translated from this link http://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/miljobalk-1998808_sfs-1998-808 ).
Chapter 8 of this legislation is about the protection of species diversity. The first part of this chapter translated to English (with google translate for simplicity, so take the translation with a grain of salt):
"Provisions prohibiting the killing, harming, catching or disturbing of wild animals in the country or part of the country or removing or damaging the eggs, rum or nests of such animals or damaging or destroying such reproductive areas and resting places may be notified by the government or authority which the government decides. Such regulations may be issued if there is a risk that a wildly-living animal species may disappear or be subjected to looting or if it is required to fulfill Sweden's international commitments for the protection of such a species. However, the prohibition may not apply to cases where such an animal must be killed, injured, caught or disturbed in defense against attacks on persons or valuable property." There is a similar section in the second part of this chapter dealing with plants instead of animals.
Ecuador's constitution of 2008 codified "los derechos de la naturaleza" - essentially rights of wildlife and natural areas to exist. Extinction per se is not mentioned but it is implicit in rights of nature. The prolem of course is implimentation. When the price of oil dropped from $100 to $50 a barrel, the Correa governemnt ignored its own constitution and began drilling in a protected area of the Yasuni Nation Park, the ITT tract, violating both the constituional protection of this national protected area and the un-contacted tribes that live in this area.
The constitution of the Communist Party of China - effectively China's constitution - has, since 2017, included this statement: 'The Communist Party of China shall lead the people in building a socialist ecological civilization. It shall strengthen the philosophy underlying ecological civilization that nature should be respected, adapted to, and protected; fully understand that lucid waters and lush mountains are invaluable assets; follow the fundamental national policy of conserving resources and protecting the environment; uphold the principle of prioritizing resource conservation and environmental protection and letting nature restore itself; and take a positive path to development that ensures increased production, higher living standards, and healthy ecosystems.' While I think that this sort of broad commitment to environmental values is important, since you can cite it when opposing environmental damage, a clear statement that a country is committed to preventing any extinctions would be a more useful tool for conservationists and teachers.
It is very important question for Indochina country, as Cambodia, for exemple.
Zéro it not realistic%, I think it is good 1-10%
Best regards
https://www.worldwildlife.org/stories/how-nepal-got-to-zero-poaching
I don't think a 'more-than-zero' target, as Marpha suggested, would work. Who would decide which extinctions were allowable under this extinction quota? It is also much easier to persuade people - even politicians - to target zero extinction than 1% extinction, or whatever the target was. Nobody is in favor of extinction and it is hard to argue that Cambodia would benefit from more extinctions. I think that, even in Cambodia, where, understandably, development is the priority, it would be better to set an 'unrealistic' aspirational target of zero and work towards achieving it. Balram's Nepal story shows what is possible, even in one of Asia's least developed countries. Interestingly, neighbouring Bhutan includes'ecological diversity and resilience' in its Gross National Happiness Index.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Zoology
- Ichthyology
- Vertebrates