IPLCs

Download the whole issue as pdf

Legal, sustainable and safe use of biodiversity is a right of IPLCs

Community Leaders Network, Resource Africa, Namibian Association of CBNRM Support Organizations (NACSO) and African CSOs Biodiversity Alliance (ACBA)

 

While sustainable use is one of the three objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), it remains in the shadows of the other objectives, especially the one on conservation. The Aichi Targets failed to deliver on sustainable use because of a disproportionate focus on conservation. Sustainable use it's about community ownership. And it is a positive, holistic approach to addressing biodiversity loss.

For sub-Saharan countries, sustainable use is not theoretical. It is the heart of local and national economies. It supports cultural and religious beliefs and livelihoods. It powerfully embraces conservation and benefit sharing -neither is viable without the other. Especially where the majority of the population is rural, it is a tool for empowerment of IPLCs. These rural populations understand the complexity of living with and managing biodiversity. In a globalised world where economic volatility is exacerbated by climate change, for rural communities the legal, sustainable and safe use of biodiversity is a vital safety net. So, why is #COP15 keeping sustainable use under the radar? This is because sustainable use is being labelled ‘backward’ when in fact, it continues to deliver major conservation and livelihood benefits.

Customary use is a part of sustainable use. To make “sustainable use” synonymous with “customary use” undermines the contribution of biodiversity to local and national economic activities. Africa cannot be reduced to a continent reliant only on a subsistence economy. We strongly urge COP15 to cast the sustainable, safe and legal use of biodiversity in a positive light and recognise and respect its broader contribution to the wellbeing of Africans.

 

“Nature Positive”: the new “con” in conservation

Simon Counsell, Advisor to Survival International

 

There has clearly been strong pressure from business lobbyists such as WBCSD and Business for Nature, along with certain big conservation corporations, for inclusion of the term ‘Nature Positive’ in the mission of the GBF. This slogan sounds nice, but could mark a serious step backward in achieving the objectives of the CBD.

“A Nature Positive world” is not a science-based aim like keeping climate change to 1.5 degrees. It moves the CBD away from its precisely defined mission concerning biodiversity to the very imprecise term “nature” – which has long been understood to be a cultural construct rather than a measurable object. It pitches the GBF into the realm of subjectivity, uncertainty and potential abuse. The separation it implies between humans and nature is widely discredited and alien to  manycommunities especially Indigenous Peoples. It begs many questions as to whose nature is being referred to, and what it means in terms of, say, genetic diversity, endangered species, endangered populations, ecosystems, biomes etc. Similar problems bedevil the term “nature recovery”.

Proponents of “Nature Positive” claim that it is “measurable”, though the massive list of things they say would have to be monitored is, in reality, highly implausible. For conservation organisations, perhaps “nature positive” helps sidestep the problem that the intended near-doubling of protected areas to 30% will not necessarily help biodiversity much, though it’ll certainly involve a lot of “nature”. For large corporations it could serve a similar role as misleading “net zero” does on climate. Corporate claims to “nature positivity” could involve almost anything involving living organisms, and conceal any amount of damage to actual biodiversity.

“Nature positivity” in fact invites a torrent of corporate greenwashing and false “solutions” rather than meaningful science-based action to protect biodiversity. It is the ultimate “nature based solution” – a solution to the problem of how to avoid any accountability for impacts. It offers a “contribution”: a mere part in place of the whole of biodiversity. It has no place in the GBF and should be rejected.

The original and extended version of this article is available at: https://redd-monitor.org/2022/12/07/nature-positive-the-new-con-in-cons…

 

Civil society organizations call CBD to strengthen precaution on geoengineering

Laura Dunn and Silvia Ribeiro, ETC Group

 

Ninety-one national and international organizations from forty countries released an open letter calling on the CBD and its Parties to reinforce the existing landmark decisions and moratorium on the deployment of climate geoengineering technologies.

Precautionary decisions from the CBD are more necessary than ever as geoengineering experiments increase. These experiments threaten land and marine ecosystems, the climate, the rights of Indigenous peoples and local communities around the world. Recently, Australia and the UK have conducted open-air solar and marine geoengineering experiments without reporting these activities to the UN. Other experiments in Sweden and Alaska have been blocked by Indigenous peoples and civil society organizations.

In an extremely concerning move, a body of the Paris Agreement on climate change, has proposed several geoengineering technologies as potential sources for carbon credits. Opposition from civil society stopped the decision, but the discussion is ongoing. This proposal (2) disregards the precautionary calls from the CBD and the fact that the London Convention on ocean dumping is evaluating these techniques for potential “adverse impacts on the marine environment”. The letter calls for the following:

• Parties to the CBD must affirm precaution and prevent geoengineering from harming biodiversity, the environment, the climate, the rights of Indigenous peoples and the human rights of local communities and recall past CBD decisions against geoengineering.
• COP 15 must ensure that geoengineering (including "Nature Based Solutions") is explicitly excluded from the Global Biodiversity Framework and any other decisions on marine biodiversity and climate at COP15.
• The CBD Secretariat should proactively reach out to all other UN bodies discussing geoengineering to share relevant CBD decisions, highlighting the need for precautionary approach.
• Parties to the CBD must require countries to report on any geoengineering initiative taken in or by their countries.

Sign the letter at: https://forms.gle/CYDrJZTdPSa5yCRb8

(1) Available at: http://bit.ly/3WaqpeT
(2) Available at: https://bit.ly/3hrMKWy

 

Centering Human Rights in the global biodiversity agenda

Cristina Eghenter, WWF International

 

COP15 of the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD) is in the final week of negotiations on the next global biodiversity framework. Resource mobilization and DSI need to be resolved in effective and just ways. Human rights and equity need to be centered in the framework and its implementation. For people and nature, the stakes have never been higher.

For biodiversity conservation and the resilience of life systems, a human rights-based approach (HRBA) is an essential and enabling condition. A global commitment to transform a development model that has undermined biodiversity for the benefit of a few, is urged by civil society, Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs), women and youth. HRBA recognizes and empowers all custodians of biodiversity and rights holders who have too often been neglected, “invisible” in biodiversity decision- and policy-making. Without Indigenous Peoples, local communities, women, and other custodians of land, water and life, we cannot heal our broken relationship with nature.

Applying human rights to halt and reverse biodiversity loss requires deep transformation of production and consumption. Businesses need to adhere to both environmental and human rights standards. Governance systems need to be inclusive, embedding the knowledge and institutions of those rights holders who are most dependent on biodiversity, and its best custodians. IPLCs, women and girls and youth need to be empowered, supported with adequate resources, and equal partners in any planning and decision-making impact on their lives, waters and territories. The Montreal negotiators must deliver on their good intentions, with strong and effective rights-based rules, to realize the vision of an ecological harmony between humanity and nature. Only by doing so can we bequeath future generations a thriving planet.

 

Download the full pdf of ECO 65(2)

30x30 Target – sanctioning extractive tourism and human rights violations in Africa?

Mariam Mayet and Linzi Lewis, African Centre for Biodiversity (Acbio)

 

The 30x30 Target of the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) entrenches a catastrophic conservation paradigm by sanctioning and further entrenching a fortress conservation model, built on colonial conservation laws and practices.

Many countries in Africa have exceptionally vast areas of land devoted to protected areas. For example, the area under conservation in Tanzania (307, 800 sq km) is equivalent to 32.5% of the country - almost the size of Italy.

The establishment and expansion of protected areas have and continue to come at significant costs to local communities, including large-scale land dispossessions and evictions, separating people from their ancestral lands, and destroying livelihoods and cultures.

Since Africa holds much of the world’s intact biodiversity, what will the 30x30 target mean for the continent and its people by 2030? In African countries such as Tanzania, the evictions of the Masaai from the Ngorongoro Conservation area, and the impending evictions of the Sadaani and other farming communities are tied to the burgeoning extractive tourism industry. Investors are exploiting these very places with an assortment of destructive development projects, as profits are raked in by governments and an elitist tourist industry.

Currently, the GBF has relegated all references to human rights and Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) to Section B.bis, substantially weakening human rights. If indicators are only for targets, how will human rights' safeguards be measured?

The trajectory of the GBF does not augur well for Africa, where there already exists a long history of gross human rights violations and a lack of accountability from its leaders.

We continue to demand a complete overhaul of the global conservation paradigm, to one that recognises and respects traditional and sustainable uses, rights, and practices of all people, and especially Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities, including smallholder food producers, pastoralists, and fishing communities.

 

Why should UNDROP be in the Global Biodiversity Framework?

International Planning Committee for Food Sovereignty (IPC)

 

IPBES and the FAO have repeatedly asserted the critical and longstanding role of Indigenous Peoples and smallholders as custodians of biodiversity, and yet the CBD has no recognized constituency for small-scale food producers.

In 2018, the rights of smallholders were enshrined in international law with the ratification of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas (UNDROP). It joins the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in safeguarding the rights of the world’s most
important custodians of biodiversity, and any new framework that relies on or affects Indigenous Peoples and/or smallholders must be in accordance with both UNDRIP and UNDROP.

This is the first biodiversity COP since UNDROP was ratified in 2018, and it is time to recognise and protect smallholders as distinct rights holders by referencing UNDROP in the new GBF, and by recognising small-scale food producers as a formal constituency of the CBD alongside Indigenous Peoples.

UNDROP defines a peasant as: “any person who engages or who seeks to engage alone, or in association with others or as a community, in small-scale agricultural production for subsistence and/or for the market, and who relies significantly, though not necessarily exclusively, on family or household labor and other non-monetized ways of organizing labor, and who has a special dependency on and attachment to the land” (UN 2019, 4-5).

UNDROP “applies to any person engaged in artisanal or small-scale agriculture, crop planting, livestock raising, pastoralism, fishing, forestry, hunting or gathering, and handicrafts related to agriculture or a related occupation in a rural area. It also applies to dependent family members of peasants.”

Food production, processing, distribution and consumption must be addressed together in the GBF and the best way to do it is to allow small-scale food producers to play a crucial role in the CBD space. For this reason, UNDROP can represent the opportunity to open a space to safeguard the rights of Peasants and Local Communities, while UNDRIP will continue to ensure the rights of Indigenous Peoples.

 

Negotiate to make the Biodiversity Framework Global

Documentation and Information Network for Indigenous Peoples' Sustainability (DINIPS.org)

 

The Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) proposed by the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) can help reverse anthropogenic decline in ecological health across oceans and borders. If the CBD negotiates with Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities ́ (IPLCs) representative institutions and their multilateral organizations as respectfully as it negotiates with ungoverned economic interests and their financial institutions, which are not internationally regulated, this UN Framework might be truly global. The Framework proposed by the UN should separate the financial matters from the scientific measurements of Framework progress toward a global position of shared biodiversity strength.

While ecological economies have demonstrated great success in mainstreaming the science of biodiversity protection into local economic decisions, financial economies are governed by markets, many of which depend on social studies of distant supply and demand. Tenure secures rights and responsibilities interpreted by people and their communities. IPLCs ́ managed areas are not necessarily public or private. When States or businesses impose external economic measures on IPLCs ́ areas, biodiversity is lost. Involvement in forced financialization or monetization of IPLCs ́ waters, lands or winds should be ended by CBD Parties. UN Members and entities have to demonstrate respect for the rule of international law.

States breach core UN instruments and most planetary boundaries when they seize these collectively-administered areas successful in biodiversity protection. Too often when States seize such areas, they are then transferred to the control of private or state enterprises that appear to develop financial profits through the said seizure. Laws at all levels that fulfill Rio Principle 10 should be applied to investigate these “profits” for fraud and corruption as we do not see real wealth generated by such legerdemain, though some individuals seem to pocket currency as a result. Nevertheless, the financial pledges and contributions seem to include wealth that does not really exist.

While some CBD parties do respect the rule of law and implement the UN Charter and human rights treaties, including ILO C169, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and UN Declaration on the Rights of Peasants, some States continue to cause biodiversity loss by simultaneously oppressing biodiversity protectors and claiming credit for their work.

IPLCs are not necessarily represented by the State and a GBF is not complete without negotiating with the most successful biodiversity protectors. Implementation of CBD Article 8 is essential to the protection of biodiversity. However, fulfillment of this article alone does not excuse the CBD from negotiating with representative institutions of IPLCs who operate within a legal rather than a market framework, and who are accountable to their constituencies. To achieve a truly GBF, the CBD should acknowledge that contributions can only be increased by negotiating with ecological contributors at least as effectively as it does with financial contributors.

 

Indigenous activists interrupted Canada's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, demanding land rights and justice for Indigenous Peoples in Canada

Indigenous Climate Action

Indigenous youth interrupted Justin Trudeau's opening address to COP15 by singing and drumming while Trudeau was in the middle of boasting about the great biodiversity of Indigenous lands stolen by Canada. We declared him a colonizer.

It's hypocritical for Canada to host an international gathering for biodiversity protection while driving biodiversity loss on Indigenous lands that they have never lawfully occupied. We held up a banner that read: “Indigenous genocide=ecocide To save biodiversity stop invading our lands.”

With articles in today's ECO on IPLCs, voices of artisanal fishers, Rights of Mother Earth, GBF, Target 8, DSI, synbio, marine protected areas, implementation mechanism, BRI and the question of 'What would be a good COP outcome for Africa"?

Download the full pdf

There can be no agreement to save nature without inclusion of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities

 

International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity (IIFB)

Any agreement from COP15 of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) must respect, promote and support the rights of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs) if it stands any chance of succeeding.

“As global citizens, we are all part of, and not separate from, nature”, said Lakpa Nuri Sherpa, Co-Chair of the IIFB, and programme lead at AIPP (Asia), speaking in Montreal as COP15 opens. “As Indigenous Peoples, we have been custodians of our lands, territories and waters for millennia – and evidence shows our lands are among the most biodiverse on the planet” he said.

Ramiro Batzin, Co-Chair of the IIFB, and representing Latin America, said “by respecting the territoriality of Indigenous Peoples, respecting our knowledge and our contributions, the Global Biodiversity Framework – including targets to en-
sure humanity lives in harmony with nature – will succeed!”.
“A human rights-based approach is crucial to a successful Global Biodiversity Framework”, said Lucy Mulenkei, Co-Chair of the IIFB, Africa. “Recognition and respect of the rights of the communities is crucial.”

IIFB notes that the implementation of the GBF must be based on scientific and other evidence, recognizing the role of science, technology and innovation and that of other knowledge and innovation systems including traditional knowledge, practices, and technologies, while respecting the principles of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC).

The IIFB further noted that “the implementation of the GBF must ensure that the rights, knowledge, innovations and practices of IPLCs are respected, preserved and maintained with their FPIC, including through their full and effective participation in decision-making in accordance with national legislation, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and international human rights ins-
truments.” We encourage all Parties to the CBD to enshrine the rights of IPLCs within the GBF and adopt a framework that truly will allow humanity to live in harmony with nature by 2050.

Join us for a press conference with the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity: 7 December 2022, 14:00 Montreal Time at Room 220D, Palais des Congres, COP15 | Online at: www.cbd.int/live Contact: Alice Mathew
(ecila.mathew@gmail.com); Tom Dixon (tdixon@forestpeoples.org; WA: +44 7876 397915)

 

What does a good Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework look like for Africa?

Simangele Msweli and Yemi Katerere, African Wildlife Foundation & African CSOs
Biodiversity Alliance

 

Amid the biodiversity crisis Africa still supports ±25% of the world’s biodiversity that provides global public goods and crucial ecosystem services for Africa’s local and national economies. Since the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) will be adopted during the 15th Conference of the Parties on the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD COP15), outcomes of COP15 are significant for Africa, a continent under pressure to develop to meet the needs of its people.

We want GOOD COP outcomes for Africa and the world. BAD COP outcomes are not an option. For Africa, GOOD COP outcomes must include, amongst other elements,
the following:

• Acknowledgement that the biodiversity crisis cannot be addressed when global and national-level inequities and injustices remain unresolved;
• An area- based conservation target aligned with country priorities and to be implemented in accordance with the rights of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs);
• Sustainable use is guaranteed in the Post-2020 GBF in line with provisions in the CBD and Nagoya Protocol and is not reduced to customary use
• A target that calls on governments to develop legally binding public policy to hold businesses accountable on how they access, report and decrease their impacts on biodiversity;
• The COP adopts a target to close the biodiversity financing gap currently estimated at $700 billion and ensures money gets to local actors;
• The GBF targets must ensure effective and equitable participation of IPLCS, Women and Youth and end the historical marginalization of these groups.

 

Mother Earth has Rights too

Rachel Bustamante, Earth Law Center

 

COP15 is a defining moment and historical opportunity to restore a relationship of care and stewardship with biodiversity -the very turning point of continuing ‘business as usual’ or living in harmony with Mother Earth. To safeguard the well-being of humanity and Nature, for today and for future generations, we support the adoption of Rights of Mother Earth in Targets 11, 15 and 19.1.

How we value Nature is tightly linked to society’s use and care for Nature and biodiversity. In the IPBES 2022 Values Assessment, relevant literature and diverse voices highlight the growing need for transformative change and the integration of diverse values of Nature into law and policy. Rights of Mother Earth (also known as Rights of Nature) acknowledges Nature’s role as the source of all life, and supports and amplifies diverse ontologies to help restore our relationship with Mother Earth and her biodiversity to balance, reciprocity and holism.

Integrating diverse values of Nature into our legal framework will help transform conservation. Rights of Mother Earth will signify a non-binding but innovative approach to centralize an ethic of reciprocal responsibilities, interconnection and care into our legal, governance and economic systems. In turn, this will help us restore humanity’s relationship with biodiversity, safeguard human rights, and reach our Sustainable Development Goals by protecting the ecosystems that support all life. This is a pivotal opportunity to provide Mother Earth with representation and respect, as it will help catalyze a paradigm shift in how we value and care for biodiversity.

Join our event hosted by Earth Law Center and Keystone Species Alliance on December 8 | 12pm in the Nature Positive Pavilion Large Room on Restoring our Relationship with Keystone Species. And read our recommendation for Rights of Mother Earth at: http://shorturl.at/nFOQ6

 

COP 15: an opportunity to hear the voice of the world’s artisanal fishers, their contributions to the 2030 Agenda and the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework

Marvin Fonseca Borras and Vivienne Solís Rivera, CoopeSoliDar R.L

 

The year 2022 was declared by the United Nations as the International Year of small-scale Fisheries and Aquaculture (IYAFA). Looking back at what has happened on the planet, few milestones to celebrate are identified, largely due to the setbacks that occurred on the issues of participation and post-pandemic digital breach, which impacted more on the representatives of civil society and local and indigenous groups.

The 15th Conference of the Parties on the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD COP 15) represents the last important event on the international agenda this year where we can listen to and advocate for the voice of artisanal fishers to be heard and for their needs and contributions to be reflected in the 2030 Agenda and the Post-2020 GBF.

Recent international meetings on conservation and sustainable use of the sea have been characterized by recognizing the importance of the participation of artisanal fishermen, especially when discussing issues that affect their territories of life, such as the 30 x 30 target and others. It is clear that conservation without a human rights-based approach, nor the exercise of the right to free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) by Indigenous, afro-descendant and local communities will not be possible, nor will it provide the expected results at the planetary level.

From the voice of the world’s artisanal fishers, the guiding thread in the international agenda has been the position paper defined by “A CALL TO ACTION for small-scale artisanal fisheries”, elaborated by the  movement of artisanal fishers from around the world, including the Confederation of African Organisations of Artisanal Fishers (CAOPA), the International Network of Locally Managed Marine Areas (LMMA), the Network of Responsible Fishing Areas and Marine Territories of Life, among others (see more information at https://www.cffacape.org/ssf-call-to-action).

The Call to Action is based on five major work objectives:

• Preferential access and co-management of 100% of the coastal zones;
• Ensuring women’s participation and supporting their role in innovation;
• Protecting SSFs from competing blue economy sectors;
• Being transparent and accountable in fisheries management and governance;
• Ensure resilient communities to cope with climate change and offer prospects for youth.

COP 15 is an opportunity to listen to the voices of artisanal fishermen and their contributions to the conservation of global diversity. We invite the entire international community to listen to the voices of artisanal fishermen from around the world, raising their needs, but above all, building bridges that would allow the planet to move forward together on the issues of marine conservation and development, under a human rights approach. Join us on December 10, 16-17.30h Montreal time, in Room 512E at COP 15.

 

Target 8, imaginary gigatonnes, and the Land Gap

Doreen Stabinsky, Climate, Land, Ambition & Rights Alliance

 

Target 8 of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) is where the nexus of climate change and biodiversity is to be captured. Climate change is a serious and growing threat to biodiversity and a GBF target on climate change is logical. Yet instead of focusing the target on the most important action needed to stop climate change and its impacts on biodiversity -ending the burning of fossil fuels- the target sets a quantitative goal for the contribution that “biodiversity” is supposed to make to climate action: “[contributing [by 2030] to at least 10 Gt CO2 equivalent per year to global mitigation efforts].”

What are the implications of “contributing” 10 Gt CO2-eq each year for land, biodiversity, Indigenous Peoples, and local communities? Scientists have estimated that the average amount of carbon that can be responsibly sequestered in natural ecosystems each year over the  course of the century is a little over 4 Gt CO2 . That difference between 4 and 10 Gt CO2 is an example of a “land gap”, a gap between what is possible and what is imagined that land and ecosystems might contribute to global mitigation efforts.

The recent Land Gap Report reviews country pledges under the Paris Agreement for what their land sectors might contribute to global mitigation. It finds that:

• The total amount of land-based carbon removal included in pledges is unrealistic, almost 1.2 billion hectares, an amount equivalent to current global cropland.
• Half of the land pledged for climate mitigation (633 million hectares) involved land-use change, primarily through plantations, with large potential impacts for ecosystems, food security, and the rights of Indigenous Peoples.
• Climate pledges should focus instead on restoring ecosystems and maintaining the integrity and stability of existing ecosystems, including by recognizing the critical role played by Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities in protecting them.

According to one of the authors, “instead of trying to save the planet with imaginary trees”, or in the case of target 8, imaginary gigatonnes of carbon dioxide, the most important contribution to climate change in the land sector will be through protecting and restoring existing ecosystems.

 

All CBD watchdogs should guard against synthetic biology threats to biodiversity

Adam Breasley, Foundation of Future Farming

 

COP Decision 14/19  on synthetic biology sets important preconditions for any environmental release of gene drive organisms. This includes developing specific guidance on risk assessment of gene drive organisms at the Cartagena Protocol and obtaining Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) where gene drive organisms may impact on Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities' (IPLCs) “traditional knowledge, innovations, practices, livelihoods and use of their lands and waters”. It is still unclear who would develop such guidance on risk assessment of gene drives and what range of concerns would be included.

COP decision 14/33  on “procedure for avoiding or managing conflicts of interest in expert groups” was the result of freedom of information disclosures by civil society. It revealed that gene drive proponents improperly interfered in CBD expert deliberations to push through approval of gene drives without independent scientific assessment. A Canadian public relations firm engaged by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation coordinated this. Those defrauding expert deliberations attempted to delegitimize scientific concerns raised, and would shut down any formal consideration of socio-economic, cultural and ethical impacts, or concerns of IPLCs. The subject of FPIC is still weak in COP decision 14/19, which says only FPIC “may be warranted” “where applicable in accordance with national circumstances and legislation.”

A new self-proclaimed “academia and research group” in Montreal posing as a major group appears to have been initiated by the same organizers exposed in the above mentioned decision. Such contemptuous tactics highlight the need for integrity and genuine inclusivity in the global governance of genetic technologies. Obscurantism in regulatory oversight of genetic technologies tries to conceal that these technologies allow for extensive manipulation of the genome of many more species.

With greater potential for unintended on and off-target effects, new genetic technologies require more precaution and democratic oversight. For that we need all CBD watchdogs to remain alert and at their posts.

 

One step forward, two steps backward – will Parties come to an agreement?

Friedrich Wulf, Friends of the Earth Europe

 

Here we are at the junction of the two parts of the Montreal Biodiversity Conference. OEWG5
finished its work and submitted its results to COP15. The task was to resolve the remaining brackets in the six different Contact groups. Watching and listening to the discussions, it seems that while a few brackets could be lifted, many more new ones were added. This is of concern – if negotiations continue at this pace, no agreement can be reached. And this despite a four year-effort of getting opinions on board through a broad participatory process. It almost seems that having such a process has rather made differences clearer than actually creating consensus on how to save biodiversity.

While there are some differences on which way to go – for example whether to make agriculture sustainable through “agroecological approaches” or through “sustainable intensification” and techno-fixes, many of the suggested alternative wordings are quite similar. The basic structure of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) and the main content seem to be more or less clear. And the Post-2020 GBF has the potential to improve compared to the previous strategic plan. The new framework will anchor human rights much more strongly, and address the economy and the drivers in an unprecedented way and thus create the potential for transformative change. Its enhanced implementation mechanism will allow us to get a better understanding which levers to apply to move ahead, if it follows a harmonized structure, a peer review at national level and a ratcheting moment which gives implementation an additional push.

What Parties need to do now is to make every effort to overcome the differences and seek compromise on the smaller things, in order to reap the fruit of the immense labor that has been done so far. ECO counts on you.

 

What are the benefits of a comprehensive mechanism for the implementation, monitoring, reporting and review of the CBD and the GBF?

Ioannis Agapakis, ClientEarth

 

Parties often approach transparency and accountability in the context of Multilateral Environmental Agreements with hesitation, or even apprehension. Yet, far from a naming-and-shaming exercise (for which they are often mistaken), such processes build a sense of collective responsibility and mutual trust towards a common objective. When it comes to the CBD, it should not be forgotten that biodiversity constitutes a common concern of humankind, and an existential pillar of humanity’s future survival, further underscoring why the outcome of these negotiations should constitute a call for coordinated and bold action that leaves no Party alone in the daunting task of effectively tackling the biodiversity crisis.
Mechanisms for the planning, implementation, monitoring, reporting and review of the CBD (and, in consequence, the Global Biodiversity Framework -GBF) represent the tool, through which global and individual action towards that common objective can be catalysed. If structured in the form of an Enhanced Implementation Cycle, such processes can prove extremely beneficial for all Parties, particularly so for developing ones.

Nationally, National Biodiversity Strategies and Plans of Action (NBSAPs) adopted as whole-of-government policy instruments have the untapped potential to harmonise executive decision-making and mainstream biodiversity into all sectors, thus compounding the positive biodiversity impacts of Parties’ actions. Simultaneously, they are key in empowering all members of civil society (particularly rights holders, such as Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities, women, youth) to fulfil their central role for the GBF, and contribute to the identification of national priorities, coverage of knowledge gaps and the verification of Parties’ progress, and further optimisation of implementation efforts.

Simultaneously, a global review of progress shall serve as a collective learning experience, enabling decision-makers to identify common or repeated implementation gaps and shortcomings and unlock additional means of implementation needed to overcome them. Through a country-by-country review process this can even lead to the provision of recommendations and assistance tailored to Parties’ specific needs.

 

Is the BRI in line with an “ecological civilization?”

Whose future counts?

Allison Constantine, Global Forest Coalition

China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), hailed as being a new strategy to connect the world with Asia through various forms of trade, suffers from a lack of transparency around some of its more negative impacts. Worryingly, human rights abuses and environmental concerns (including massive risk for biodiversity) are often left unaddressed, as a new briefing paper by the Global Forest Coalition analyses.

Disasters including flooding, landslides, deforestation and involuntary displacement have ensued, and many Indigenous Peoples have expressed concerns over lack of consultation. While IIFB and others aligned with Indigenous Peoples at CBD COP15 demand Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) and respect for Indigenous rights and traditional knowledge to be included in biodiversity frameworks going forward, when it comes to the BRI, on-the-ground consultation is not required or encouraged during planning and implementation stages of BRI construction and Indigenous Peoples’ concerns are often ignored. Additionally, any meaningful gender analysis is also altogether missing from most, if not all, BRI project stages. Women and gender-diverse people, especially those from Indigenous and rural
communities, are often disproportionately affected by harmful development – without gender analysis we cannot see exactly how they are impacted.

All of this considered, we need to ask: how exactly are BRI projects supporting an “ecological civilization” as proposed by China during the 2021 CBD? How are biodiversity loss and human rights abuses, the lack of FPIC with Indigenous Peoples, and lack of gender-responsiveness congruous with “building a shared future for all life on Earth” if the concerns of some are heavily prioritized over others? While the voices of those who are made most marginalized are continuously ignored on the global stage, we must ask: Whose lives count to world leaders? Ultimately, divestment from all harmful BRI projects is necessary if we are to make any progress in the protection of biodiversity and human rights globally.

The briefing paper “Is the BRI Congruous with COP15's Promise of an “Ecological Civilisation? A Study on the Initiative’s Impacts on Gender Justice, Indigenous Rights, and Biodiversity” can be downloaded at: www.globalforestcoalition.org

This special issue of ECO contains articles that address content related to the discussions around the High Level Summit on Biodiversity and the process towards the adoption of a post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework