Environmental Networking Platform for Children and Youth by SAMSUNG E&A
Stay connected with Eco-generation :
| Share 
| 
- Home >
- Our Actions >
- Ambassador report
4
Comments
Global Biodiversity Framework Falls Short on Inclusion of Chemical Pollutants |
|---|
|
by Pranav Gaba | 21-06-2022 00:26
|
|
[MAY THEMATIC REPORT] Chemical pollutants threaten biodiversity. However, the complexity and totality of these pollutants remain insufficient as mentioned in the letter titled "Broaden Chemicals Scope in Biodiversity Targets" and initiated by members of the International Panel on Chemical Pollution. The authors of the letter urge decision makers to broaden the narrow scope of chemicals presently covered in the draft agreement ahead of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework negotiations taking place from June 21st to 26th,2022 in Nairobi, Kenya. The above letter has been published in the most recent issue of "Science" where environmental scientists, ecologists and policy experts argue that the proposed Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework -a new international agreement to protect biodiversity- fails to account for the totality of chemical pollutants that threaten the health of ecosystems worldwide. 'As per lead authors Gabriel Sigmund, group leader in the Centre for Microbiology and Environmental Systems Science at the University of Vienna, and Ksenia Groh, head of the bio analytics group at EAWAG, "The draft agreement falls short by limiting itself to nutrients, pesticides and plastics, while many chemicals of high concern and importance are left out of the equation - including substances that are persistent and toxic, such as Mercury and PFAS, as well as pharmaceuticals".' The chemical pollutants affect organisms in the environment both directly and indirectly and can thus lead to the decline or even extinction of sensitive species. For example, populations of Orca whales off the coast of Brazil, Canada, Gibraltar and Japan are threatened due to high concentrations of industrial chemicals in their bodies. "Many highly problematic chemicals that pollute the environment and thus threaten the diversity of animal and plant species are simply overlooked" adds Ksenia Groh. This leads to us assuming that the agreement does not do justice to the immense diversity of man-made chemicals. Toxic metals, industrial chemicals and chemicals from consumer goods have not been taken into account in the draft agreement of the post-2020 Global Biodiversity framework. The researchers believe that joint efforts by interdisciplinary research teams are essential. "Despite this, neither the scientific community nor the funding agencies have yet fully-recognised or adequately responded to this necessity," says Gabriel Sigmund, "but the available evidence already justifies extending the scope of chemicals considered by the Biodiversity Convention to a broader range of chemical pollutants." The post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework is a new strategic plan to guide international policy decisions on biodiversity till 2030. References:- 1. Staff, S. X. (2022, June 16). New global biodiversity framework falls short on inclusion of chemical pollutants, say environmental experts. Phys.Org. https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2022-06-global-biodiversity-framework-falls-short.amp
|
|
|
|
|
|
Youth
Pranav Gaba
Previous : Soil Pollution
4 Comments
Hello Pranav, this is your mentor Chelwoon.
When launching new businesses, and constructing new buildings or plants, we must get permissions for regulations, such as environmental regulations. In order to obtain them., we have to assess the environmental impacts. If a company plans to construct a new processing plant dealing with chemical substances, they must assess it based on “Broanden Chemicals Scope in Biodiversity Targets“ mentioned in this article. If they fail to do so,, they will be not able to produce the necessary permissions from the government to launch their project.
Thank you for the article!
Regards,
Chelwoon
Posted 30-06-2022 12:24
Alright Joon Mentor! I got it
Thank you so much
Green Cheers!
Posted 27-06-2022 22:11
Hello Pranav, this is your mentor Joon.
If you have used the words of other person ad verbum, than you do not need to put any footnote on the content of the article. Rather, just gently mention it on the reference on the end of the article. For instance, you have wrote
References:-
1. Staff, S. X. (2022, June 16). New global biodiversity framework falls short on inclusion of chemical pollutants, say environmental experts. Phys.Org. https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2022-06-global-biodiversity-framework-falls-short.amp
For ad verbum citation, no changes have to be made on article, but write it like
References:-
1. Staff, S. X. (2022, June 16). New global biodiversity framework falls short on inclusion of chemical pollutants, say environmental experts. Phys.Org. https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2022-06-global-biodiversity-framework-falls-short.amp
2. Gabriel Sigmund(Date), (Its original Source), (website link if there's any)
Thanks!
Posted 25-06-2022 15:16
Dear Mentors,
Greetings of the Day!
Hope you're doing fine.
Through the comment section, today I wanted to ask something in context of citing a report.
Actually, I am a little confused when it comes to citing. In this report, I have written a statement given by Gabriel Sigmund ad verbum. But I am really confused as how to refer and cite it properly.
Therefore, I request you to kindly guide me on how to give proper citation by means of the comment section if that's possible for you.
Green Cheers!
Pranav
Posted 21-06-2022 01:37