|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on Biodiversity and Traditional Knowledge (Dec23/01) La Paz, 29 Nov (Mirna Ines Fernandez Pradel*) — The discussions on biodiversity and climate change at the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), after failing to achieve a substantive outcome at the last Conference of the Parties (COP) in 2022, were taken up again at a subsidiary body meeting (SBSTTA 25) last month. The Twenty-fifth meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA 25) met in Nairobi on 15 – 19 October 2023. However, there was little progress made, and the main disagreements remained unresolved. The final plenary that considered this agenda item adopted an L document (final document) with the whole SBSTTA recommendation for the COP decision in brackets indicating lack of consensus. The links between biodiversity and climate change have been discussed extensively in the CBD. Target 8 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF) addresses the impacts of climate change on biodiversity. A COP decision on Biodiversity and Climate Change had been discussed without success at COP 15 in December 2022, with references to nature-based solutions (NbS) and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR) as the main points of contention. In the end, only a procedural decision was adopted. (See ‘CBD COP15: Developing countries defend principle of common but differentiated responsibilities’). This unfinished discussion was therefore deferred to SBSTTA 25. In the discussions on this agenda item, Parties addressed the draft recommendations contained in CBD/SBSTTA/25/12. In this document, the first few paragraphs constituted the SBSTTA decision itself and the last few contained the draft COP decision as recommended by SBSTTA. There were so many requests to speak from the floor at the first plenary discussion on 17th October that the SBSTTA Chair, Hesiquio Benitez (Mexico), had to close the list of speakers and limit the interventions from some observers. A Contact Group was established for the next day, 18th October, co-chaired by Mariela Cánepa Montalvo (Peru) and Tia Stevens (Australia). The time assigned for this Contact Group was spent entirely on the SBSTTA decision. Given the many divergent views on different issues, there was not enough time to go through the paragraphs of the SBSTTA recommendation for COP. The European Union therefore proposed to keep the SBSTTA recommendation for COP (essentially, the draft COP decision) in brackets and send it to COP 16, while Belgium suggested retaking these discussions at SBSTTA 26 instead. COP 16 is tentatively scheduled for 21 October to 1 November 2024, with the venue yet to be confirmed. The disagreements around NbS have come out clearly since the beginning of the discussions. Brazil, Venezuela, Eswatini (on behalf of the African Group), South Africa, and the Cook Islands warned about the potential misuse of the concept that could result in a delay in the policies needed for strong emissions reductions. They were concerned that the strong divergences in the interpretation and implementation of the concept could generate poor adaptation practices and harmful effects on biodiversity. Observers such as the youth and NGOs also expressed similar concerns. On the other hand, Parties such as Germany, Switzerland, Canada, France, Chile, Belgium, Finland, and Costa Rica welcomed the references to NbS in the draft COP decision, and many of them shared how they are already implementing NbS policies at the national level. Just prior to the SBSTTA 25 negotiations, the final round of intergovernmental consultations on NbS took place in Nairobi (see ‘Concerns & skepticism persist at consultations on nature-based solutions’, 8 November 2023, SUNS #9892). The draft COP decision addressed these consultations, requesting the CBD Executive Secretary to review the outcomes and to provide guidance on their application in the context of the Convention and the implementation of the Framework. Several Parties requested the deletion of the paragraph with this request, given that the outcomes of the consultation will not be a negotiated text but rather a summary of the Co-Chairs, which up till that point, was not yet finalized. The paragraph was not deleted but the request to the Executive Secretary to review the consultation outcomes was replaced by text only welcoming these consultations and remains within the bracketed draft COP decision in the L document. A multilateral definition of NbS was agreed upon in UNEA Resolution 5/5 titled “Nature-based Solutions for Sustainable Development”. This resolution also gave the mandate to UNEP to conduct the above-mentioned intergovernmental consultations on nature-based solutions’ best practices, standards and criteria, and finance for their implementation. Most CBD Parties agreed that UNEA Resolution 5/5 was an important source to be taken into account by the Executive Secretary when providing guidance on actions to support Targets 8 and 11 of the KMGBF. Nevertheless, it was agreed that it was only this UNEA Resolution that would be mentioned, and not other undefined sources on NbS as requested by some Parties. Ecosystem-based approaches (EbA) are mentioned alongside NbS in Targets 8 and 11 of the KMGBF. Many Parties, such as Mexico, South Africa, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and the African Group recalled that EbA is a clear and well-defined methodological framework, approved and developed under the CBD. Some added that given the mandate of the CBD, the focus should be on enhancing and scaling up EbA and Disaster Risk Reduction measures, before embracing NbS. The Secretariat of the CBD published in 2019 the Voluntary Guidelines for the Design and Effective Implementation of Ecosystem-based Approaches to Climate Change Adaptation and Disaster Risk Reduction. Parties welcomed the reference to these guidelines in the draft COP decision, but Germany, the European Union, the United Kingdom, and Norway regretted that an equivalent did not exist for mitigation; they requested the CBD Secretariat to update these guidelines with a supplement on ecosystem-based mitigation. Another issue with divergent views was the relationship between the CBD and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), with some Parties of the view that there was an overemphasis on the role of the UNFCCC while others did not think so. As China noted, many expressions in the draft reflected a tendency to focus on addressing the climate change crisis, emphasizing the key role of biodiversity and ecosystems in climate change mitigation, adaptation, and disaster risk reduction. However, this is not entirely in line with the logic of the KMGBF, where Target 8 focuses on minimizing the impacts of climate change and climate action on biodiversity and ecosystems. At the end of the discussions, the agreement reached was to welcome the relevant reports from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) before welcoming the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), to encourage further collaboration between IPBES and the IPCC, and to stress the importance of CBD National Focal Points engaging with their UNFCCC counterparts. The discussions did not get to the only paragraph regarding finance for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, ecosystem restoration, and sustainable infrastructure that also contribute to climate change action. Nevertheless, in the opening plenary, some Parties such as Argentina, China, Venezuela, Equatorial Guinea, and the Cook Islands reiterated the importance of focusing on the financial obligations of developed countries towards developing countries, in accordance with Article 20 of the Convention. The Democratic Republic of Congo also highlighted that the creation of a special and dedicated fund for biodiversity under the CBD in accordance with Articles 20, 21, and 39 of the Convention is essential to boost investment and financial support for biodiversity, especially for building resilience. Brazil, Mexico, Finland, Colombia, Chad and the Cook Islands further called for more effective participation of indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs), but the discussion did not reach the related paragraphs in the recommendation for the COP decision. In any case, it is important to highlight this important request, along with the requests from Parties to recall important principles of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, such as Principle 7 on common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR), and Principle 15 on precaution. Egypt had requested that the Precautionary Principle be recalled in the context of geoengineering, since a large number of geoengineering field experiments have been implemented as means to address climate change in recent years. At the plenary session to consider conference room papers (CRPs) on 18th October, Parties had already gone through seven CRPs before turning to CRP 8 on Biodiversity and Climate Change. By that time, it was already close to midnight. After some discussion on how to proceed, delegates agreed to work on the two remaining paragraphs with brackets until midnight. One of these addressed the engagement of CBD National Focal Points with their UNFCCC counterparts, and the other addressed the information sources that the Executive Secretary would take into account when undertaking the review and analysis of existing tools and guidance that can support the elements of Targets 8 and 11 of the KMGBF. Unfortunately, the discussions on these proved unfruitful, adding more bracketed text (indicating disagreement) to the paragraphs that were not agreed. Around midnight, the Chair suggested forming a small group of Parties to work on a possible solution for the two paragraphs to be put forward for the next day. The Parties invited to join the group were Canada, Portugal, Colombia, Germany, Brazil, Malawi and the Democratic Republic of Congo. The group met at 8:30 am the next morning, in a meeting where Eswatini stood in for the Democratic Republic of Congo and Spain stood in for Portugal, with all the other members present. The text they agreed on in the two paragraphs was presented by Malawi on their behalf at the plenary that same day, 19th October. No other Party objected to the formulation proposed by the small group, so the CRP was adopted. The agreed paragraphs read as follows: 6. Stresses the importance of CBD National Focal Points engaging with their UNFCCC counterparts and of enhancing collaboration among CBD and UNFCCC Parties to raise awareness on relevant interlinkages between biodiversity and climate change to support relevant national planning processes, in line with national commitments, circumstances and priorities, as appropriate; 7. Requests the Executive Secretary, when undertaking the comprehensive review and analysis of existing tools and guidance that can support the elements of Targets 8 and 11, and other aspects of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, in line with SBSTTA recommendation 25/– (L5) to include those developed under the CBD, and assessment reports of IPBES and IPCC, taking note of resolution 5/5 of the United Nations Environment Assembly on nature-based solutions for sustainable development; The L document was eventually also adopted without objections. While it felt like an achievement to have reached consensus after the intense discussions on the seven paragraphs that constitute the SBSTTA decision, it is a hollow victory. With the whole SBSTTA recommendation for the draft COP decision in brackets, it remains disappointing that these important discussions will be deferred yet again. In the meantime, biodiversity continues to bear the brunt of the impacts of climate change and misguided climate action. (* With inputs from Lim Li Ching.) +
|
||
