TWN Info Service on Biodiversity and Traditional Knowledge (Nov24/03)
12 November 2024
Third World Network

Biodiversity talks run out of time amidst major wins for Indigenous Peoples and Afro-descendants

Hobart, 12 Nov (Lim Li Lin) – The 16^th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP16) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) literally ran out of time.

Key decisions, on mobilising financial resources for biodiversity protection and monitoring the implementation of the recently adopted Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF), as well as the operational budget for the Secretariat of the CBD were not adopted. A resumed meeting will have to be held soon to finalise these pending agenda items.

Parties to the CBD had met in Cali, Colombia for COP16.The talks, which began on 21 October, were scheduled to end on 1 November, but overran till the morning of 2 November due to significant divergence over key issues between developing and developed countries.

On the other hand, groundbreaking decisions, on Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPLCs) and Afro-descendant communities were adopted at the start of the final plenary session to much celebration and fanfare.

In addition, a key decision on how to share the benefits from the use of digital sequence information (DSI) on genetic resources was successfully adopted. This has been a long-standing demand of developing countries, who were largely in support of the final outcome.

The DSI decision operationalises the multilateral mechanism that was agreed to at COP 15 and requires large companies and other major entities benefiting commercially from DSI to contribute a percentage of their profits or revenues to the ‘Cali Fund’ to share the benefits from uses of DSI more fairly and equitably with developing countries and IPLCs.  (See upcoming report on the DSI outcome).

These will be among COP16’s enduring achievements.

A win for Indigenous Peoples and Afro-descendants

The mood was euphoric as spontaneous cheers and chanting broke out in the plenary hall after the adoption of the decision setting up a new permanent subsidiary body on the traditional knowledge, innovations and practices of IPLCs in relation to biological diversity, overcoming the objections of Russia and Indonesia.

A working group that was established in 1988 has been conducting this work, and a new programme for its work was also adopted by COP16. However, the working group is ad hoc in nature, and IPLCs have been advocating for a permanent subsidiary body (SB) to carry out this work instead.

Existing subsidiary bodies directly established by the Convention are the subsidiary body on scientific, technical and technological advice (SBSTTA), and the subsidiary body on implementation (SBI). Subsequent establishment of subsidiary bodies which are “deemed necessary for the implementation of the Convention” is by a decision of the COP.

This means that the work on the traditional knowledge, innovations and practices of IPLCs is now on par with the work of the other existing subsidiary bodies. In fact, the new subsidiary body becomes the pre-eminent body to provide advice “on all matters of relevance to indigenous peoples and local communities that are within the scope of the Convention and its Protocols”.

This includes “providing advice on the development and implementation of legal and other appropriate forms of measures to respect, preserve and maintain the knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous peoples and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant to the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity”.

Significantly, the SB will be able to undertake much more extensive work on IPLC matters, and its recommendations are more likely to be directly adopted by Parties to the Convention at the COPs. It is hoped that the voice and substantive positions of IPLCs in the Convention and its Protocols will be a more progressive influence on the many decisions that are taken.

At the national level, focal points should be designated to follow up on the work of this new subsidiary body. This decision also brings more political attention to and cements the special status of IPLCs in the CBD, potentially having implications for IPLCs in international law and furthering national implementation of their rights and interests.

In another first for the CBD, COP 16 adopted a decision that for the first time recognised and promoted the role of people of African descent in conserving biodiversity and in implementing the Convention in some countries, while also making contributions at the global level. Coming at the end of the UN International Decade for People of African descent (2015-2024), “People of African Descent: recognition, justice and development”, this was a step forward in the recognition and realisation of their rights.

This had been the political promise of the Colombian government to its people of African descent, as there are an estimated 200 million living in Colombia and Latin America and the Caribbean, mostly descendants of slaves that were brought to the Americas during its brutal colonial period. They represent a sizeable grouping that is structurally marginalised and disadvantaged and that has not been recognised for the important role they play in biodiversity conservation, and in implementing the Convention.

“COP of the People”

The Colombian government, which hosted the COP in Cali had touted COP16 as the ‘COP of the People’.  It organised a ‘Green Zone’ that was a space “to facilitate the exchange of knowledge and experiences, inspire actions for the conservation of biodiversity and strengthen citizen participation in environmental decision making”.

The Green Zone was open to the public, and hundreds of events took place in various parts of the city. This was in addition to the official side events and other parallel events that took place alongside the official negotiations at the official conference centre. As reported, there were 24,000 registered COP participants and over 900,000 attendees at Green Zone events, making this the largest CBD COP ever.

COP17 in 2028 will be held in Armenia. This decision was called to a vote as Azerbaijan and Armenia were both competing to host COP17. Oil-rich Azerbaijan is already hosting the climate change COP this year.

Biodiversity credits and offsets promoted, and denounced

One issue that dominated numerous side events at the COP, including at the Green Zone, was the issue of biodiversity credits and offsets. Although not formally on the agenda for COP16, this issue has been hotly debated since the KMGBF included reference to stimulating “innovative schemes” such as biodiversity offsets and credits, among others, in order to increase the level of financial resources for biodiversity protection.

Among the high-profile events promoting biodiversity credits was the side event of the International Advisory Panel on Biodiversity Credits (IAPB), which is sponsored by the United Kingdom and France. It launched its ‘Framework for High Integrity Biodiversity Credits’, which is, in part, a response to the strong criticisms of biodiversity credits and offsets.

The Framework includes principles, guidance and pilot projects for ‘best practice’ for actors in biodiversity credit markets. It claims to address key challenges in biodiversity credit markets, is needed to “bring coherence to the markets”, and to “unlock significant financial flows for nature conservation and restoration” for IPLCs, according to the IAPB.

Many events by civil society groups were held – including a vocal protest, press conferences and side events – that critiqued the use and promotion of biodiversity credits and denounced biodiversity offsetting. Although the rejection by many parts of civil society is squarely of biodiversity offsetting, biodiversity crediting is clearly seen as a ‘greenwashing’ exercise and/or the first step towards biodiversity offsetting.

In the negotiating rooms that discussed resource mobilization, some Parties also critiqued biodiversity offsets as “not a financial solution”.

Civil society organisations contend that despite the pretence, biodiversity crediting will lead to biodiversity offsetting. Given the many failures of the carbon markets, biodiversity markets will fare no better, and in fact will be worse. This is due to the complexities of ecosystems, and the serious negative impacts on the ground for IPLCs who live on the land and are the stewards of biodiversity.

A joint civil society campaign against biodiversity credits and offsets has garnered more than 300 organisational and academic signatories calling for a stop to the promotion, development and use of biodiversity offsetting and crediting schemes. According to the campaign’s open letter:

“Biodiversity credits and offset schemes are false solutions to a false problem - there are much better ways to increase biodiversity financing, without recourse to these risky schemes. Biodiversity offsetting, like carbon offsetting, enables rich countries, corporate actors, financial institutions, and other actors to profit from the biodiversity crisis they have created and maintain the status quo, avoiding implementing politically difficult decisions to regulate destructive activities domestically while creating a new asset class for their financial sectors”.

 

Major decisions yet to be adopted

Key substantive decisions on resource mobilization and on monitoring have not yet been adopted by COP 16 and will have to be taken up at a further resumed meeting.

The decision on resource mobilization addresses the potential establishment of a new biodiversity financing instrument under the authority of CBD Parties and the revised strategy for resource mobilisation. (See COP 16: Biodiversity finance discussions suspended on knife edge, 8 November 2024).

There are two decisions on monitoring: a decision on the Monitoring Framework with its indicators for monitoring progress in the implementation of the KMGBF, and a decision on mechanisms for planning, monitoring, reporting and review (PMRR) of national as well as global efforts, including the global review of collective progress.

The resource mobilization decision and the decision on PMRR were part of a package of three decisions, including the decision on DSI, that were taken up by the President of the COP, the Minister of Environment of Colombia, Susana Muhamad, for further informal consultations as negotiations in the contact groups during the COP had not been able to reach agreement.

The President’s texts on these issues were first released as ‘non-papers’ and were revised subsequently upon further consultation with Parties in their regional groupings. They were then released as ‘L’ documents for adoption by the Plenary. 

(“Non-paper” is a UN negotiation term that refers to informal discussion papers that are not part of the formal negotiation document, aimed at facilitating text proposals for inclusion in the formal document.)

The decision on DSI was the first in the package of decisions to be tabled for adoption. Only one country – India – refused to accept the decision as presented due to concerns regarding the status of national access and benefit sharing laws. In the end, India prevailed in its insistence to include language that safeguarded national sovereignty on access and benefit sharing legislation. (See upcoming report on the DSI outcome).

After the adoption of the decision on DSI, and given the stalemated discussions on resource mobilization following developed countries’ refusal to agree to the establishment of a new biodiversity financing instrument, as called for by developing countries, Panama and Brazil requested for a quorum count as it was evident that the room was relatively empty owing to the late hour that had gone beyond the official closing of the COP.

The plenary had begun at around 10.30 pm on Friday, 1 November, the day that COP 16 was supposed to conclude. By 8 am on Saturday, 2 November, many delegates had already left for the airport to catch their flights home. The quorum count revealed that there was not the necessary two-thirds (130 out of 196) of Parties in the room to adopt further decisions. The meeting was then suspended by the COP16 President.

The decision on the operational budget for the Secretariat of the CBD, which was also not adopted due to the suspension of the meeting, can however be taken up in a meeting convened virtually. Indeed, it should be adopted before the start of 2025, in order for the Secretariat to be able to perform its functions in the coming year.

Decisions on budgetary and procedural matters to allow the Secretariat to function can be taken up in online meetings, as stipulated in a COP16-adopted decision on procedures for convening online and hybrid meetings:

             “.. in the event of extraordinary circumstances that render the holding of in‑person meetings impractical, urgent decisions, such as those on budgetary matters, may be taken by the Conference of the Parties under a written silence procedure in line with United Nations practice and a decision of the Bureau of the Conference of the Parties, following consultations by the Bureau members with their respective regions, and applying the procedures set out in the rules of procedure for the convening of an extraordinary meeting; …”

However, for the other remaining substantive key decisions, including on resource mobilization, the Monitoring Framework and PMRR, a resumed COP 16 will have to be held in person. Plans for this have yet to be announced by the Secretariat.

Even though the issue of financial resources was championed by developing countries, the resumed meeting may provide developing countries with more negotiating leverage, as their demand for a biodiversity fund under the COP’s purview has been strongly resisted by developed countries.

On the other hand, developed countries have been strongly advocating for the quick adoption of the Monitoring Framework, and for operationalising the much-enhanced PMRR framework, especially its global review on collective progress.

In particular, the decision contains an annex with a tight indicative timeline for the global review, and begins with the establishment of an ad hoc scientific and technical advisory group in February 2025 for the preparation of the global report on collective progress in the implementation of the KMGBF. The global report together with national reports are what the global review will be primarily based on.

With the DSI decision already adopted, Parties will be focussed on these key outstanding decisions, and the trade-offs they engender.

A few other remaining decisions – on the multi-year programme of work, cooperation with other conventions and international organizations, financial mechanism, and the reports of the meetings – were also not adopted due to the meeting suspension.

Other decisions

As the first COP since the adoption of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework in Montreal in 2022, a key focus was on reviewing its implementation.

By the end of COP16, 119 countries had submitted national biodiversity targets, which are supposed to be mapped against the goals and targets of the KMGBF, and 44 countries submitted National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans, which are supposed to be revised to be in line with the KMGBF.

Many other decisions were also adopted by COP16 before its suspension. These include decisions on biodiversity and climate change, synthetic biology, ecologically or biologically significant marine areas, sustainable wildlife management, plant conservation, invasive alien species, mainstreaming of biodiversity within and across sectors, biodiversity and health, capacity-building and development, technical and scientific cooperation and technology transfer, and conservation and sustainable use of marine and coastal biodiversity and of island biodiversity.

In addition to COP16 of the CBD, Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-sharing (11^th and 5^th meeting respectively) also met concurrently. +