Cartagena Protocol

CBDA COP15 Closing statement

Antje — Thu, 22 Dec 2022 16:45:07 +0000

CBDA COP15 Closing statement Antje 22 December, 2022

Thank you Mr President,
I am speaking on behalf of the CBD Alliance.

We regret the process by which the package was adopted early this morning. It was unjust and unfair. Decisions in this COP are adopted by consensus and we did not see consensus. Much more effort could have been made to arrive at consensus.

Mr President,
We welcome Targets 22 and 23 of the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) on rights, participation and gender, and will closely monitor their implementation. We also welcome language on the clear respect for the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities.

But we remain concerned that the GBF does not address root causes of biodiversity loss, and worse, systematically incorporates injustices. This could undermine these targets.

The cause of the biodiversity crisis is a system that places corporate profit and power over people and nature and allows corporate interests to influence the outcomes.

Our governments have regrettably ceded their responsibilities to regulate the private business and finance sector, only “encouraging and enabling” business to report and to label products, moving responsibility to consumers. These will not change the actual impact on biodiversity. There are no accountability measures or responsibility for damage done.

The interests of big agribusiness and the biotechnology industry have also permeated the GBF, with ‘innovation’ as a mantra for techno-fix approaches. There are no horizon scanning mechanisms to help ensure future technologies will not be damaging to biodiversity or people. Precaution has been sidelined.

Moreover, governments have invited corporate interests in, allowing developed country Parties to escape from their legally binding obligations to provide new and additional financial resources, by replacing it with private finance, blended finance and innovative financial schemes, including market-based mechanisms such as biodiversity offsets and credits.

The embrace of offsetting approaches, including Nature-Based Solutions, will not halt environmental damage and ecosystem loss. The promise to compensate for biodiversity loss, by protecting similar ecosystems elsewhere justifies continued biodiversity loss and allows business-as-usual, causing human rights violations and other injustices.

Equity is subverted in this framework. The financial amounts on the table are hugely insufficient, and do not acknowledge the ecological debt that the developed world owes to the poor.

The proposed Trust Fund to be established under the Global Environment Facility (GEF) means that all of the current problems will continue and even worsen. Whatever entity is eventually designated as the Global Biodiversity Fund should not allow the private sector and philanthropic foundations to become part of the governance structure, allowing for unfettered influence of unaccountable entities.

This framework will not deliver substantive transformational change, therefore it is not ambitious. We cannot solve the biodiversity crisis using the same system that caused it.

Thank you.

Publication date

20 December, 2022

ECO 65(11)

Antje — Sun, 18 Dec 2022 16:14:34 +0000

ECO 65(11) Antje 18 December, 2022

Download the full issue as pdf

Snowman to snow-mess: negotiations at COP15 are opening doors to risky technologies

Nithin Ramakrishnan, Third World Network

An avalanche of heated discussions accompanied the first snowfall of this winter in Montreal. Regarding synthetic biology and target 17, the texts currently being discussed fall short on establishing robust international rules to govern biotechnology.

The inability to reach consensus, coupled with biased steering from those chairing discussions has severely weakened the text. While the government of Canada hosts a snowman building competition, negotiators of target 17 replace the “spirit of compromise” with a messy snowball fight of finger pointing.

As a result, several of the concerns raised by civil society organisations working on the issues of synthetic biology and biotechnology remain unresolved. For example, the lack of a biotechnology related target that establishes a process for horizon scanning, technology assessment and monitoring and considers socioeconomic impacts of synthetic biology reinforces the need for a global moratorium on the environmental release of gene drives.

It seems that the GBF as it stands today is blindfolded. It will not be able to see further and enable the assessment and monitoring of the potential adverse impacts of biotechnology and synthetic biology. In the case of gene drives, that once released, cannot be controlled, contained, reversed or recalled, this lack of international agreement poses critical threats to biodiversity and human rights.

It seems that the GBF will guarantee neither that new technologies are approached with precaution, nor that countries are equipped with the right tools to assess them. Therefore, their release must be halted. For more information, access the text of the manifesto for a global moratorium on the environmental release of gene drive organisms here: https://www.stop-genedrives.eu/en/manifesto/

DSI decision should not undermine the scope of the CBD

Nithin Ramakrishnan, Third World Network

While there are rays of hope around the draft decision on Digital Sequence Information (DSI), a very few developed countries continue to forward hardline positions without remorse. These countries have continuously attempted to get a decision that states that DSI is not covered under the scope of the Convention. The current version of the draft decision contains this view in brackets: “Recognizing that there are divergent views on digital sequence information on genetic resources [with regards to its scope under][in relation to its scope in] the Convention on Biological Diversity”.

A worst case interpretation is that this paragraph gives recognition to a view that there is divergence regarding the scope of the Convention, as to whether it deals with DSI or not. This has never been the case. Decision 14/20 only points to divergence regarding the views relating to benefit sharing arising from the use of DSI, and there was a commitment to resolve such divergences. The draft decision, unfortunately, may accept an even graver form of divergence with regards to the scope of the Convention and whether it covers DSI.

To have such an outcome, for a promise of a future fund, of which details are unknown at this stage, is risky for developing countries. It may undermine their positions in many other forums such as the WHO, ITPGRFA and UNCLOS,where they are demanding fair and equitable benefit sharing from the use of the DSI based on the obligations of the CBD. The invitation to the users of DSI to contribute funds voluntarily to the proposed fund adds to this uncertainty. This may unfortunately open the door for users to contribute charity to the fund, but discharge their obligations under the Convention.

Publication date

18 December, 2022

IIFB and Women's Caucus High Level Segment statements

Antje — Sat, 17 Dec 2022 04:00:00 +0000

IIFB and Women's Caucus High Level Segment statements Antje 17 December, 2022

IIFB High Level Statement

Thank you, honorable Minister. It is my pleasure to share with you all the The Yunnan – Tiohti:áke Nature Culture Summit Declaration:

Participants, including indigenous peoples and local communities from all over the world, have come together at the Nature and Culture Summit, held from 11 and 12 December 2022, in Tiohti:áke, today known as Montreal,

We, the participants in the Nature and Culture Summit;

Respectfully acknowledging traditional custodians, Mohawk who call themselves the Kanien'kehà:ka, People of the Flint, who are part of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy which includes the Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, Seneca, and Tuscarora Nations;

Celebrating the adoption, on 10 December 2022 by COP15, of the Joint Programme of Work on the Links between Biological and Cultural Diversity (the Joint Programme);

We, the participants, therefore, commit to work together, and in a holistic manner to:

Promote the recognition of the contributions and rights of indigenous peoples and local communities, including free, prior and informed consent, land and territorial rights, their distinct knowledge innovations and practices in conservation, sustainable use, and fair and equitable benefit-sharing arising from the utilization of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge in the post-2020 global biodiversity framework and its implementation and monitoring, including through the Joint Programme, to ensure the flourishing of both cultural and biological diversity;
Recognize the diverse values of nature, including those values held by peoples who are living from, living with, living in and living as nature, as part of wider healing relationships with the environment, based on mutuality, accountability, and reciprocity, respecting the linkages between Mother Earth and biocultural resilience, and the diverse and deep relationships of people to place and space;
Further recognize that nature and culture are inextricably linked through traditional knowledge, which in turn is expressed through language, governance, holistic world views, cultural values, ceremonies, stories, songs, and prayers;
Prioritise language revitalization and restoration, with sufficient and focused funding, and promote long-term commitments to increase the number of fluent speakers and, in particular, connect youth to land and culture through language, seeking innovative synergies with the International Decade of Indigenous Languages.
Support the review and updating of the traditional knowledge indicators, particularly linguistic diversity, land-use change and land tenure, traditional occupations and livelihoods;
Mobilise adequate and innovative financial resources and promote direct self-administered funding for indigenous peoples and local communities to ensure continuity of their biocultural diversity and support the implementation of the activities of the Joint Programme.

Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities look forward to contributing to the implementation of the Post 2020 Global Biodiversity Framework.

Women's High Level Segment Statement

As we await the adoption of the Post-2020 GBF, including Target 22 on Gender Equality and Gender Plan of Action, I take this opportunity to thank all of you, Parties and allies who have supported our relentless effort in integrating gender into the Convention's body of work, and in particular into the Psot 2020 GBF. This marks a groundbreaking moment in our years of advocacy, lobbying, discourses, and consultations around the importance of recognizing rights of all women and girls at the heart of the Convention.

Oganised by the Ministry of Environment of Finlands, in collaboration with the CBD Friends of Gender Equality group, Women’s Caucus, Co-Chaired by the Ministry of Natural Resouces and Climate Change of Malawi, and Environment and Climate Change Canada - Ministrial Breakfast yesterday addressed “Accelaerting the update of a gender responsiveness post-2020 global biodiversity framework”.

We are at a critical juncture of negotiations to enable an agreement for a transformative, inclusive and human rights-based framework that effectively and equitably addresses the drivers of biodiversity loss with rights-based actions and a whole-of-society approach. Women for the first time are being recognized in their rights and roles as key biodiversity custodians, their knowledge and practices of conservation, sustainable use and fair and equitable benefit-sharing.

If we fail here now to identify and acknowledge gender differences and exclude communities and specifically women in those communities to engage in and benefit from sustained conservation efforts then, we, will be key contributors of inequality, increased poverty, and biodiversity degradation at large. We must ensure inclusive and “whole of society” approach in the implementation of the Post-2020 global biodiversity framework.

These are our shared and key recommendations:

Make it happen: a fully gender-responsive GBF with a gender equality target
Adoption of the Post-2020 Gender Plan of Action that will further help in guiding the monitoring and reporting of the GBF
Adequate resources to fully operationalize the whole of the GBF.
Full protection of women environmental human rights defenders
Legally binding social and environmental safeguards applied to new approaches such as Nature based Solutions to ensure gender responsive and rights-based implementation
Gender responsive headline indicators in the monitoring framework
Pursuant to the Kunming Declaration, “respect, protect and promote human rights obligations when taking actions to protect biodiversity.”

We call to action for a human rights based Post2020 Global Biodiversity Framework.

Any decision at COP15 should not perpetuate gender inequalities, including gender-based violence linked to the environment.

We count on you, all Parties to secure the way at this COP to ensure gender equality as part of the solution and pursue the tranformative vision of living in harmony with nature.

Gender equality is a human rights and human rights are non-negotiable.

Publication date

16 December, 2022

CBDA COP15 High Level Segment [EN, FR, ES]

Antje — Sat, 17 Dec 2022 03:00:00 +0000

CBDA COP15 High Level Segment [EN, FR, ES]

CBDA Statement at COP15 High-level segment

Antje 17 December, 2022

Déclaration en français : voir ci-dessous -- Declaración en español: véase más abajo

download as pdf

[EN]

Thank you, Mr. President, I speak on behalf of the CBD Alliance. We look to the commitment of you, ministers, to elevate human rights to the level they deserve, in the relevant goals and targets and with relevant indicators that are firmly based in social science and gender-differentiated. The current section B-bis can at most be complementary to this.

We particularly insist on guaranteeing protection of human rights and the rights of Indigenous Peoples, women and local communities in target 3, and a specific reference to respect for their territories and customary lands, and we need to have clear headline indicators on this.

The GBF has to be based on the principles of Equity and Common but Differentiated responsibilities. High-income nations bear the overwhelming responsibility for global ecological breakdown, and need to urgently reduce their overexploitation of resource use to fair and sustainable levels.

We strongly support the new EU regulation on deforestation-free commodities in this respect, we call for its expansion to cover human rights, other ecosystems and the financial sector, and we call on other countries with a significant ecological footprint to adopt similar legally binding regulations.

Developed countries owe an ecological debt to the rest of the world and must provide the necessary finance to developing countries in line with their legal obligations under the CBD. We firmly reject the notion of “all sources of finance” as this might include very harmful sources of funding like carbon offsets, biodiversity offsets or mass tourism. We cannot end up in a situation where 30% of the planet is being protected through financial resources earned through destroying 70% of the planet.

We reiterate our opposition to the use of terms like “nature-based solutions” and ‘nature positive’. These are merely slogans which replace ‘biodiversity’ with meaningless, unmeasurable terms, and invite endless greenwashing and false ‘solutions’ rather than meaningful science-based action to protect biodiversity. It should have no place in the GBF.

The three objectives of the Convention need to be implemented equitably and in a balanced manner, as none can be achieved without the other. In this light we reiterate our call for an equitable, gender just and effective benefit sharing mechanism for DSI.

[FR}

Merci Monsieur le Président, je parle au nom de l'Alliance CBD.

Nous comptons sur votre engagement, Messieurs les Ministres, pour élever les droits de l'homme au niveau qu'ils méritent, dans l’atteinte des objectifs et des cibles pertinents avec des indicateurs pertinents qui sont fermement basés sur les sciences sociales et différenciés selon le sexe, engagement auquel la section B-bis peut tout au plus n’être que complémentaire.

Nous insistons particulièrement sur la garantie de la protection des droits de l'homme et des droits des peuples autochtones, des femmes et des communautés locales dans la cible 3, et une référence spécifique au respect de leurs territoires et terres ancestrales. Nous avons besoin d'indicateurs phares clairs à ce sujet.

Le GBF doit être basé sur les principes d'équité et de responsabilités communes mais différenciées. Les pays à revenu élevé portent la responsabilité écrasante de la dégradation écologique mondiale et doivent de toute urgence réduire leur surexploitation de l'utilisation des ressources à des niveaux équitables et durables.

Nous soutenons fermement le nouveau règlement de l'UE pour les produits de base sans déforestation; nous demandons que son extension s’étende aux droits de l'homme, aux autres écosystèmes et au secteur financier. Nous implorons les autres pays ayant une empreinte écologique importante à adopter des réglementations similaires juridiquement contraignantes.

Les pays développés ont une dette écologique envers le reste du monde et ils doivent fournir les financements nécessaires aux pays en développement conformément à leurs obligations légales en vertu de la CDB. Nous rejetons fermement la notion de « toutes les sources de financement », car cela pourrait inclure des sources de financement très nuisibles comme les compensations de carbone, les compensations de biodiversité ou le tourisme de masse. Nous ne pouvons pas nous retrouver dans une situation où 30% de la planète est protégée — par des ressources financières gagnées en détruisant 70% de la planète.

Nous réitérons notre opposition à l'utilisation de termes tels que "solutions basées sur la nature" et "nature positive". Ce ne sont que des slogans vides qui remplacent la « biodiversité » par des termes dénués de sens et non mesurables, en plus d’inviter à un écoblanchiment sans fin et à de fausses « solutions » plutôt qu'à une action scientifique significative pour protéger la biodiversité. Ces mots ne devraient pas avoir leur place dans le GBF.

Les trois objectifs de la Convention doivent être mis en œuvre de manière équitable et équilibrée, car aucun ne peut être atteint sans l'autre. Dans cette optique, nous réitérons notre appel à un mécanisme de partage des avantages équitable, juste et efficace pour les DSI.

[ES]

Gracias, señor presidente, hablo en nombre de CBD Alliance.

Contamos con su compromiso, Señores Ministros, para elevar los derechos humanos al nivel que se merecen, en el logro de las metas y objetivos pertinentes con indicadores relevantes, firmemente fundamentados en las ciencias sociales y diferenciados por sexo, compromiso al que se refiere la sección B- bis a lo sumo sólo puede ser complementario.

Enfatizamos particularmente la garantía de la protección de los derechos humanos y los derechos de los pueblos indígenas, mujeres y comunidades locales en la meta 3, y una referencia específica al respeto de sus territorios y tierras ancestrales. Necesitamos indicadores de titulares claros sobre esto.

El GBF debe basarse en los principios de equidad y responsabilidades comunes pero diferenciadas. Los países de altos ingresos tienen la abrumadora responsabilidad de la degradación ecológica global y deben reducir urgentemente su sobreexplotación del uso de recursos a niveles equitativos y sostenibles.

Apoyamos firmemente la nueva regulación de la UE para productos básicos libres de deforestación; hacemos un llamado para que su extensión se extienda a los derechos humanos, otros ecosistemas y el sector financiero. Instamos a otros países con grandes huellas ecológicas a adoptar regulaciones legalmente vinculantes similares. .

Los países desarrollados tienen una deuda ecológica con el resto del mundo y deben proporcionar la financiación necesaria a los países en desarrollo de acuerdo con sus obligaciones legales en virtud del CDB. Rechazamos enérgicamente la noción de "todas las fuentes de financiación", ya que podría incluir fuentes de financiación muy dañinas como las compensaciones de carbono, las compensaciones de biodiversidad o el turismo de masas. No podemos encontrarnos en una situación en la que el 30% del planeta esté protegido por los recursos financieros obtenidos al destruir el 70% del planeta.

Reiteramos nuestra oposición al uso de términos como 'soluciones basadas en la naturaleza' y 'naturaleza positiva'. la biodiversidad. Estas palabras no deberían tener cabida en el GBF.

Los tres objetivos de la Convención deben implementarse de manera justa y equilibrada, ya que ninguno puede lograrse sin el otro. Con esto en mente, reiteramos nuestro llamado a un mecanismo de distribución de beneficios equitativo, justo y efectivo para los CIO.

Publication date

16 December, 2022

ECO 65(7)

Antje — Wed, 14 Dec 2022 02:32:06 +0000

ECO 65(7) Antje 14 December, 2022

Download the full issue as a pdf

Community participation from Central Asia in the GBF

Elena Kreuzberg, Global Forest Coalition

At COP15 of the CBD in Montreal, we can see many delegates from different countries and regions of the world. The recent assessment indicates a participation of approximately 20,000 delegates. But there is one under-represented region. This is Central Asia. This time, only one environmental NGO from Kazakhstan – the Association for Conservation of Biodiversity in Kazakhstan - is present. No signs of any other representatives of civil society until now. The governmental organizations are also minor. The official delegation from Kazakhstan just arrived. Other countries – Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan
and Uzbekistan – sent one or two delegates only.

And it is a pity, because the voice of civil society from Central Asia will not be heard. It is also a pity, because civil society is not engaged in the negotiation process on the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) which will negatively influence its implementation. At the same time, the recent analysis of the commitments and implementation of Aichi Biodiversity Targets in countries of the region showed that their performance failed. Countries allocate insufficient resources for biodiversity conservation and management. For example, Kazakhstan spends on biodiversity less than 0.1% of the national GDP with a trend of decrease. According to the Six National Report of the Republic of Kazakhstan on Biodiversity (2018), in 2008 this figure was 0.18%, and by 2014 it had dropped to 0.08%. The region has a population of currently more than 68 million people. All 5 countries selected their own socio-economic development scenarios. They are very different now, but all of them face similar problems related to biodiversity conservation and management. Impacts of climate change lead to increased desertification of many areas and complicated access to freshwater resources, affecting people and biodiversity. Land use transformation in drylands provides new barriers for biodiversity, creating new isolation for declining populations of many native animal and plant species. Biodiversity loss is often associated with unsustainable use of natural resources and there is a lack of information sharing and participatory approach.

The civil society in the post-soviet countries appeared relatively recently; these organizations still need support for their capacity building because this is a long way. So, it is very sad, that members from CSO of Central Asia do not have chance to be a part of the global process and excluded from negotiations related to the development of the new Post-2020 GBF which jeopardizes its implementation in a large region with one of the 36 Global Biodiversity Hotspots* named the Mountains of Central Asia.

* Global biodiversity hotspots are areas with rich biodiversity that are threatened due to development.

Rights guarantees for Colombia, the “world power of life”

Linda Gonzalez CENSAT Agua Viva

The year 2022 has brought several changes at the political level in Latin America. The election of the first left-wing government in Colombia, headed by Gustavo Petro and Francia Márquez, is representative of that. The national government has established as its main objective to convert Colombia into a "world power of life". In official speeches, the environmental issue is highlighted in a transversal way, calling for the urgency of facing two major global crises: biodiversity loss and climate change.

For a real commitment to social justice and peace, it is essential that Colombia, as a megadiverse, multiethnic and multicultural country, builds a solid position around biodiversity conservation, including the defense of the rights of the people who have taken care of it.

Within the framework of COP 15, the Colombian delegation is expected to represent the previously described positions of the national government, which include respect for rural communities.

One way to do this is to prioritize Other Area-based Effective Conservation Measures (OECM) described in Decision 14/8 of CBD COP14 in 2018. OECMs correspond to areas governed and managed for biodiversity conservation, with the direct participation of Indigenous Peoples and local communities that have historically contributed to this purpose.

Forests can coexist together with communities, taking into account that, unlike the conception of the traditional model of protected areas, these are not enemies of conservation. It is important to ensure that communities can continue to inhabit the forests based on their own organizational systems, politics, and traditional practices.

Their dignified permanence and with guarantees of collective and gender rights can enable Colombia to be a true world power for all forms of life.

Developed Countries’ Double Standards on One Health

Nithin Ramakrishnan, Third World Network

One of the most prominent battles fought in the Post-2020 GBF is about the inclusion, or otherwise, of the One Health (OH) approach. On the face of it, the approach is an appealing concept that encourages partnerships for promoting the health of people, animals, plants, and the environment. Nevertheless, under the aegis of a new pandemic treaty being negotiated in the WHO, the OH approach is currently being appropriated by developed countries to expand the legal obligations on developing countries to share wide-ranging biological information, including digital sequence information, without an undertaking on sharing of benefits.

The quadripartite partnership between the secretariats of the FAO, OIE, WHO and UNEP has side-lined (if not avoided) the need for access and benefit sharing (ABS) in their joint plan of action (JPOA) on the OH approach. The JPOA aims to create a formal framework at the international level, but it clearly lacks deliverables on benefit sharing. It is in this broader context that the UK has proposed to include the OH approach in the GBF, however, again without addressing the ABS concerns. On the other hand, the approach, in the name of holistic prevention, demands unrestricted access to genetic sequence information on all species, microbes or parts thereof.

Developing countries are therefore proposing to address benefit sharing in any text on the OH approach in the GBF. Developed countries continue to oppose this, stating that ABS is an unrelated concern. Prevention of disease and its spread requires timely access to medicines and health products for responding to infections in plants, animals and humans. As such, a Namibian delegate speaking to TWN said, “our request for addressing ABS concerns in OH is not a negotiating tactic, but an implementation reality - a way forward”. The UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment present at COP15 also called on developed and wealthy nations to share more benefits, fairly and equitably, in going forward with the OH approach. The developed country Parties’ emotive calls for cooperation and collaboration in the OH approach is therefore a manifest double standard.

Publication date

14 December, 2022

ECO 65(6)

Antje — Tue, 13 Dec 2022 14:10:11 +0000

ECO 65(6) Antje 13 December, 2022

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.

Publication date

13 December, 2022

ECO 65(5)

Antje — Mon, 12 Dec 2022 13:52:52 +0000

ECO 65(5) Antje 12 December, 2022

Download the full issue as a pdf

A GBF that does not stop extinction now will be a failure

Paul Todd, Natural Resources Defense Council

Adopting a Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) that does not immediately halt the extinction of wildlife will be viewed as a failure by the billions of people around the world who want to chart a new course for the planet. Halting species extinction by 2030 or 2050 is simply not good enough. The fact is, the vast majority of extinctions occurring now are caused by human activities, and they can be prevented. The Aichi Targets committed to halting extinctions of known threatened species by 2020. That did not happen. So, we must recommit ourselves to halting extinctions now, or we stand to lose arou nd a million species in the coming decades, according to the 2019 IPBES Global Assessment Report.

Draft Goal A contains language to reduce extinction risk by 20 percent or more by 2030 and eliminate extinction risk by 2050. But the actual extinctions of species must end immediately, not in 10 or 30 years, as suggested by some Parties. Goal A (or Target 4) must ensure that human-induced extinctions are halted – and halted now. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species classifies 8,722 species as “Critically Endangered” and many more as “Endangered.” A myriad of global, science-based organizations have said the same thing – halting extinction immediately is both necessary and achievable. We can save threatened species before they blink out, but only with urgent action.

Some reflections on a Biodiversity Fund

Antje Lorch, Ecoropa

The proposal for a specific biodiversity fund raises questions: how will money be distributed? Who will – directly or indirectly – decide on it? Negative experiences with the GEF are a recurring argument for a mechanism directly under the CBD. Inspiration comes from the Green Climate Fund (GCF), established by the UNFCCC in 2010, creating many hopes. Unfortunately, the experiences are discouraging: many consider the GCF worse than the GEF, and at the moment, climate finance provisions are dominated by loans, creating ever more debts.

Which challenges are structural in any fund? Which are specific to the GEF? Which are the specific problems for which a biodiversity fund can - and will have to - be a better contribution to halting biodiversity loss? Moreover, the question might be less whether “other sources” will appear, but: What will be the prerogatives for their input? How will the fund be governed? The GCF is open to private money and philanthropic donors. Currently, a decade after its creation, the GCF is discussing how to take money without philanthropists earmarking their money for specific purposes. Will a Biodiversity Fund be in a strong enough position to tell donors that the fund and the recipient countries will not be at their beck and
call?

Donors, philanthropy, pension funds, the private sector and super-rich individuals don’t have a legal obligation towards biodiversity. If they don’t like the conditions of a biodiversity fund, they can take their money somewhere else. They may prefer to use their power to spend their money where their preferences and their positive public visibility are served unhampered by multilateral rules and governance and the real needs of biodiversity and people in a Party-driven process. Will a biodiversity fund provide additional resources in a predictable and reliable manner?

Grande marche pour le vivant / March for Biodiversity and Human Rights

Yesterday, December 10, a March for Biodiversity and Human Rights took place in Montreal. It was organized by the Quebec Civil Society Collective for COP15, which regroups 85+ organizations mobilizing for biodiversity protection in the context of COP15, along with local and international allies.

The convening highlighted that we are one with nature, human rights have to be protected. Together, we can halt nature's decline, as well as fully respecting human rights and Indigenous peoples' rights. Together, we have the opportunity to propose a new social vision based on the preservation of all forms of life.

Active members of CBD Alliance joined the march. No Biodiversity framework without human rights. Conservation cannot be done without indigenous peoples and local communities. “We are tired of empty promises. We demand this COP to be based on justice, human rights and equity. Indigenous Peoples, peasants, fisher folks are the ones who defend biodiversity against corporations, destruction and violence.", stated Mariann Bassey from ERA/FoEN during keynote speeches.

Publication date

12 December, 2022

ECO 65(4)

Antje — Sat, 10 Dec 2022 15:17:28 +0000

ECO 65(4) Antje 10 December, 2022

Download the full issue as pdf

A message to world leaders: that conservation cannot be done without people

Aracelly Jimenez Mora, mollusk gatherer from Chomes, Costa Rica and President o CoopeMolusChomes R.L.

We the people who live on the coasts and near the sea are the ones who know our problems,
what we have, what we need and what we want to solve. We are the ones who clean the
mangroves, make nurseries and plant mangrove trees to create a good environment that
produces quality shellfish and fish. The mangroves are nurseries for juvenile species: if we take
care of the shrimp, sea bass and snapper that grow here, we will have good quality products
over time.

Artisanal fishing and shellfish extraction generate income for our countries, they contribute to food security, to the fishing value chain: they are decent occupations. We are happy workers, full of hope, but we need to be heard because in our marine territories of life many of our rights are still being violated.

Marine protected areas and other marine conservation actions affect us greatly, especially
when institutions do not take communities into account for decision-making. We must
promote the co-management of the places and resources that we want to conserve. We have knowledge to share. Communities are not invaders, but as an integral part of the marine territory. We need to be recognized with respect.

The 30x30 target would affect us a lot, and not just us but all people whose livelihoods depend on healthy seas. This 30x30 decision was made without considering what fishermen thought.
Today we must comprehend the impact that 30x30 has on fishing communities.
We, the artisanal fishermen and fisherwomen, are the most interested in ensuring that the
seas, oceans, rivers, and mangroves are in good condition. Only then can we have good and
responsible fishing over time. We are the ones who care for and protect them because they are our source of work. If we are part of the decision-making process, we could take better care of our seas.

The sea and coasts mean life to me, work, joy, peace and love. My message to world leaders is that conservation cannot be done without people. We expect to be involved in decision-making related to the sea and the coasts, to be heard and taken into account. No one
but us knows our reality and needs.

UNDROP and UNDRIP as two complementary instruments to promote, respect and safeguard the rights to enhance biodiversity

International Planning Committee for Food Sovereignty

While we all were in Sharm el Sheikh at the last COP of the CBD, in Geneva, the 10 years negotiation about the rights of peasants and other peoples living in rural areas was reaching its final stage. In fact, during the weeks of COP14, we received the great news that in Geneva, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas (UNDROP) was approved.

10 years before, with the same enthusiasm, we welcomed the UN Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Indigenous Peoples are among the first who started challenging the limited conceptual framework of human rights. They struggled for more than 30 years for the UNDRIP. This declaration was a watershed development for at least two reasons: it recognizes the right to land and territory and thus the importance of land, water, medicinal plants, animals and minerals for sustaining human life; and it stresses the collective dimension of this and other rights. In many respects UNDRIP and UNDROP contain quite similar provisions, yet they also reflect the different conceptions related to indigenous and non-indigenous people. A close, even integral connection with nature is more typically associated with Indigenous Peoples, which is also evident in the more advanced endeavors towards legal protection of Indigenous socio-ecological relations. A major difference between UNDROP and UNDRIP is the obligation to obtain people’s Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) to development projects affecting them: this is recognised in UNDRIP (Art. 32.2) but not in UNDROP. Many rights accorded to Indigenous Peoples by UNDRIP appear in a less explicit and less obligatory form in UNDROP.

Indigenous Peoples and small-scale food producers are those who take care of most ecosystems; protecting and strengthening their rights is therefore a key obligation of states. The positive discrimination of Indigenous Peoples is well justified due to the different history that carried the collective rights for Indigenous Peoples and the small-scale food producers. UNDROP does not promote only peasants’ rights, but also all rural workers, including people working in crop planting, livestock raising, pastoralism, fishing, forestry, hunting or gathering. It is time to recognize the rights holders within the CBD under the correctly established declarations on collective rights: Indigenous Peoples under UNDRIP and small-scale food producers and local communities under UNDROP.

Human rights and biodiversity

Isaac Rojas, Friends of the Earth International

Respect for human rights is essential for biodiversity given the close and millenary relationship that exists between the two and is expressed, among others, through the role that Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPLCs) play in the conservation and the traditional and sustainable use of biodiversity. It is thanks to this relationship that today we have forests, jungles and other ecosystems. This relationship is manifested, among others, through traditional knowledge, belonging to the land and territory, culture and spirituality.

Activities such as large monocultures and plantations and others related to agro-commodities and mining generate enormous violations of both human rights and biodiversity. These range from the destruction of ecosystems, pollution, the establishment of false solutions (many of them based on markets and compensation) to assassinations and disappearances. There is a clear need for strong public policies to regulate the actions of corporations (including holding them accountable for the human rights violations they cause) and an urgent need to defend those who defend biodiversity, forests and impacted communities and Indigenous Peoples. We want no more killings of human rights defenders.

Some decisions taken in the field of biodiversity conservation have led to serious violations of human rights, especially the rights of IPLCs. This is the case of the creation of protected areas that have been established in violation of rights. These violations have been the main driving force behind a rights-based approach to conservation that not only guarantees that human rights will not be violated, but also recognises the historical role that human rights have played in conservation, thus giving it a new meaning. Respect for human rights also entails the implementation of real solutions that play an important role in overcoming the climate crisis and the loss and disappearance of biodiversity. If the right to land and territory is respected, historical practices such as the territories conserved by IPLC will develop more fully and we will have better conditions for biodiversity, respect for rights and justice.

Nature and culture: connectivity and rights

Ana Di Pangracio , Fundación Ambiente y Recursos Naturales

Biodiversity and culture are deeply intertwined. Livelihoods and ways of life, values, knowledges, beliefs and practices are closely linked to biodiversity. CBD COP 15 heads to renew its commitment to the Joint Programme of Work (JPW) between the CBD Secretariat and the UNESCO on the links between biological and cultural diversity, including Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs), taking a whole-of-society view, and an integrated approach with full respect for human rights, including the collective rights of IPLCs, fully incorporating the added value of biocultural diversity and strengthening the links between biological and cultural diversity towards living in harmony with nature.

A group of South American organizations within the framework of the “Wetlands without Borders” Programme (1), with focus on the La Plata basin, have been working hand in hand with rural, peri-urban and urban communities to promote biocultural corridors. Connectivity is a relevant issue in Target 3 to ensure effective and responsible systems of conserved and protected areas. Corridors have been usually limited to biological ones to facilitate the connection between protected areas and buffer zones and to avoid the so feared "island effect". The term "biocultural" seeks to overcome the dualism between nature and culture. Bioculturalism opens the door to a multifaceted approach when implementing global biodiversity targets at a national and regional scale.

When applied to corridors, the biocultural approach allows ecosystems and communities to remain connected, favors the continuity of ecological processes, involving histories, practices and expressions of their inhabitants. They also contribute to healthy ecosystems, ecological restoration and socio-ecologically responsible productive and residential uses. Identified and promoted in a participatory manner with communities, biocultural corridors fully apply key guiding principles such as: a human rights-based approach, gender approach, intercultural perspective, intergenerational equity, landscape and ecosystem approach and access rights, among others. They are closely related to GBF Targets 1, 2, 3, 10, 12, 14, 21, and 22, to name a few. Actively addressing the close link between cultural and natural heritage needs to be reaffirmed at the CBD and reflected in a post-2020 GBF that will bring renewed commitments to biodiversity conservation, sustainable use and restoration.

Brazilian intransigence on biotech is a violation of human rights

Barbara Pilz, Naomi Kosmehl and Adam Breasley, Save Our Seeds

Unlike synthetic biology, Brazilian intransigence on biotech is not a new and emerging issue. Successive administrations have been enabling the destruction of the Amazon and its stewards through the approval of GMOs and deregulation of synthetic biology applications. Brazil has become a dumping ground for pesticides and a gateway for exploitative biotechnology, including experiments with GMO mosquitoes on Brazilian communities without their free, prior and informed consent. In the last decade alone, Brazil approved around 1500 new pesticides, including many banned elsewhere. This violates not only Brazilians human rights to health, food and clean water but contributes to the genocide of Brazil’s indigenous peoples and poisoning of local communities.

The Brazilian delegation here at COP15 is disingenuously arguing that synthetic biology is not a new and emerging issue and proposes to postpone it to a future COP. This happens at a time when Brazil already has legislation allowing many synthetic biology applications to go unregulated. In 2018 Brazil became the first country to adopt legislation paving the way for environmental release of gene drive organisms, as they excluded new genetic technologies from being considered LMOs and thereby removing them from regulatory oversight and risk assessment. Ending the destruction of the Amazon and defending the human rights of Brazil’s indigenous peoples were key messages from Brazil’s incoming government’s participation at the climate COP in Egypt. Will the incoming government also step up at COP15 to protect threats to biodiversity and human rights?

Target 3 and indicators

Friedrich Wulf, Friends of the Earth Europe

One of the most enigmatic and heavily discussed targets of the GBF to be is the one on protected areas, dubbed 30 by 30 before it is even clear if this number will be agreed in the end. Drawing on Aichi Target 11, the target is not only on the quantity, but also on the quality of the areas – it is about effectively managed, ecologically representative, well-connected and equitably governed systems of protected areas, and this part of the target is undisputed. The same applies to the wording “respecting the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities” at the very end.

Along with the need to recognize the importance of areas maintained by Indigenous peoples and local communities, these are all important elements, and we hope that they will remain in the final version of the target. However, how will this be monitored and ensured? The suggested Headline indicator for target 3 is “Coverage of protected areas and OECMS, by effectiveness, KBAs & ecosystems”. There are several problems with this: 1) While the indicator can be disaggregated, there may be many areas on which there is not much of the information other than the area – nevertheless they will be counted towards the target. 2) Even if disaggregated, the indicator does not report on human rights. This means paper parks without proper management and cause people’s eviction can be counted in.

We propose several options to solve this problem:

Have a stand-alone Headline indicator on respecting human rights (e.g. number of countries where human rights have been ignored when setting up protected areas) in addition.
Include “by governance type” in the proposed Headline indicator to reflect the importance of IPCS areas.
Only count areas towards the 30% which are demonstrably effectively managed AND equitably governed AND respect human rights.

Publication date

10 December, 2022

ECO 65 at COP15, MOP10 and MOP4

Ana Di Pangracio — Wed, 07 Dec 2022 16:23:59 +0000

ECO 65 at COP15, MOP10 and MOP4

ECO logo

Ana Di Pangracio 7 December, 2022

Read all our articles

Ici en français

ECO 65(11) 18 December 2022 as pdf or online

Snowman to snow-mess: negotiations at COP15 are opening doors to risky technologies
DSI decision should not undermine the scope of the CBD
CBD Alliance ́s High Level Segment Statement with French and Spanish translation

ECO 65(10) 17 December 2022 as pdf or online

Biodiversity for Her: an inclusive, rights-based post-2020 GBF with gender-responsive indicators
Why is a human rights-based approach essential for the new Global Biodiversity Framework?
The Four A’s for a successful GBF: Acknowledge, Act, Accountability, ASAP
Wildlife trade causes pandemics and... sorry let me take my mask off

ECO 65(9) 16 December 2022 as pdf or online

Rights over Profits
Montreal Declaration on Small-Scale Women Farmers for Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use
The Elephant in the Negotiations Rooms at COP15: Global Tourism and its Impacts on Biodiversity and Indigenous Peoples

ECO 65(8) 15 December 2022 as pdf or online

Reject false solutions and uphold agroecology in the Global Biodiversity Framework
"A coalition of global corporations is lobbying hard to get their framework for self-reporting without accountability (aka TNFD), into the GBF"
Corporate rights: Limited liability, unlimited powers
Nature positive - positively meaningless?

ECO 65(7) 14 December 2022 as pdf or online

Community participation from Central Asia in the GBF
Rights guarantees for Colombia, the “world power of life”
Developed Countries’ Double Standards on One Health

ECO 65(6) 13 December 2022 as pdf or online

Legal, sustainable and safe use of biodiversity is a right of IPLCs
“Nature Positive”: the new “con” in conservation
Civil society organizations call CBD to strengthen precaution on geoengineering
Centering Human Rights in the global biodiversity agenda

ECO 65(5) 12 December 2022 as pdf or online

Grande marche pour le vivant / March for Biodiversity and Human Rights
A GBF that does not stop extinction now will be a failure
Some reflections on a Biodiversity Fund

ECO 65(4) 10 December 2022 as pdf or online

A message to world leaders: that conservation cannot be done without people
UNDROP and UNDRIP as two complementary instruments to promote, respect and safeguard the rights to enhance biodiversity
Human rights and biodiversity
Nature and culture: connectivity and rights
Brazilian intransigence on biotech is a violation of human rights
Target 3 and indicators
Women’s rights are human rights!

ECO 65(3) 9 December 2022 (pdf) or read all articles online

Smallholder food producers - the key towards an ecologically sound and just transition in agricultural and food systems
Agroecology is living in harmony with nature
New threats for pollinators: scientists call for precautionary principle on genetic biotechnologies
Timeline and Steps for an Enhanced Implementation Cycle: What should the implementation of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework look like?

ECO 65(2) 8 December 2022 (pdf) or read all articles online

30x30 Target – sanctioning extractive tourism and human rights violations in Africa?
CBD Alliance COP 15 Opening statement
Indigenous activists interrupted Canada's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, demanding land rights and justice for Indigenous Peoples in Canada
Why should UNDROP be in the Global Biodiversity Framework?
Negotiate to make the Biodiversity Framework Global

ECO 65(1) - 7 December 2022 (pdf) or read all articles online

There can be no agreement to save nature without inclusion of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities
What would a good COP outcome look like for Africa?
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
Mother Earth has Rights too
Target 8, imaginary gigatonnes, and the Land Gap
DSI: a big trap?
All CBD watchdogs should guard against synthetic biology threats to biodiversity
Marine protected areas: both quantity and quality matters
One step forward, two steps backward – will Parties come to an agreement?
What are the benefits of a comprehensive mechanism for the implementation, monitoring, reporting and review of the CBD and the GBF?
Is the BRI in line with an “ecological civilization?” Whose future counts?

Publication date

7 December, 2022

ECO 65(1)

admin — Wed, 07 Dec 2022 14:01:03 +0000

ECO 65(1) admin 7 December, 2022

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

Publication date

7 December, 2022