|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on Biodiversity and Traditional Knowledge (Jun21/02) Virtual negotiations at the CBD pose challenges and widens inequities The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is currently holding formal virtual sessions of its Subsidiary Bodies – the Twenty-fourth meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA-24) and the Third meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Implementation (SBI-3) over a six-week period. After these sessions are concluded on 13 June, the Bureau of the Conference of the Parties (COP) will be taking a decision on whether to also proceed virtually with the third and final meeting of the Open-ended Working Group (OEWG) on the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF). This meeting has been tentatively scheduled for August 2021, with COP 15, which is supposed to adopt the post-2020 GBF, tentatively scheduled for October 2021 in Kunming, China. It is understood that a partly virtual COP format is being considered. Many developing countries, especially African and Latin American and Caribbean countries, are of the view that further negotiations must be held in-person, and not virtually, especially after the painful experiences of the current virtual sessions of the Subsidiary Bodies. These sessions have seen developing countries hugely disadvantaged for many reasons: technical connectivity issues have resulted in delegates often unable to connect or participate effectively, gruelling schedules that disadvantage more developing country regions disproportionately, difficulties with virtual regional coordination, etc. (Please see ‘Africa calls out inequitable virtual negotiations on biodiversity’, TWN Info Service on Biodiversity and Traditional Knowledge, 2 June 2021: https://www.twn.my/title2/biotk/2021/btk210601.htm) These inequities and the lack of comfort with the process has resulted in a proliferation of square brackets in the documents, indicating non-consensus, with Parties preferring to safeguard their positions. Observers to the process also note that the lack of face-to-face interactions and trust building are negatively impacting the mood of the negotiations. Concern is also mounting that if the developed countries push through with virtual negotiations of the post-2020 GBF, this may result in an unbalanced final product that lacks legitimacy and ownership by developing countries which will have serious consequences for the implementation of the CBD. Civil society organizations had previously expressed serious concerns about the inequity of formal virtual negotiations on substantive issues (https://twn.my/title2/biotk/2021/btk210402.htm). Another letter has since been sent to the COP15 Presidency (China) by the CBD Alliance, representing the NGO major stakeholder group (Item 1). It reiterates the concerns and recommends that important upcoming negotiations on the post-2020 GBF should not be held in virtual or hybrid formats, but instead postponed until such time as they can take place face-to-face under safe conditions. We are also pleased to share with you TWN’s statements relating to these issues under Agenda Item 10 of the SBI: Review of the effectiveness of the processes under the Convention and its Protocols, made at an earlier informal SBI session (Item 2) and at the current formal session (Item 3). With
best wishes, Item 1 To:
The President of the 15th Conference of the Parties to the Convention
on Biodiversity Re: Letter of Concern and Recommendations about the Conference of the Parties (CBD COP) and 3rd meeting of the Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG) on the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) La Paz, 26 May 2021 Your Excellency; We extend our condolences to all who have lost loved ones during the pandemic. We are aware some countries, including the Peoples’ Republic of China, are slowly overcoming the brunt of the pandemic. However, many developing countries are still coping with high levels of infections, and have inequitable access to life-saving vaccines and therapies. In this context, due to the current travel restrictions, it is highly unlikely conditions will be adequate in all countries that are Party to the CBD by October 2021 to allow for a safe face-to-face meeting. It is even more unlikely that the crucial 3rd OEWG meeting can be held face-to-face in August. In this respect, we learn with great concern that there have been proposals to go ahead with OEWG3 as a virtual meeting, and that even the COP itself might be organized in the form of a hybrid or even entirely virtual meeting. While appreciating that virtual meetings can, in principle, be a useful, environmentally friendly method to exchange views and information, virtual or semi-virtual negotiation meetings on substantive policy issues are very problematic for several fundamental reasons. This is why the CBD Alliance would like to express its strong concerns and recommendations about the organization of the upcoming 3rd OEWG meeting and 15th CBD COP during the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic. Experience with virtual CBD negotiations so far, including the SBSTTA 24 and SBI 3 and in other UN spaces, has shown many inequities, limitations and challenges: – Quite a number of delegates and observers have problems with connectivity, and participants from developing countries and rights holders and vulnerable groups such as IPLCs face substantially more problems than others. – The timings of virtual meetings are highly inconvenient for several Parties, but more burdensome for Asian and Pacific, and Latin America. Also, the timing and length of virtual negotiations pose an extra burden specially for developing country delegates who often have to simultaneously fulfill other work commitments resulting in unbalanced participation with some countries being absent from some crucial discussions. – Another important problem is that vital face-to-face exchanges and discussions, including meetings in the corridors or on the margins of negotiations, are completely absent in virtual settings. This represents a major obstacle to regional coordination and risks not reaching consensus on important issues leading to weak decisions that do not commensurate with Parties´ obligations and the urgent need for action. Considering the above challenges, we suggest the following: – The OEWG 3 and CBD COP15 should be postponed until such time as they can take place face-to-face under safe conditions. There is a lot of work to be done before the GBF is fit for purpose. We urge Parties to the CBD to take the time needed to develop a transformational, equitable, inclusive and ambitious GBF that truly forms a Strategic Plan. – Postponing these meetings is not equivalent to inaction. Parties to the CBD have unmet obligations including the founding text of the CBD, previous COP decisions and even work in relation to the Aichi Targets. There is sufficient existing policy guidance on how to achieve the objectives of the Convention. Sincerely yours, CBD Alliance Item 2 Statement by Third World Network Informal
Session in Preparation for the Third Meeting of the Subsidiary Body
on Implementation Agenda item 10: Review of the effectiveness of the processes under the Convention and its Protocols Thank you, Chair. The pandemic has brought to the forefront the issue of equity. A case in point is the current inequitable access to COVID vaccines and other therapies for developing countries, a situation that may well prolong the pandemic and further delay face-to-face meetings. Despite the inability to meet physically, much can still be done to address the biodiversity crisis. The pandemic must not be used as an excuse to avoid existing obligations under the CBD and its Protocols, which Parties can and must still implement. In the efforts to conclude the post-2020 global biodiversity framework, we need to ensure that the both the process and outcomes are equitable and balanced. The pressure to convene formal virtual negotiations in the midst of multiple crises affecting developing countries may exacerbate inequity. Formal virtual negotiations will likely disadvantage developing countries, which may face challenges in participating effectively and dynamically. They would be inequitable for many reasons including the digital divide affecting internet connectivity and technical capability, limited capacity and resources and other challenges for regional and other coordination. In addition, time zone differences may disproportionately disadvantage a particular region while inclusivity and transparency in how decisions are made would also be impacted. While virtual meetings – such as online forums, webinars and even small meetings of technical expert groups – have their place and may well continue to be convened in the future even after the pandemic, they have to be convened in a transparent and inclusive manner. There has to be full and effective participation of developing country Parties as well as of observers, in particular indigenous peoples and local communities, smallholder farmers, women and youth. The lack of interpretation in these meetings has already been a challenge and unfairly privileges those of us who can communicate in English. Digital inequality also remains an issue, particularly for those in developing countries or in rural areas. For the processes under the Convention and its Protocols to be effective, they have to be just and equitable for all. Thank you. Item 3 Statement by Third World Network SUBSIDIARY
BODY ON IMPLEMENTATION Agenda Item 10: REVIEW OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROCESSES UNDER THE CONVENTION AND ITS PROTOCOLS Thank you, Chair If our objective is to ensure transparency and equitable and effective participation in current and future negotiations, particularly with respect to developing country Parties and civil society, the following issues need to be addressed urgently: 1. Decision-making on important procedural matters, including on the adoption of final documents, should be decided democratically by all Parties. There should also be clearly agreed parameters, principles and/or safeguards for decision-making on important procedural matters. 2. The issue of digital security and privacy is very important, particularly with respect to regional group consultations. In the interest of transparency, information on these arrangements should be made available. 3. The efforts made so far are appreciated, but they are still inadequate to address the structural technical and connectivity issues. There
are already many disadvantages faced by many developing country Parties
and civil society in virtual negotiations. And there are vast financial
savings from virtual as compared to face-to face sessions. At a minimum,
and as an issue of equity, some of the financial savings should be
made available to developing country Parties and accredited CSOs for
hardware and software upgrades, for accessing the highest bandwith
available, and to access the virtual sessions from UN Country 4. While it may be standard procedure for face-to-face meetings, that contact groups and other informal groups work only in English, this is inequitable for the majority non-English speaking world. At a minimum, the financial savings from virtual sessions should be used for interpretation of contact and other informal groups and translation of non-papers into all UN languages. These issues must be addressed now, and not left to SBI 4 or COP 16. We remain very concerned that OEWG 3 may also be convened virtually. We consider that negotiation and adoption of substantive policy outcomes should be postponed until such time that formal in-person negotiations can once again take place, to ensure equitable and balanced process and outcomes. The postponed negotiations however, must not be used as an excuse to avoid existing CBD obligations. There is nothing to keep Parties from urgently addressing the biodiversity crisis. Thank you.
|
||
