A garden of medicinal plants in Cali, Columbia. The Cali Fund, unveiled earlier this year, will ensure that companies that profit from digital sequencing will pay into a fund to protect biodiversity. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

By Stella Paul
HYDERABAD, India, Jul 14 2025 (IPS)

When the Cali Fund was unveiled in February on the sidelines of COP16.2 in Rome, the announcement sent ripples through the global conservation community. For the first time ever, companies that profit from digital sequence information (DSI)—the digitized genetic material of plants, animals, and microorganisms—will be expected to pay into a multilateral fund to protect the very biodiversity they benefit from.

The Fund, estimated to mobilize USD 1 billion a year, was immediately hailed as a historic breakthrough. Half of the money is earmarked for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs)—especially women and youth—in recognition of their role as stewards of the world’s genetic resources.

But three months in, as the launch celebration fades, hard questions begin to emerge: Will corporations pay voluntarily? Will money reach those who need it most? And can a fund that is built on goodwill deliver real-world impact fast enough?

How the Fund Was Born: From Cali to Rome

The Cali Fund was born out of Decision 16/2 at COP16 in Cali, Colombia, under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Until now, companies could freely access and commercialize digital genetic data without any obligation to share their profits with the countries or communities the data came from.

The Fund seeks to end that free ride. With the UN Multi-Partner Trust Fund Office serving as the administrator and with backing from UNEP, UNDP, and the CBD Secretariat, the Cali Fund promises strong institutional muscle. Its governance structure includes governments, UN agencies, and representatives from IPLCs—making it a test case for embedding justice into the global bioeconomy.

What the Cali Fund Pledges

New money for nature: About USD 1 billion a year from the private sector, not governments or traditional donors.

Corporate accountability: Businesses using DSI are expected to contribute 1 percent of profits or 0.1 percent of revenue.

Justice for IPLCs: A guaranteed 50 percent of funds goes directly to Indigenous and local communities.

Scientific and digital infrastructure: Resources will build DSI capacity, support biodiversity strategies, and close digital divides—especially in the Global South.

A Billion-Dollar Question: Will Companies Pay?

Despite the optimism, serious concerns are rising about its viability even as the Fund’s foundations are still being laid.

First, corporate contributions are voluntary, and there’s no mechanism to enforce them. Sectors like pharma, biotech, cosmetics, and synthetic biology rely heavily on DSI—but many don’t even track their usage. Expanding the Fund’s reach beyond willing participants could provoke resistance unless countries impose stronger regulations.

“The Secretariat continues to engage with business to ensure that intentions to contribute translate into actual payments,” CBD Executive Secretary Astrid Schomaker tells IPS News.

Accountability is another major issue. While the Fund pledges participatory governance, the specifics of auditing, public reporting, and oversight are still vague.

The Realities Behind the Rhetoric

The figure of USD 1 billion is impressive—but it’s not legally binding. Without transparency and enforcement, there’s a risk companies could treat the Fund as a PR checkbox rather than a true commitment.

“It’s crucial that disbursements align with the self-identified needs of IPLCs,” Schomaker says. “That’s the responsibility of the Steering Committee.”

The steering committee that Schomaker refers to was formed in April with 28-members representing National Focal Points, representatives of indigenous peoples and local communities, the scientific community and the private sector. The Steering Committee is expected to meet twice in 2025, once virtually during the second quarter of the year and once in person later in the year. Two meetings are expected in 2026.

But critics argue that’s not enough. Without robust systems for tracking DSI use, collecting dues, and allocating funds, the Cali Fund could become yet another initiative that sounds good but achieves little.

India: A Biodiversity Giant Watching Closely

India—one of the most biodiverse countries and a rising player in the DSI economy—is watching the Cali Fund closely.

“If the Fund is equitably governed and recognizes India as a priority beneficiary, it could support our protected areas, community conservation, and biodiversity research,” says Achalendra Reddy, Chair of India’s Biodiversity Board.

However, Reddy flags that for the Fund to truly benefit countries like India, three things are essential: 1) Transparent allocation mechanisms to ensure funds reach national and local actors; 2) Support for locally led efforts, not top-down programs; and 3) Complementarity, so the Fund adds to—rather than replaces—existing domestic and international investments.

If done right, the Fund could help plug chronic funding gaps and scale up conservation across India and the Global South.

Mrinalini Rai is the head of an advocacy organization that coordinates the CBD Women’s Caucus, a coalition of 300–500 women’s and indigenous rights groups that work to integrate gender equality into the CBD and related international agreements.

Speaking to IPS, Rai appears to agree with Reddy: “The launch of the Cali Fund is a promising step towards addressing that gap. However, for it to be truly transformative, the fund must be accessible, inclusive, and responsive to the realities of women biodiversity champions and defenders—especially those from Indigenous Peoples and local communities. Transparent processes, flexible funding, and dedicated support for capacity strengthening will be key to overcoming historic barriers and ensuring that no one is left behind, she says.

Speed vs. Sustainability: A Cautionary Note

Experts warn that rushing the Fund’s implementation could undermine its long-term credibility. “Genetic resources are national assets. So is DSI,” says Nithin Ramakrishnan, a DSI policy researcher with India’s Center for Public Policy Research.

“CBD and its member states must prioritize sustainability over speed and avoid reducing benefit-sharing to just a financial transaction,” he says, cautioning against letting corporations dictate biodiversity governance. “If countries are made responsible for reporting DSI usage to companies, we risk placing corporate interests above sovereign conservation agendas,” he adds.

Why the Cali Fund Still Matters

Despite its growing pains, the Cali Fund represents a paradigm shift. For the first time, the global community is acknowledging that genetic information has monetary value—and that value must be shared equitably, not extracted and hoarded.

As Vishaish Uppal—Governance, Law and Policy Director at WW India—notes, the Cali Fund “speaks to the third, often overlooked, pillar of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity: benefit-sharing.”

That matters deeply in today’s context of digital colonialism, where genetic data is extracted from the Global South and monetized in the Global North—leaving Indigenous and local communities out of the loop.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Organic waste being composted at a community-led waste management facility in Sesdan village of Gianyar regency, Bali. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

By Stella Paul
GIANYAR, Bali, May 14 2025 (IPS)

It was Christmas Eve last year when visitors across several tourism hotspots in Bali woke up to a ghastly scene they hadn’t expected: layers of cans, bags, bottles, and driftwood covering their favorite sandy beaches, washed up by hours of rain and high tide. So bad was the situation that from Kuta to Legian and Seminyak to Jimbaran—none of the island’s picturesque beaches was clean enough to attract the visitors for a swim.

The incident intensified the debate that had been raging across Bali for quite some time: was the world’s most picture-perfect holiday destination drowning in plastic waste and ocean debris?

“Garbage tides are not new to Bali nowadays. Every year, we see it increasing but around Christmas, when it’s the peak of our tourism season, we did not expect to see this. Nobody expected to see trash on the beach. All day we picked up the trash and cleaned the beach. It was not an easy job, says Siboto Sayeda, 25, who was one of the many locals who volunteered to remove the waste from the beaches. The cleaning drive—organized by a local NGO—went on for two days before tourists could swim again.

Nearly four months later, several beaches, including the beachfront of the ever-popular Kuta beach are still often barraged by a tide of waste.

Sweta Kala—a visitor from northern India’s Punjab who is in Bali for her honeymoon—says that the garbage on the beach has been a huge disappointment. “We chose to come to Bali instead of Goa (a beach destination in western India), but we haven’t been able to swim even once. The entire beach looks dirty. Our friends are advising us to move to Nusa Dua, but we already paid in advance for our entire vacation, she says.

Burn or Landfills? No Easy Solutions

Data from the Bali Central Bureau of Statistics (BPSJ) & Bali Tourism Authority (DISPARDA) shows that nearly 8 million tourists visited the island destination in 2024; of them, six million are foreigners. The total waste generated collectively by the visitors and the locals in the year was nearly 2 million tons. This is a 30 percent increase from the waste generated in 2020, says Fabby Tumiwa, Executive Director of the Institute for Essential Services Reform (IESR), a Jakarta-based energy and environment think tank.

“The causes of increased waste generation include a lack of awareness of waste management in most communities, including tourists visiting Bali. In addition, although district and city governments have regulations related to waste (such as waste sorting), enforcement of regulations and limited waste management infrastructure are still contributing to the increasing volume of waste, Tumiwa says.

Currently, the waste is usually deposited in a landfill, TPA Suwung, a 32-hectare landfill located in the heart of Bali or occasionally burned—especially in beach locations with no wide, motorable roads. However, the landfill is nearing its capacity, and the government is said to be scouting for new landfill sites in other parts of Bali.

A community-led solution movement

Thirty-three kilometers away from Kuta beach, villagers from 10 villages in Gianyar have joined hands to find a solution to the mounting waste – both organic and inorganic.

Named Merah Putih Hijau (Red White Green), the villagers’ group has clear goals: manage waste at the source so that there is no further need for either burning or dumping in the landfills; build a community-led circular economy model based on waste; and promote sustainable farming using organic manure while creating waste-based jobs and income for community members.

Their current efforts of the group, however, are primarily focused on running a waste composting facility Located in Sidan village, the facility is used to sort, compost, and package the organic waste. A visit to the center gives one a full view of those efforts, where a group of six to seven villagers can be seen engaged in various waste management activities. While a two-member team is seen sorting organic waste from inorganic waste, others are seen crushing, filtering, and packaging.

“This is a program run by, for, and of the villagers,” says Dewi Kusumawati, Project Manager at Mera Putih Hijau – it involves every villager’s active participation. “We begin by asking everyone in the village to sort their waste at home. Then, we collect the organic waste and bring it to this 3R-Transfer Depo (TPS3R) waste management facility, where it is used to produce quality compost.”

The history of the waste management program is connected to the official waste management program that, villagers say, hasn’t served its purpose to keep the island truly clean and at times has caused more harm than good.

Seven years ago, in 2017, the government of Indonesia set an ambitious target for waste management in its National Development Plan (Kebijakan dan Strategi Nasional). The target included reducing household waste by 30 percent and the handling of household waste by 70 percent by this year (2025).

As a part of this plan, in 2021 the government provided funding to all regencies to build village-level waste management facilities and accordingly, 129 facilities were built, including 36 in Gianyar Regency.  But less than 50 percent of the facilities are well-managed and operated, says Hermitianta Prasetya,  a Community Relation Manager at Bumi Sasmaya Foundation, which manages and funds Merah Putih Hijau.

According to Prasetya, the National Development Plan on waste management also included promoting organic farming and in 2019 the government passed a policy called Organic Farming System Provincial Regulation. But, in Bali, the farming sector is heavily dependent on chemical fertilizer and the new regulation didn’t have provisions to help farmers make a clear shift to using organic fertilizer with training or step-by-step technical guidance.  As a result, it became very hard to convince farmers to change to more sustainable agricultural practices such as using organic fertilizer.

The other reason behind this program has been curbing the current trend of sending waste to landfills: besides the government-owned landfill at Suwung, which handles 1,500 tons of waste every day, it is reported that there are also some 1,000 illegal open dump sites across the province, which pollute both the island’s water sources and environment.

“Currently, about 70 percent of the waste in Bali is taken to dump into landfills. The remainder is mainly organic waste that can be turned into compost. The Merah Putih Hijau program is trying to change the approach towards waste. So, we ask everyone in the village to sort their waste at home. Then, we collect the organic waste and bring it to this 3R-Transfer Depo (TPS3R) waste management facility, where it is used to produce quality compost. This compost then goes right back to the villagers to use in their farms. So, we are aiming to meet the village’s needs at where they are,” says Dewi Kusumawati, Manager of Merah Putih Hijau.

To help the villagers better understand the difference between organic and inorganic waste, the Merah Putih Hijau team also spends substantial time training villagers in separating organic and inorganic waste, composting, and different aspects of sustainable waste management as well as sustainable agriculture. The team has so far done dozens of trainings, says Kusumawati.

Persisting Plastic Problem

Despite their successful composting initiative, the Merah Putih Hijau team has a long way to go before achieving their dream goal of treating all waste locally. The biggest reason behind that is the ever-increasing volume of plastic and other non-compostable waste.

The team collects both organic and plastic waste. But right now, they do not have the capacity to recycle the inorganic waste. In their composting station, an entire room is filled with bundles of plastic bottles, bags, and other waste.  But in the absence of a recycling facility or a program, the waste keeps piling up.

This is a much bigger problem than a village community can handle, admits Prasetya, especially because managing plastic and other inorganic waste needs more effort, including technical expertise and specialized facilities. This cannot be done alone by a village community, and it will require partnership with other actors, including the government and the private business community.

The plan is now to start conversations for building those partnerships that can lead to bigger, stronger waste management initiatives, especially to tackle the plastic waste.

“We are going to create several local networks with hotels, restaurants, and other tourism-based businesses. We are already talking to government officials. Eighty percent of the Balinese population currently earn their livelihood from tourism. And piling garbage is a threat to our tourism and our livelihood. So, there is a common good for us to achieve by partnering and solving the plastic waste together,” Prasteya says.

Considering there are nearly 1300 hotels and restaurants in Giyaniar alone, this is going to be an uphill task for the community group to bring them all into one place and convince them to participate in a collective waste management movement. But Agastya Yatra, the head of the Bumi Sasmaya Foundation, believes that it is possible to do so. The garbage issue, he says, has already been noticed. Now, it’s time to find a solution that works in favor of the locals.

“Eighty percent of our people earn their living from tourism. So, we need solutions that will not affect tourism. We need to keep our tourists happy and for that, we need to keep our villages and beaches clean. This will work only if we join hands and work together,” he says. “Together, if we can segregate waste properly, recycle, and reuse, then slowly but surely, our problem with waste will vanish,” says Yatra.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

IPS UN Bureau, IPS UN Bureau Report, Bali

Dominican Republic’s Minister of Labor Eddy Olivares Ortega and Javier Cremades, President of the World Jurist Association, hand the Medal of Honor award to Just Rights for Children founder Bhuwan Ribhu.

By Stella Paul
NEW DELHI, May 6 2025 (IPS)

Bhuwan Ribhu didn’t plan to become a child rights activist. But when he saw how many children in India were being trafficked, abused, and forced into marriage, he knew he couldn’t stay silent.

“It all started with failure,” Ribhu says. “We tried to help, but we weren’t stopping the problem. That’s when I realized—no one group can do this alone. Calling the problem for what it truly is—a criminal justice issue rather than a social justice issue—I knew the solution needed holistic scale.”

Today, Bhuwan Ribhu leads Just Rights for Children—one of the world’s largest networks dedicated to protecting children. In recognition of his relentless efforts to combat child marriage and trafficking, he has just been awarded the prestigious Medal of Honor by the World Jurist Association. The award was presented at the recently concluded World Law Congress in the Dominican Republic.

But for Ribhu, the honor isn’t about recognition. “This is a reminder that the world is watching—and that children are counting on us,” he tells IPS in his first interview after receiving the award.

Looking Back: One Meeting Changed Everything

For Ribhu, a lawyer by profession, it has been a long, arduous, and illustrious journey to getting justice for children. But this long journey began during a meeting of small nonprofits in eastern India’s Jharkhand state, where someone spoke up: “Girls from my village are being taken far away, to Kashmir, and sold into marriage.”

That moment hit Ribhu hard.

“That’s when it struck me—one person or one group can’t solve a problem that crosses state borders,” he says. He then started building a nationwide network.

And just like that, the Child Marriage-Free India (CMFI) campaign was born. Dozens of organizations joined, and the number grew steadily until it reached 262.

So far, more than 260 million people have joined in the campaign, with the Indian government launching Bal Vivah Mukt Bharat—a national mission towards ending child marriage in India.

Across villages, towns, and cities, people are speaking up for a child marriage-free India.

“What used to feel impossible is now within reach,” Ribhu says.

Taking the Fight to Courtrooms

Ribhu is a trained lawyer, and for him, the law is a powerful weapon.

Since 2005, he’s fought—and won—dozens of important cases in Indian courts. These have helped define child trafficking in Indian law; make it mandatory for police to act when children go missing; criminalize child labor; set up support systems for abuse survivors; and remove harmful child sexual abuse content from the internet.

One big success came when the courts accepted that if a child is missing, police should assume they might have been trafficked. This changed everything. Reported missing cases dropped from 117,480 to  67,638 a year.

“That’s what justice in action looks like,” said Ribhu.

Taking Along Religious Leaders

One of the most powerful moves of CMFI was reaching out to religious leaders.

The reason was simple: whatever the religion is, it is the religious leader who conducts a marriage.

“If religious leaders refuse to marry children, the practice will stop,” says Ribhu.

The movement began visiting thousands of villages. They met Hindu priests, Muslim clerics, Christian pastors, and others. They asked them to take a simple pledge: “I will not marry a child, and I will report child marriage if I see it.”

The results have been astonishing: on festivals like Akshaya Tritiya—considered auspicious for weddings—many child marriages used to happen until recently. But temples now refuse to perform them.

“Faith can be a big force for justice,” Ribhu says. “And religious texts support education and protection for children.”

Going Global with a Universal Goal

But the campaign is no longer just India’s story. In January of this year, Nepal, inspired by the campaign, launched its own Child Marriage-Free Nepal initiative with the support of Prime Minister K. P. Sharma Oli. All the seven provinces of the country have joined it, vowing to take steps to stop child marriage

The campaign has also spread to 39 other countries, including Kenya and the Democratic Republic of Congo, where calls for a global child protection legal network are gaining momentum.

“The legal systems of different countries and regions may differ, but justice should be the same everywhere,” says Ribhu, who has also authored two books—Just Rights and When Children Have Children—where he has laid out a legal, institutional, and moral framework to end child exploitation called PICKET. “It’s not just about shouting for change. It’s about building systems that protect children every day,” Ribhu says.

Sacrifices and Hope

Ribhu gave up a promising career in law practice. Many people didn’t understand why.

“People said I was wasting my time,” he remembers. “But one day my son said, ‘Even if you save just one child, it’s worth it.’ That meant everything to me.”

A believer in the idea of Gandhian trusteeship—the belief that we should use our talents and privileges to serve others, especially those who need help the most.

“I may not be the one to fight child marriage in Iraq or Congo. But someone will. And we’ll stand beside them.”

A Powerful Award and a Bigger Mission

The World Jurist Association Medal isn’t just a trophy. For Ribhu, it’s a platform. “It tells the world: This is possible. Change is happening. Let’s join in.”

He also hopes that the award will help his team connect with new partners and expand their work to new regions.

“In 2024 alone, over 2.6 lakhs Child Marriages were prevented and stopped and over 56,000 children were rescued from trafficking and exploitation in India. These numbers show that change is not just a dream—it’s real,” he says.

By 2030, Ribhu hopes to see the number of child marriages in India falling below 5 percent.

But there’s more to do. In some countries, like Iraq, girls can still be married as young as 10, and in the United States, 35 states still allow child marriage under certain conditions.

“Justice can’t be occasional,” Ribhu says. “It must be a part of the system everywhere. We must make sure justice isn’t just a word—it’s a way of life.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Pavitra Nandagiri—one of the highest-ranking transgender spiritual leaders at Maha Kumbh, the largest religious gathering on earth in Prayagraj, India. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

By Stella Paul
PRAYAGRAJ, India, Feb 18 2025 (IPS)

Despite a blazing sun and growing heat, Pavitra Nandagiri sits on a cot smiling. Clad in a saffron robe and headgear with her forehead painted with turmeric and vermillion, Nandagiri is a Mahamandaleshwar—one of the highest-ranking monks of the Kinnar Akhada (Transgender Arena) at the Maha Kumbh, the world’s largest religious gathering currently underway in northern India.

As a steady stream of visitors pours in to touch her feet, Nandagiri raises her right hand and touches their heads in a gesture of accepting their respect and blesses them.

Just a few hours ago, she had taken part in the special, ceremonial snan (bathing) in the Sangam—a place with mythological significance where three holy rivers—Ganga, Jamuna and Saraswati—are believed to have met. Taking a dip in the confluence of these rivers is considered by Hindus as the most sacred act of one’s lifetime.

The ceremonial bathing is led by the most important of the living Hindu saints and godmen who follow a strict order of hierarchy. On Wednesday morning (February 12), the fourth ceremonial bathing of the 45-day Maha Kumbh was held. Fifteen transgender spiritual leaders, including Nandagiri, marched along with the Naga Sadhus and Aghoris—the legendary saints with ash-covered bodies, matted hair, and minimalistic clothing. Together, they bathed in the river with the holy chant of “Har har Mahadev” (Hail Shiva) while saints of other sects waited for their turn.

A devotee prays at the Maha Kumbh Sangam, where three rivers are believed to have converged. While two of the rivers—Ganges and Yamuna—are visible, the third river, Saraswati, is said to be hidden underneath. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

Later, inside the Kinnar Akhada, trans gurus receive visitors while some are seen performing some rituals and meditating along with Aghori ascetics. Asked how the partnership between the third highest order of the religious saints and the trans leaders came to be, Nandagiri says that it had been in the making since 2015 and culminated in a functioning collaboration during this year’s Maha Kumbh, which happens once every 12 years. She, however, does not share other details except that perhaps what brought together the two sects is their shared denouncement of worldly pleasure and embracing of a life free from its wealth and other complexities.

Transgender-Inclusive Kumbh: Conditions Apply

At the Kumbh, Akharas are organized into various sects, primarily categorized based on their philosophical orientation and the deity they worship. The two main sects are Shaiva Akharas, dedicated to Lord Shiva, and Vaishnava Akharas, devoted to Lord Vishnu. Each Akhara operates under a hierarchical structure, typically led by a Mahant (chief) or Acharya (spiritual leader) who oversees the spiritual and administrative functions.

The inclusion of the transgender Acharyas in the Kumbh, especially as a part of the highly revered Juna Akhada of the group of the Naga Sadhus, however, has not been completely free of controversies. Some have disputed their claim of embracing a minimalistic life and accused them of indulging in a game of power and authority considered unbefitting for true sainthood.

On January 24, the community ushered in a former film actress called Mamta Kulkarni as one of its top leaders, which led to protests by many both from within the trans community and leaders of other Hindu sects, who described it as a public relations stunt. Baba Ramdev—a well-known yoga guru—called it a violation of the Hindu religious ethos. Some gurus went as far as threatening to boycott the next Kumbh—to be held in 2037—if the Kinnar Akhada is not excluded from the ritual bathing.

Kalyani Nandagiri—another top-ranking trans guru who opposed the actress’s inclusion—was physically attacked by unidentified assailants on February 12.

A monk at the Transgender Arena within the Maha Kumbh. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

Despite these deep divisions and acts of violence, Pavitra Nanndgiri remains hopeful of the community’s future.

“People say a lot of things; some wrongs also happen. But such small issues should not be highlighted much. We are here today, and we will be here then (in the next Kumbh),” she says, sounding more like a peace advocate.

A Different Picture

While inside the Kinnar Akhada, trans gurus are busy receiving and blessing visitors; outside, on the street, a small crowd of men is seen surrounding a young trans man dancing to the fast beats of music.

“This is Launda Naach,” says Ajeet Bahadur—a local theater artist. “It’s a common form of rural entertainment here, performed typically by cross-dressing trans men.”

The audience of Launda Naach is typically male. It is said to have started at a time when women were not allowed to dance in public because of orthodox social norms. However, today the moves of a Launda Naach performer are often sleazy and according to Ajeet Bahadur, the dancers are often sexually exploited, and their performance is rarely seen as art.

“Their lives are unbelievably miserable; there is little respect for their art, all eyes are on their bodies and exploitation and poverty are a constant part of their lives,” says Bahadur, who has studied the lives of Launda Naach performers for some time.

Aside from Launda Naach performers, thousands of other trans men and women in India struggle to earn a living. They are usually seen begging on the street and inside public transport, while many are also often accused of extorting money from small businesses such as shopkeepers in local markets. Not surprisingly, the presence of a trans person in India usually evokes a mix of fear and contempt instead of the deep respect that is on display in the Kinnar Akhada of the Kumbh. Will the elevated status of the gurus here lead to any change in the social status of the common trans people?

Priyanka Nandagiri, a transgender monk, says that it cannot be guaranteed. “Broadly, the transgender community in India is divided into two groups: the Sanatani and the Deredaar. We are the members of the Sanatani group who have always been immersed in religious activities, while the Deredaar are the ones who have chosen a different lifestyle, such as performing dances on the street and at social events like weddings, etc. So, we have always been following separate paths,” she explains.

Dwita Acharya and Mohini Acharya—two other trans monks—nod in agreement: “It will depend on what life they choose,” they say in unison.

”If they want to follow our path (the Sanatani), they will get that recognition but if they want to continue with their usual Deredaar lifestyle, then people will continue to view them accordingly.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

COP16 in Riyadh launched a drought resilience initiative, which also saw contributions of over USD 12 billion for land restoration and drought resilience. Credit: IISD/ENB

By Stella Paul
RIYADH & HYDERABAD, Dec 17 2024 (IPS)

The 16th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD COP 16) concluded early hours of Saturday with a renewed focus on building drought resilience globally. However, the COP also failed to agree on bringing a legally binding drought protocol. Like the biodiversity and climate change COPs held earlier in the year, COP16 also failed to finish in time and ended by postponing several key decisions to COP17 scheduled to be held in 2026.

The COP started on December 2 in Riyadh, under the presidency of Saudi Arabia. On Saturday, in a press statement, Osama Faqeeha, Deputy Minister for Environment, Ministry of Environment, Water and Agriculture, and Advisor to the UNCCD COP16 Presidency, claimed that the conference was a resounding success because it had attracted the largest number of participants till date, representing diverse sectors.

“The Riyadh Action Agenda has already helped galvanize state and non-state actors around the world. However, COP16 in Riyadh is just the beginning of its impact, and Saudi Arabia’s UNCCD COP16 Presidency will continue to engage with everyone, from the investment community, NGOs and scientists to Indigenous Peoples and farmers, to maximize its lasting global legacy,” he said.

One of the biggest success stories scripted in Riyadh was the launch of a drought resilience initiative, which also saw contributions of over USD 12 billion for land restoration and drought resilience. Launching the initiative on the first day of the COP, Saudi Arabia announced it was contributing USD 150 million for its operationalization. The rest of the fund was pledged by the Arab Coordination Group, which has 22 member countries, including the UAE, Egypt and Bahrain. The initiative would aim to support 80 of the world’s most vulnerable countries to increase their capacity to combat the effects of drought and build their drought resilience.

“The Riyadh Global Drought Resilience Partnership will work to deliver a transformative shift in how drought is tackled around the world. Harnessing the collective impact of major global institutions will move drought management beyond reactive crisis response through enhancing early warning systems, financing, vulnerability assessments, and drought risk mitigation. This stands to be a landmark moment for combating international drought, and we are calling on countries, companies, organizations, scientists, NGOs, financial institutions and communities to join this pivotal partnership,” Faqeeha said.

AI For Combating Drought

As part of the Riyadh Action Agenda, Saudi Arabia’ also launched the International Drought Resilience Observatory (IDRO). This is the first artificial intelligence-driven global platform that will help countries assess and improve their ability to cope with more severe droughts. This innovative tool is an initiative of the International Drought Resilience Alliance (IDRA).

Saudi Arabia also announced the launch of an international sand and dust storm monitoring initiative. This effort, part of a regional early warning system, aims to complement existing efforts overseen by the World Meteorological Organization. Based in Jeddah, the Sand and Dust Storm Warning Advisory and Assessment System (SDS-WAS) increases the number of global World Meteorological Organization-affiliated nodes to four. Saudi Arabia also pledged $10 million in funding over the next five years to enhance early warning systems in countries currently unable to monitor for sand and dust storms.

However, despite their best efforts, the COP16 could not bring all negotiators to agree on its proposal of creating a legally binding treaty for action on drought. The protocol, if agreed upon, could have been a huge step forward, having the world’s first legally binding global treaty on drought, land degradation and desertification, equivalent to the UNFCCC’s Paris Agreement and the Global Biodiversity Framework.

Paving Greater Participation of Youths and IPLCs

Among the other decisions taken at the COP16 is the creation of a Youth Caucus and an Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities Caucus. Though a caucus within the COP has an advisory role without any voting power, it can help broaden the participation of the Indigenous people and provide an opportunity to them for lobbying for language concerning Indigenous issues in the future negotiation texts.

Reacting to the development, Jennifier Corpuz, leader of the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity (IIFB), an umbrella organization of Indigenous Peoples and local communities from seven global regions, said that it was a decision that had been long overdue.

“The decision by the UNCCD to support the development of a Terms of Reference for an Indigenous Peoples Caucus and a local communities caucus is a great development for enhancing rights-holder engagement in the work of the UNCCD. It is the last Rio Convention to support the establishment of an IP Caucus and the first to explicitly support a specific local community Caucus, so it is about time, even long overdue. The hope is that the new UNCCD IP and LC caucuses learn from the nest practices and enhanced participation arrangements established in the other Rio Conventions and avoid the mistakes,” Corpuz told IPS News.

UN Warns Against Business-As-Usual Approach

Meanwhile, throughout COP16 in Riyadh, the UNCCD released several major publications highlighting the urgency of tackling land degradation, desertification and drought. The UNCCD’s financial risk assessment flagged that presently there is a $278 billion annual shortfall in funding for land restoration and drought resilience and emphasized the urgent need for private sector engagement.

The UNCCD also issued a landmark report into the growing global expansion of drylands, finding three-quarters of the Earth’s land became permanently drier over the last three decades. In addition, the rate of land degradation has rapidly increased. As a result, there are now 1.6 billion hectares of degraded land instead of 1 billion hectares in 2015. This means the convention’s flagship program, Land Degradation Neutrality, which aims to restore all degraded land by 2023, now also urgently needs a greater level of efforts as there is now half a billion more hectares to be restored. If this was to be achieved, the parties must shun their business-as-usual approach and put greater focus on land restoration, said Ibrahim Thiaw, the Executive Secretary of UNCCD.

“Land Degradation Neutrality is an ambition that was adopted in 2015 based on the science and it is still valid. If we manage to achieve it as it was conceived in 2015, that is a big step forward. Unfortunately, with more recent studies and data, we realized that we need to restore even more land by 2030 than it was envisaged in 2015. It doesn’t change or diminish the importance of the decision made in 2015. Because now we have updated science, we know that we need to restore 1.5 billion hectares of land instead of 1 billion hectares by 2030 in order to have equilibrium in the world. So basically, we have science to tell the decision-makers of the world that business as usual does not work,” Thiaw told IPS News.

The next UNCCD COP will be held in 2026 under the presidency of the Government of Mongolia. With the most ambitious of the decision—a global drought protocol—left unreached, onus is now on the UN to build a consensus among parties on a global drought agreement before they convene at COP17.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Announcement of Saudi Arabia’s Riyadh Drought Resilience Partnership Initiative. Credit: Anastasia Rodopoulou/IISD/ENB|

By Stella Paul
RIYADH & HYDERABAD, Dec 6 2024 (IPS)

While many delegates at the 16th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD COP16) hope that this could be the convention’s own Paris moment—referring to the historic Paris agreement inked by UNFCCC signatories—however, this hedges heavily on the UN parties’ seriousness to combat drought, desertification and land degradation.

UNCCD COP 16, themed “Our Land and Our Future,” is currently underway in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

One of the biggest expectations from the conference is a landmark decision on achieving a complete halt to land degradation by 2030. The other expectations are mobilizing enough resources to restore all degraded land and achieve total resilience against droughts.

Global Land Degradation at COP

Degradation affects 2 billion hectares of land globally. This is more than the total land area of Russia, the largest country on earth. This affects 3.2 billion people—twice the population of entire Africa. The degraded land area is also continuously expanding as each year an additional 100 million ha get degraded—mostly due to the impacts of climate change such as a drought and desertification. With a business-as-usual approach, by 2050, 6 billion ha will be degraded, warns UNCCD, which is urging the parties of the ongoing COP to take urgent action to halt this.

“Every second, somewhere in the world, we lose an equivalent of four football fields to land degradation. We must act now to restore our lands. They are the foundation of everything. For the first time, through our UNCCD reporting, we have evidence-based estimates of the alarming state of land degradation. COP16 is about our reliance on lands, but also our resilience,” said Ibrahim Thiaw, the Executive Secretary of UNCCD, at the opening ceremony of the COP.

“The scientific evidence is unambiguous: the way we manage our land today will directly determine our future on earth. Land restoration is the first and foremost foundation of our economy, security and humanity. We must restore our land now,” Thiaw said to an audience of party delegates, civil society groups, women’s rights organizations, business and finance experts, members of other UN agencies and youths.

Responding to the UN call, Saudi Arabia, the COP16 host, has promised to deliver strong action.

On Wednesday, December 4, the COP observed “Land Day.” Speaking at the event, Abdulrahman Abdulmohsen AlFadley, UNCCD COP16 President and Saudi Arabia Minister of Environment, Water, and Agriculture, said, “Through our Presidency of COP16, we will work to make this COP a launchpad to strengthen public and private partnerships and create a roadmap to rehabilitate 1.5 billion hectares of land by 2030.”

Finance Gap: Common Challenges of all UN COPs

On Dec 3, the second day of COP, the UNCCD released its financial needs assessment report, detailing the latest funding requirements to address land degradation, drought and desertification. The findings revealed a sizeable funding gap for international land restoration efforts. Based on UNCCD targets, the required annual investments for 2025–2030 are estimated at USD 355 billion. However, the projected investments for the same period amount to only USD 77 billion per year, leaving USD 278 billion that requires mobilization to meet the UNCCD objectives.

In the past, UNCCD’s finance mobilization efforts included the creation of a Land Degradation Neutrality Fund (LDN Fund), a financial mechanism to support the achievement of Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN)—a target under the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG 15.3). But, similar to the climate change COPs and the biodiversity COPs, UNCCD’s LDN fund is underfunded and has only received USD 208 million.

However, on the second day of COP16, the Arab Coordination Group pledged USD 10 billion to combat land degradation, desertification and drought. The donation would go to the Riyadh Global Drought Resilience Partnership, an initiative launched by Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has also already announced a donation of USD 150 million to operationalize the initiative. The additional backing took place during the Ministerial Dialogue on Finance, part of the high-level segment at COP16 in Riyadh, aimed at unlocking international funding from the private and public sectors.

The Missing Private Sector Investment

The Riyadh Global Drought Resilience Partnership will also focus on unlocking new financial mechanisms, such as credit, equity financing, insurance products, and grants, to enhance drought resilience.

With over USD 12 billion pledged for major land restoration and drought resilience initiatives in just the first two days, COP16 in Riyadh is already bringing more hopes than the biodiversity (UNCBD) and climate change (UNFCCC) COPs.

Dr. Osama Faqeeha, Deputy Minister for Environment, Ministry of Environment, Water and Agriculture, and Advisor to the UNCCD COP16 Presidency, said: “I hope this is just the beginning, and over the coming days and weeks, we see further contributions from international private and public sector partners that further amplify the impact of vital drought resilience and land restoration initiatives.”

However, the convention has still not been able to unlock any significant private funding, which has been identified by many as a huge challenge in the path of achieving total land restoration. According to the COP Presidency, only 6 percent of the private investors and businesses have invested in land-related initiatives and the funding gap in the UNCCD is a ‘worrying blackhole.”

“If the international community is to deliver land restoration at the scale required, then the private sector simply must ramp up investment. As the latest UNCCD findings show, there remains a worrying blackhole in the funds needed to combat land degradation, desertification and drought,” said Faqeeha.

A Gender-Just Financing Solution: Can COP16 Deliver?

Following a series of events this year at the UN General Assembly, the CBD COP16 in Cali, Colombia and COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, the ‘Rio Convention Synergies’ dialogue also took place on Land Day, highlighting developments made during the 2024 Rio Trio events. The event discussed the interconnected issues driving land degradation, biodiversity loss and climate change and how to find common solutions.

Most participants highlighted the disproportionate impact of drought and land degradation on women and their urgent requirement for access to finance.

Women’s Leadership for Sustainable Land Management, Tarja Halonen, UNCCD Land Ambassador and Co-Chair of the UNCCD Gender Caucus, said, “Women and girls in rural communities bear the greatest burden of desertification, land degradation, and drought (DLDD), and their empowerment is crucial for addressing urgent land challenges.”

AlFadley noted that women’s empowerment enhances sustainable land management (SLM) and the preservation of ecosystems, as well as long-term resilience against DLDD.

Recognizing the challenges women face to mobilize resources for their own land restoration initiatives often due to lack of capacity and connections, Neema Lugangira, Member of Parliament, Tanzania, advised the COP16 Gender Caucus to connect with parliamentarians in the global climate finance chapter of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund’s parliamentary network.

“It will be good if the UNCCD can have a land restoration parliamentary group,” she said.

Speaking at a high-level interactive dialogue, Odontuya Saldan, Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Mongolia, which will host COP17 in 2026, proposed establishing a global coalition of future rangelands and pastoralism solutions focused on gender equality and the role of youth, children, and women. She said Mongolia would make gender a priority at COP17, where the key theme will be rangelands and pastoralism.

What decisions COP16 makes to provide women land restorers and drought warriors with greater access to land finance is still up in the air.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

An image of an indigenous woman at the Plenary in session at COP16 which took a historic decision on the indigenous peoples and local communities. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

By Stella Paul
CALI, Columbia, Nov 3 2024 (IPS)

The curtains fell on the 16th Conference of the Parties of UN Biodiversity (COP16) on Sunday without any formal closing. In a voice message, David Ainsworth, the Communications Director of the UNCBD, confirmed that the COP was suspended due to a lack of quorum in the plenary and would be resumed sometime later. However, before being suspended, the parties managed to adopt a historic decision to open the door for Indigenous Peoples (IPS) and local communities (LCs) to influence the global plan to halt the destruction of biodiversity.

A Watershed Moment for IPLC

On Saturday night, after hours of last-minute negotiations at several closed-door meetings among parties, COP negotiators agreed to create a permanent subsidiary body under Article 8j of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF) that would allow indigenous and local communities (IPLCs) direct participation in the implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. As reported by IPS previously, article 8j had been the subject of one of the most intense negotiations in the COP, with thousands of indigenous activists demanding it while also drawing opposition from a few countries, including Indonesia and Russia.

However, after several rounds of meetings facilitated by the COP16 host Colombia, the warring countries were finally brought to a consensus and the proposal to establish a permanent subsidiary body in the CBP on IPLCs was finally adopted unanimously.  Also, for the first time in the history of the CBD COP, indigenous peoples of African descent in Colombia had been recognized for their role in biodiversity conservation, paving the way for them to participate in all processes related to IPLCs under COP and KMGBF.

“This is a watershed moment in the history of multilateral environmental agreements,” said Jennifer Corpuz, leader of the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity (IIFB), an umbrella organization of Indigenous Peoples and local communities from 7 global regions organized around the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) to coordinate indigenous strategies on biodiversity.

Panama Susan Muhamad, President of COP16. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

Corpuz, who had spearheaded the IIFB negotiations on 8J all through the COP, further said that establishment of the Permanent Subsidiary Body on Article 8(j) would not only enable strong partnerships between governments, Indigenous Peoples and local communities and funders but also provide a high-level platform to further highlight the contributions of IPs and LCs to protection of the planet and share learnings.

Currently, the IPLC-related discussions are held under an open-ended Working Group. The decisions of this group are not binding and there is no mandate on how often this group should meet. However, after the subsidiary body’s creation, this working group is no longer needed and can be disbanded. Corpuz revealed that Colombia is most likely to be the host of the first subsidiary body meeting, expected to take place in about a year from now—around October or November 2025.

Hopes Raised by a New DSI Fund

Agreement on a new, multilateral framework on Digital Sequencing Information (DSI) was also reached at COP16 on Saturday.

The framework—to be known as the CaliFund—will channel funding and address how the benefits derived from the use of genetic data, particularly in pharmaceutical, biotechnology and agricultural companies, should be shared with the countries, indigenous communities and stakeholders that provide these resources. The adopted text on this includes strong language such as companies should pay rather than being encouraged to and specifies that 50 percent of the money coming to the DSI fund will be directly going to Indigenous Peoples and local communities.

However, no decisions were taken on the exact percentage of the profits that the companies will have to pay and who would be the other stakeholders eligible to access the fund.

National Biodiversity Action Plans

In a pre-COP interview to IPS, Astrid Schomaker, Executive Secretary of the UNCBD, said that all parties were expected to submit their revised National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) at COP16. However, on the final day of the COP, only 44 countries had submitted their NBSAPs. The long list of countries that did not submit includes the UK and Brazil.

At the launch event of their NBSAP, Indian Minister of State for Environment, Kirti Vardhan Singh, said that India was ready to help others, especially the neighboring countries, to develop and submit their own NBSAPs.

“We do believe in neighbors first policy and the policy of ‘one earth, one family’ and are always ready to share our expertise with the neighbors; however, the request must come from their side, Singh told IPS.

Gender: A Free Tool to Measure Progress

Gender mainstreaming—the focus of KMGBF’s Article 23 was not on the main agenda of COP16, and parties did not have a mandate to discuss their plans on implementing it.

However, Women4Biodiversity—the group that represents all NGOs working on biodiversity and women—announced on October 31 that they had co-developed with UNEP-WCMC an indicator for the countries to adopt and use to implement target 23 of the KMGBF.

Explaining further, Mrinalini Rai, head of Women4Biodiversity, said that the indicator includes a questionnaire with multiple choice answers. Questions are organized under the three expected outcomes from the Gender Plan of Action and the wording closely corresponds to the indicative actions in the Gender Plan of Action. Each answer falls under a category representing the level of progress. Answers are then aggregated and summarized as a quantitative measure (index) to provide a measure of progress over time

All countries that signed the KMGBF have to report on the progress of its implementation in 2026, when the Biodiversity Global Stocktake will take place. The indicator could especially help Parties to prepare for that reporting since it is developed to track and report on their actions towards ensuring the gender-responsive implementation of the KMGB.

“We have taken a long time and invested a lot of efforts to co-develop this methodology. We also have held extensive consultations with several countries and 19 of them held a test run of the indicator. They then shared their feedback, and we revised the indicator based on that. So, it’s a tried and tested tool that any country can use,” Rai said.

Finance and Monitoring and a Suspended COP

While a couple of new financial contributions were pledged to the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund during the COP, USD 51.7 million by private donors and USD 163 million by 12 donor countries, the target of raising USD 20 billion by a year remained a goal as distant as ever.

On Saturday night, there was a clear divide between the developing and the developed countries, mainly the European Union. The developing countries demanded that the COP adopt a plan for meeting the USD 20 billion by 2025 and hold donors to account. They argued that this was crucial for them, as the majority of the countries in the global south could not start implementing their biodiversity action plans without money. However, this was vehemently opposed by EU delegates who did not want the official document to include any language related to accountability.

The north-south divide also became prominent when African countries complained that their concerns and voices were being sidelined on the crucial issue of the monitoring framework.

Speaking on behalf of the African Union, the delegate from Namibia alleged that the COP had failed to consult African parties in developing indicators for implementation of the KMGBF: “We would like to put it on record that throughout the contact groups and beyond, we have signaled our willingness to engage in discussions and find convergence; however, Africa was not informed nor invited to the discussion on a compromise that was presented in the CG but that never considered the African group’s position with its 55 countries.”

As both groups refused to move from their positions and some parties also spoke without following the procedure of the UN process, the COP presidency finally announced that the conference was being suspended for now.

Melissa Wright, of Bloomberg Philanthropies, which had previously pledged to donate USD 20 million to conserve marine biodiversity, said the deadlock was “deeply concerning.”

“It is deeply concerning that consensus was not reached on key issues, including finance. The clock is ticking.”

However, Susana Muhamad, the president of COP16, called the conference a success.

“COP16 has been a transformative event,” said Muhamad while admitting that disagreements on the financial strategy and the monitoring framework remained a future challenge. “

This leaves some challenges for the Convention, and it is time to start addressing them, but the discussion there was always very polarized and continued to be so,” she said.

COP17: Armenia Wins

On October 31, delegates voted for Armenia to host the next biodiversity COP (COP17). Armenia and Azerbaijan were the two contenders and during the voting, Armenia received 65 votes out of 123 cast in a secret ballot, while 58 were cast in favor of Azerbaijan, Muhamad announced.
IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Antonio Guterres, the UN Secretary General at COP16, sent a message that peace with nature was only possible if there was a political solution to conflicts. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

By Stella Paul
CALI, Columbia, Oct 31 2024 (IPS)

José Aruna, a forest defender from Sud Kivu province in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), remembers the night in September 2019 when a group of heavily armed men barged into his house in the middle of the night. Aruna and his wife—6 months pregnant at the time—were in bed when he heard sounds of boots on the front yard and quickly knew something was about to happen.

He silently slipped out of the bed and hid behind a tree at the back of the house.

“My wife was woken up by the armed men who asked her where I was and when she said she didn’t know, they demanded money from her. When she said she had no money on her, they hit her in the face. Then they took turns to rape her. The next day I took them to Rwanda,” Aruna recalls the horror.

Since then, Aruna’s family has lived in Rwanda, but he has continued to work in the DRC, often in hiding and on the run but never giving up the cause. He leads an environmental group called Congo Basin Conservation Society in the vicinity of Kahuzi Bieza National Park, which is, besides gorillas and chimpanzees, also famous for redwood and vast deposits of charcoal.  The redwood is felled by loggers primarily to smuggle to China, while the charcoal is sold both in domestic and international markets. As CBCS tries to stop the smugglers, their members are regularly attacked, kidnapped for ransom and killed.

José Aruna, a forest defender from Sud Kivu province in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), speaks about the perils of environmental activism and it’s profound impact on him and his family. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

Surviving in the Dangerous Forests

According to Global Witness 2023 report Missing Voices, 74 environmental defenders have been killed in the DRC in the past decade—mostly in the Congo Basin—a hotspot of illegal mining and illegal logging.

DRC also features in the World Peace Index as the 6^th most dangerous country in the world. “In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, rebels and warmed forces wander certain areas at will. Crimes, including murder, rape, kidnapping, carjackings, burglaries, muggings, and highway robberies, are fairly common,” says the report.To make peace with nature, we must first make peace with ourselves because wars are won at the most devastating impacts of biodiversity, climate and pollution.—Antonio Guterres, the UN Secretary General

Jose says that the local men and women who are trying to preserve biodiversity in their neighborhoods face the greatest risk.

“We are crushed by dual evils. On one side, there are illegal, armed militias that target us. On the other hand, we face threats from the corrupt army and government officials who are directly linked to those running illegal businesses. We have nowhere to go.”

The total area of the Congo River Basin is 3.7 million square kilometers—double the size of its neighboring country, Uganda. It is also known as the lungs of Africa. There are dozens of armed insurgents that operate in the area, but it is the Owazalendo militia partnering with Congo military and Forces Démocratiques de Libération du Rwanda (FDLR), a Hutu rebel group linked to the 1994 Rwandan genocide, that are the most powerful. Both Owazalendo and FDLR are also giving direct support to illegal miners and loggers both inside the protected forests and outside of it, Aruna informs.

“We are mostly in hiding. If we are caught by the rebels, we will be asked to pay anything between five hundred and fifty thousand American dollars to be free. Can you imagine that kind of money?” he asks.

Aruna is at COP16, where country representatives are currently finalizing the best ways to implement the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF). The GBF’s Target 22 specifically mentions that countries must “ensure the full protection of environmental human rights defenders,” and Aruna thinks that it is time for the parties to accept that environmental defenders are greatly vulnerable and lack both government support and resources required to protect themselves.

Sunita Kwangta Moomoo, an environmental activist from Kayin State in Myanmar. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

Arms for Arms: Case of Myanmar

Sunita Kwangta Moomoo is a Karen—an indigenous community from the Kayin state of Myanmar—a country under military rule and also in the middle of a civil war.

But the Karen community, which has been demanding a separate homeland for Karen people, has been in an armed conflict that precedes the military coup and fall of democracy in February 2021. The fights have, however, intensified manifold since various pro-democracy groups started an armed resistance against the army all across the country, including Loikaw, the heartland of Kayin State, where the Karen National Liberation Army is leading the fight.

Moomoo, who now lives in neighboring country Thailand, has family members who are still in Myanmar.

“The situation is tough. Every now and then, we have air strikes by the military directed at the villages. The only way to escape these airstrikes is to hide in a mountain cave. Sometimes the military also conducts raids in villages, and they always follow a “scorched earth” policy, so they burn down everything—homes, animals, vegetation—along their way.”

This has not just destroyed human lives but also the culture of the Karens since their belief system, including social and religious rituals, is integrally tied to land and forests. “When we sow crops, when we harvest, when we celebrate a birth, we perform rituals on the land that we own or live on. Now, those are gone.

The concept of environmental defense, obviously, doesn’t exist anymore either since survival has become the only goal of the Karens. And in the desperate struggle for survival, even civilians have armed themselves. “Everyone is a soldier now,” says Moomoo.

“Environmental defenders arming themselves is bound to happen if the state is not able to protect themselves and Myanmar is a classic example of that,” says Joan Carling, Executive Director of Indigenous Peoples Rights International, a Philippines-based global organization that works to safeguard the rights of indigenous peoples.

Philippines is yet another country that has gained notoriety for killing environmental defenders, especially in the indigenous territories.

The statistics from the Missing Voices report show that of the 196 defenders reportedly killed or forcibly disappeared globally in 2023, 17 were in the Philippines, the highest toll in Asia. More environmental defenders have been killed in the country than anywhere else in the region over the past 11 years.

Carling, who has been attending COP16, reveals that the indigenous people’s body has been demanding the formation of a new, official forum within the UNCBD to ensure safety and inclusion of indigenous peoples as the implementation of GBF begins worldwide. The new platform—a permanent subsidiary body—will specifically focus on Article 8J of the KMGBF that commits to, among others, respect, preserve and maintain knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities… for the conservation of biological diversity.

“We need to recognize indigenous environmental defenders as the key actors in biodiversity conservation in this COP,” Carling says.

Targeted by the Drug Cartels

Colombia, the host of COP16, holds a dubious record of witnessing the greatest number of murders of environmental defenders. The country was in an armed conflict with ultra-communist rebels led by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) for five decades until it signed a peace agreement with the government in 2016. During the period, nearly half a million Colombians were killed and forcibly disappeared, of which 200,000 were civilians.

Today Colombia is no longer in an armed conflict yet it continues to witness murders of environmental defenders.

On October 28, in a plenary session focused on Target 22 of the GBF, it was revealed that 240 people had been killed between 2016 and 2024 in Colombia for opposing destruction of forests and nature. Drug cartel runners were responsible for the majority of murders.

On 29 October, at a side event, speakers from different UN agencies and the government of Colombia drew attention to the dire need for international collaboration to curb drug trafficking. This, they said, could only be done if the peace treaty is implemented well and in time and concrete steps were taken in collaboration with international communities to destroy the supply chain of drugs originating from Colombia.

According to Jose Manuel Peria, head of green business at the Ministry of the Environment, Colombia, the government has been proposing new strategies to ensure the rights of farmers and those on the frontline of environmental conservation. These include restructuring the government system and building new channels for generating resources for the communities, especially with an environmental focus.

“There is no longer just talk of agricultural production, but sustainable agriculture. We are now building this narrative in the ministries and portfolios involved in all these (implementation of the peace accord) processes. And indeed, biodiversity and the sustainable management of life are at the very center of this process,” Peria asserts.

But Mary Creagh Raine, the Nature Minister for the United Kingdom, who also spoke at the event, said that while the action at the local and national level was crucial, it was also equally important to crack down on the international markets of Colombian drugs. The UK, said Creagh Raine, was one such market for the drug cartel and if the cartel and the violence they unleash on local environmental defenders were to stop, Colombia and the UK would have to work closely to ensure that the smuggling route and the markets are also closed.

“There is still so much to do to ensure that crimes against the environment and people are prosecuted and punished with the severity they deserve,” said Craigh Raine. “The transnational nature of drug trafficking is modern, agile and highly sophisticated. If we really want to be effective, we must do more together to demonstrate the same multinational consistency and coordination, Creagh Raine said.

No End of Conflict, No Peace with Nature

The Biodiversity COP started with the overarching goal of “Making Peace with Nature,” but can this be ever achieved given the current scale of war and armed conflict across global regions and their high impact on biodiversity?

Answering this question, Antonio Guterres, the UN Secretary General, told IPS that achieving peace with nature is only possible if there is a political solution to the ongoing wars and conflicts.

“To make peace with nature, we must first make peace with ourselves. That is why we have been asking for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, release of the hostages and the massive humanitarian aid to Gaza. That is why we are asking for peace in Lebanon—a peace that respects Lebanese sovereignty, Lebanese territorial integrity and paves the way for a political solution. That is why we are asking for peace in Sudan—the enormous stress that exists. To make peace with nature, we must first make peace with ourselves because wars are won at the most devastating impacts of biodiversity, climate and pollution,” said Guterres.
IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Indigenous women in Cali hold a protest commodificationof their traditional natural products. Majority of the indigenous organizations participants in the COP have been vocal about their opposition to biodiversitycredits, which they think is a false solution to halt biodiversity loss. Credit:Stella Paul/IPS COP16 Logo, installed at the conference venue atCali, Colombia. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

By Stella Paul
CALI, Columbia, Oct 26 2024 (IPS)

At the end of the first week at the 16th Conference of Parties on Biodiversity (COP16), finance emerges as the biggest issue but also shrouded in controversies.

On Saturday, as the COP moved closer to its most crucial phase of negotiations, resource mobilization—listed under Target 19 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF)—took centerstage, with most parties demanding faster action, greater transparency and the adoption of true solutions to halt biodiversity loss. 

Biodiversity finance: Expectation vs Reality

On Thursday, October 24, the government of China formally announced that the Kunming Biodiversity Fund—first announced by Chinese president Xi Jinping in 2021—was now fully in operation. The fund promises to contribute USD 220 million over the next 10 years, which would be spent especially to help developing countries in implementation of the KMGBF and achieve its targets, said Huang Runqiu, Minister of Environment and Ecology, China, at a press conference. It wasn’t clear, however, how much of the promised amount had been deposited.

This has been the only news of resource mobilization for global biodiversity conservation received at COP16, as no other donors came forth with any further announcements of new financial pledges or contributions to the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund (GBFF), which was expected to receive USD 400 billion in contribution by now but has only received a paltry USD 250 million.  In addition, there were no announcements of the countries reducing their current spending on harmful subsidies that amount to USD 500 billion and cause biodiversity degradation and biodiversity loss.

In absence of new contributions and lack of any concrete progress on reduction of harmful subsidies, the new mechanisms like biodiversity credits to mobilize resources for implementation of the Global Biodiversity Fund is fast gaining traction.

From October 21–24, the COP16 witnessed a flurry of activities centered primarily around biodiversity credits and the building of new pathways to mobilize finance through this means. Experts from both the UN and the private sector were heard at various forums discussing the needs of developing tools and methodologies that would help mobilize new finance through biodiversity credits while also ensuring transparency.

COP16 logo, installed at the conference venue in Cali, Colombia. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

Inclusiveness and the Questions

According to a 2023 report by the World Economic Forum, the demand for biodiversity credits could rise to USD 180 billion annually by 2050. The report said that if major companies stepped into the market, the annual demand for biodiversity credits could go to as high as USD 7 billion per year by 2030.

Experts from the UN and a variety of technical people with various backgrounds said that since biodiversity credits are still in their infancy, there will undoubtedly be a lot of scrutiny and criticism. The Biodiversity Credit Alliance is a group that provides guidance for the establishment of a biodiversity credit market. The urgent need, they said, was to develop infrastructure and policies that would help answer those questions and tackle the scrutiny. The first and foremost of them was to help build digital tools and infrastructure that could be used to share and store biodiversity data in a credible and transparent manner.

Nathalie Whitaker, co-founder of Toha Network in New Zealand, a group of nature-based business investors, said that her organization is building digital tools, especially for helping local communities to participate in biodiversity credit programs and access the benefits.

“Once the communities have these tools, they can instantly see what data is being used to pay for the biodiversity credits or even decide the value of the natural sources in their territory. So, they can see what resources are being discussed, what is being valued, how it’s being done and how the whole discussion is moving forward,” Whitaker said.

Fabian Shimdt-Pramov, another speaker at the event, said that the quality of the tools would decide the course and results of a biodiversity credits project.

Shimdt-Pramov, chief business development officer at Biometric Earth, a German company that uses artificial intelligence to build biodiversity analytics tools from different sources such as remote sensing, wildlife cameras, acoustic monitoring, etc.

“If methodology is not correct, if the data is not correct, the system doesn’t work,” he said, emphasizing on the requirement of high-level technological expertise that is needed to get a biodiversity credit project off the ground.

However, when questioned on the cost of buying such high-end technologies and tools, especially by Indigenous communities living in remote areas without any internet connectivity, both speakers appeared to be at a loss for words.

“I have seen in the Amazon a community selling five mahogany trees on the internet, so I am guessing it’s not a big challenge,” Shmidt-Pramov said in a dismissive voice. Whitaker acknowledged that lack of access to digital technology in Indigenous Peoples communities was an issue but had no solutions to propose.

Terence Hay-Edie of Nature ID, UNDP, however, stressed the need to empower the communities with the knowledge and skills that would help them access the tools and be part of a biodiversity credit.

As an example, he cites restoration of river-based biodiversity as a biodiversity credit project where a river is considered to have the same rights as a human being. According to him, if values of credits are counted and traded for restoration of biodiversity around a river, it will require recognition of all these rights that a river has, which is only possible when the community living along the river has full knowledge of what is at stake, what is restored, what value of the restored biodiversity is to be determined and how the pricing of that value will be decided.

“A river can be a legal entity and have a legal ID. Now, can we build some tools and put them in the hands of the community that is doing the restoration to know the details of it? That’s what we are looking at,” Hay-Edie said.

A False Solution?

However, Indigenous peoples organizations at the COP16 were overwhelmingly opposing biodiversity credits, which they called “commodifying nature.”

What are biodiversity credits? It’s basically regenerating biodiversity where it is destroyed and earning money from that. But it doesn’t work that way, according to Souparna Lahiri, senior climate change campaigner at Global Forest Coalition.

“If we talk of a forest, the ecosystem is not just about trees but about every life that thrives in and around it—the rivers, the animals, plants, bees, insects, flowers and all the organisms. Once destroyed, it’s lost forever. And when you regenerate it elsewhere, you can never guarantee that it will be an exact replica of what has been lost.  This is why the very concept of biodiversity credit is a destructive idea,” says Lahiri.

Valentina Figuera, also of the Global Forest Coalition, said that while trading carbon credits could work as a tool in carbon change mitigation, it would not be the same in biodiversity.

“In climate change, you can measure the total carbon generated by a forest, for example. But in biodiversity, how do you measure it? What is the mechanism? How do you even value life that thrives there? So, this concept is a straight import from climate change and forcefully imposed in biodiversity, which is nothing but a false solution, so that businesses that cause biodiversity loss can conduct their business as usual.

The Dilemma of Participation

COP16, dubbed the “People’s Cop” by Colombia, the host country, has drawn several hundred representatives of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLC), especially from across Latin America, including Colombia, Brazil, Panama, Venezuela and Peru. While the Latin American IPLC organizations appeared united in their opposition to biodiversity credits, African organizations seemed to be willing to consider it.

Mmboneni Esther Mathobo of the South African NGO International Institute of Environment said that her organization was in support of biodiversity credits, which could, she said, not only help the community earn money but also motivate them further to preserve biodiversity.

“We are influencing and making sure that our rights are safeguarded and protected in this newly emerging market of bringing biodiversity credits,” said Mathobo.

Currently, Namibia is implementing its first biodiversity carbon credits project in partnership with the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). Known as the Wildlife Credits Scheme, the project is known as a Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) that rewards communities for protecting wildlife and biodiversity.  Mathobo said that the project in Namibia made her realize that there was a great opportunity for local communities to conserve and restore biodiversity and earn from it.

“We faced many challenges to earn carbon credits because that system was established and created behind our heads. And now we wake up, but we find ourselves sitting with a lot of problems in that market where our communities are not even benefiting. But we believe that with the engagement of the biodiversity alliance, UNDP, we are going to be the ones making sure that whatever happens in the biodiversity credit market, it benefits all our regions and all our communities, as well as safeguarding and protecting our rights,” she said.

“To each their own, if Latin American indigenous communities feel they don’t want to trade natural resources, that’s their right. But in Africa, we have the potential to earn biodiversity credits and we need the money, so we are supporting it,” Mahobo commented when reminded of the opposition of Latin American countries to biodiversity credits.

Source: World Economic Forum Report on Biodiversity Credit

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Astrid Schomaker, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. Credit: UNCBD

By Stella Paul
MONTREAL & HYDERABAD , Aug 27 2024 (IPS)

“We are living in a time where nature is regularly raising its hand and saying, ‘Look, I’m here and I’m in trouble,’ and then bringing us all sorts of natural disasters to the table,” says Astrid Schomaker, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (UNCBD), in an exclusive interview with IPS. 

“And,” she emphasizes, “The world is beginning to recognize that we have to have a different relationship with nature. Luckily, we already have a framework to do that.”

Since taking the reins of the UNCBD in July—less than three months before the 16th Biodiversity Convention of the Parties (COP16) is held in Colombia—Schomaker has been a leader in a rush. From preparing for the COP to coordinating with Colombia, the COP presidency and global leaders who will be attending the conference, while also presiding over a number of meetings and communicating the urgency of timely implementation of the Global Biodiversity Framework, Schomaker has a damaging schedule.

There are three COPs this year—all within a short span of three months and the CBD COP16, scheduled to take place from October 19–November 1, is the first of them. Schomaker is looking at this as a huge opportunity to send out a message to the other COPs.

“Unless we have a different way of interacting with the earth’s natural resources, we will not succeed on biodiversity, but also certainly not on climate change. And if that comes out and there is meant to be a new coalition launched at the COP that Colombia will be piloting, I think we will send a super strong message to the other conventions and I’m sure they will hear it and pick up on it.”

Coordinating With Other UN Conventions

But a successful COP will also depend on how well CBD can collaborate with other COPs, as the issues—biodiversity, climate change and drought are also closely linked. Schomaker asserts that she is on the right track, coordinating closely with other conventions as well as other UN agencies.

“I’ve been working with all these other conventions and processes as well, because for us to make this Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) a success is to make sure that the UN system pulls together and that governments also reflect on their own way of working,” she explains, that biodiversity is not sector specific where environment ministries alone can run it, but one in which other ministries and stakeholders are needed to make this framework a success.

From Green Diplomacy to Biodiversity

Schomaker, however, is not new to multi-agency collaboration and coordination. She begins the interview by sharing glimpses into her previous role at previous role at the European Commission’s Environment Department, describing it “a bit of warm-up” for her current position as the head of UN CBD.

“My last job was the Director for Green Diplomacy and Multilateralism. So, previously, I did it for a group of 27 countries. Now I work with 196 member states. Previously, I covered, so to speak, environmental governance and all assessments, including biodiversity, but also the chemical conventions and how all these conventions work together. Now I’m more focused on biodiversity—this is very much about everybody coming together.”

Schomaker also describes this as a “super exciting opportunity” to be able to work dedicatedly on biodiversity at a time “when the world has sort of heard the wake-up call”.

COP16: Challenges and Hopes

Barely eight weeks from now, world leaders will be heading to Cali, Colombia, to attend the first COP since adopting a new global plan in Montreal to protect at least 30 percent of the earth’s biodiversity by 2030. The past two years have seen a slew of activities, including structuring the implementation mechanism, supporting countries to revise their individual biodiversity action plans and setting up indicators for measuring the progress of the implementation. According to Schomaker, there are, however, several issues that need urgent attention at Cali.

“I think in Montreal (which is dubbed Biodiversity’s Paris moment), we managed to be more successful than in Paris, because we already had our monitoring framework and its broad outlines agreed at the same time. So that was actually a great success,” Schomaker says, continuing with a candid assessment of the challenges.

“But there are many areas that need extra focus. First of all, for the parties now need to move from this political agreement into implementing it and into aligning what they’re doing nationally with the targets and goals of the framework. And as you know, we have this National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans (NBSAPs) as our key instruments for implementation; those need to be revised, and the parties have committed to revising those national action plans, or where they cannot do that, at least to come forward with targets by COP16. And for me, this is a bit like the proof of the pudding.”

A Push for Inclusiveness

But it is resource mobilization that tops Schomaker’s list of priorities, including raising money from private sector investors.  The UN Biodiversity Convention aims to mobilize at least USD 20 billion per year by 2025 and at least USD 30 billion per year by 2030 for biodiversity-related funding from all sources, including the public and private sectors. However, so far, the actual pledges have been just about USD 300 million, while the contribution has been less than USD 100 million.

In May of this year, the then acting Executive Secretary David Cooper told IPS that the world needed a clear roadmap to bridge this wide financing gap.

Schomaker appears in agreement with that and talks about an all-inclusive resource mobilization strategy to meet the unmet goals in biodiversity financing. She is especially pushing for greater inclusion of business and thinks contribution from private business could unlock the investment that has been missing so far.

“Business, I think, plays a super important role. It was really great to see the private sector show up in force in Montreal. I think we’re now expecting a greater mobilization for Cali. So business is very, very aware of their role, of both their dependencies and their impact.”

“As you know, there are compelling figures on the relationship between nature and business, which is worth USD 44 trillion,” reminds Schomaker, referring to the New Nature Economy Report of the World Economic Forum. Published in 2020, the report highlighted that USD 44 trillion of economic value generation—over half the world’s total GDP—is moderately or highly dependent on nature and its services and, as a result, exposed to risks from nature loss.

“So, I think that’s important if you continue to work with business and make sure that they have the tools to understand what the impacts and dependencies are. And we will provide a lot of space for that also at the COP, the Business and Biodiversity Day and many other activities, for sure,” she says.

Staying Positive

But, despite the challenges ahead, Schomaker doesn’t want to sound all gloom and doom. Instead, she is looking at each development, however small, as a sign of positivity and hope.

In fact, on the day of this interview, the CBD had been leading a crucial meeting on Digital Sequencing Information conference in Montreal. DSI discussions center on the fair and equitable sharing of valuable benefits from digital sequence information—the digital versions of plant, animal, and microorganism DNA—and are generally considered one of the most contentious issues among biodiversity negotiators from the global north and the global south. But Schomaker asserts that there are reasons for hope. One of them is planning to launch a DSI fund.

“As you know, COP15 has already decided that there should be a mechanism and a fund for Digital Sequence Information for the benefits to be paid—the benefit from the use of digital sequencing information from genetic resources. So, one of the options is that the Global Environment Facility (GEF) might manage this fund.

“But overall, I can say that the discussions that I’ve been witnessing over the past few days and this morning are very, very constructive. And this is not to downplay that there are different perspectives, but I think everybody has come here saying, ‘Okay, we’ve taken a decision at COP15 and that decision told us we’re going to have that mechanism, we’re going to have a fund and we need to operationalize it. And our deadline is Cali’,” Schomaker says.

States Must Take the Lead

As the chief of UN Biodiversity, Schomaker has already dived into action, but she doesn’t mince words while pointing out that the UN can only be a facilitator—the real power and the responsibility to make decisions lie clearly with the states. This is especially important to remember because to kickstart the implementation of the GBF, countries need to submit their revised, more ambitious NBSAPs but until today, only 14 of the 196 signatory countries have done so.

“We are looking at how these big planning processes, the NBSAPs and then the NDCs under the Climate Convention, and how these things can also be done in better coordination, also at national level, with each other, remains a big challenge. The second thing, and I’ve already hinted at that, is this idea that if we want to be successful in combating biodiversity loss, of course, governments need to take the lead,” she emphasizes.

“Do Something”

Finally, when asked what message she would have for anyone heading to COP16, Schomaker has a clear answer: Signing of the GBF proved that there was enough political commitment, but it should not be seen as an event that was “just a beautiful moment, where energy came together, and everybody just had good moment together, and the stars were aligned.”

Instead, she says,  “It’s time to roll up the sleeves and do something.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

IPS UN Bureau, IPS UN Bureau Report, Cali, Columbia, COP16,

A banner demanding an end to harmful subsidies is on display on the last day of the SBI meeting in Nairobi. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

By Stella Paul
NAIROBI, Jun 3 2024 (IPS)

Regions struggling to revise and update their National Biodiversity Plans aligning them with the Global Biodiversity Framework adopted at COP15, will now be given the technical and scientific support to develop and submit their plans on time.

This was one of the key decisions of the 4th meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Implementation (SBI)—the crucial pre-COP meetings of the United Nations Convention on Biodiversity (UNCBD)—to review the status and challenges of implementing the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), which started on May 22 and ended in Nairobi late in the evening of May 29, 2024.

More than 1000 participants from 143 countries gathered for the nine-day meeting, which UNCBD referred to as one of the “largest SBI meetings ever,” to discuss a variety of issues pertaining to the timely implementation of the GBF. As the meeting ended, the participants came up with a list of recommendations that will be presented for nations to consider at the next Biodiversity COP (COP16), scheduled to be held in October in Cali, Colombia.

IPS provided coverage of the twin meetings of SBI and the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical, and Technological Advisors (SBSTTA), which took place earlier on May 13–18.  In this article, we bring you the key issues that topped the agenda of the SBI and the biggest recommendations that were made.

National Biodiversity Strategic Action Plans

In December 2022, at the COP15, parties agreed to revise and update their national biodiversity plans (NBSAP), aligning the targets with the global biodiversity framework that was adopted at the COP. These updated plans are to be submitted to UNCBD by or before the next COP, scheduled to be held in October.

However, as earlier reported by IPS, despite being just five months away from the next COP, only 11 countries have submitted their NBSAPs, while the majority of the countries have not, citing various reasons, including a lack of capacity and resources.

The top agenda item of the SBI has been reviewing these reasons and recommending steps that can help countries close this gap and complete the task of submitting their plans on time.

David Cooper, acting Executive Director of UN Biodiversity and Chirra Achalendar Reddy, chair of SBI-4, address the press conference. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

Capacity Building

After the nine-day discussions, delegates at the SBI decided that it would be necessary to provide all countries with specific technical and scientific support that can help them develop their NBSAPs and submit them on time. To provide this support, SBI decided that a network of technical and scientific support centers would be set up at regional and sub-regional level.

According to Chirra Achalender Reddy, Secretary, National Biodiversity Authority, India, and the chair of the SBI-4 meeting, the recommendation to set up these support centers was one of the key decisions made at the meeting.

“I thank the parties for their commitment to implementation of the Convention, as demonstrated by their engagement during the negotiations this week.  While we have many issues to resolve at COP16, the foundation is laid for our discussions in Cali, Colombia, later this year,” said Reddy.

Elaborating further on the decision, David Cooper, Acting Executive Director of the UNCBD, said that 18 regional organizations have been selected worldwide as the support centers. “They will foster and facilitate technical and scientific cooperation as countries harness science, technology and innovation to help halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030.”

Cooper also expressed hope that, in the future, these 18 organizations could create more such support centers, expanding the network from regional and sub-regional to national level.

“These subregional support centers will also promote technology transfer among countries, including through joint research programs and joint technology development ventures, acting as “one-stop service centers” offering wide-ranging resources to help meet Biodiversity Plan targets.  The centers are expected to help expand, scale up, and accelerate efforts such as the existing Bio-Bridge initiative,” Cooper added.

Resource Mobilization

In the Global Biodiversity Framework, the financial ambitions set out include investing USD 200 billion a year from both public and private sources until 2030. In addition, the goal also includes saving another USD 500 billion by ending subsidies that are harmful to biodiversity yet are still practiced by countries. This will bring the total available finance for biodiversity conservation to USD 700 billion per year until 2030, the deadline to achieve all GBF targets.

At the SBI, there was an intense discussion on resource mobilization. Several countries complained that, despite being signatories to the GBF, they had not been able to access any resources meant for biodiversity conservation, especially the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund (GBFF), which was launched last year and is managed by the Global Environment Facility.

Delegates from Syria, who spearheaded this discussion, revealed that their country had not been able to receive any money and suggested that the final document prepared by the CBD Secretariat reflect this. Syria’s voice was amplified by Russia, which said that Syria’s inability to access resources should be interpreted as a denial of resources.

Almost all the governments also discussed their own parameters for national biodiversity finance plans, the role of multilateral development banks, existing UN initiatives, and private finance.

An important discussion that took place was about setting up a new Global Biodiversity Fund, separate from the current Global Biodiversity Framework Fund (GBFF).

Women4Biodiversity, a group of women-led NGOs and gender champions, launched a training module on how to mainstream gender at the Global Biodiversity Framework meeting. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

Gender and Indigenous Peoples

One of the most interesting developments that took place on the sidelines of the SBI meeting was the launch of a training module by Women4Biodiversity, a group that advocates for gender mainstreaming across all 23 targets of the GBF and participates in the meetings as an observer.

Titled “Training Module on Advancing Women’s Rights and Gender Equality in the Implementation of the Kunming Montreal-Global Biodiversity Framework,” the document was prepared in collaboration with World Wildlife Fund (WWF).

Speaking to the press about the training module, Alejandra Duarte, Policy Associate at Women4Biodiversity, said the main objective of the publication was to serve as a source of information for decision-makers, negotiators, indigenous peoples and local communities, women, youth, civil society, businesses, and the whole of society who are engaged in the planning, monitoring, and implementation of the Biodiversity Plan.

Mrinalini Rai, Director of Women4Biodiversity, also explained that the module was created to be understood by all and customized as per the context, community, or country.

Supporting Rai’s comments, Cristina Eghenter, senior global governance policy expert at WWF, said, “I hope that the module will help understand the gaps and what needs to be done for women to be a part of the Biodiversity Plan.”

Rodah Rotino, an indigenous community leader and President of the Pastoral Communities Empowerment Programme (PACEP), a Kenya-based women-led NGO, highlighted the contribution of indigenous women to biodiversity conservation across the world, including Africa.

“In my community, we have started a seed bank that preserves indigenous tree seeds. We plant indigenous plants that help preserve and conserve the local biodiversity and help community members benefit from their many uses, as they have done for centuries,” Rotino said, citing the example of her own community in West Pokot County, where women have started several initiatives. “We even promote the use of our traditional food systems, including the use of traditional indigenous crops, fruits, and vegetables, and we are seeing that after using these, our people, especially women and children, have many health improvements and quick recovery from some ailments. In short, we are going ahead with using our indigenous knowledge without even waiting for the formal implementation of the GBF.”

What’s Next

In Cali, Colombia, the CBD secretariat will present the decisions of the SBI-4 and the SBSTTA to the nations for their consideration and adoption.

However, just before the COP begins, yet another SBI meeting (SBI-5) will be held in Cali. The sole focus of that meeting will be to review the latest status of the national biodiversity plans and the plans that will be submitted between now and the COP.

“Right now, countries are in various stages of developing their NBSAPs and by October, we expect most of them to complete and make the submissions. The SBI-5 will review the plans and the status then,” Cooper explained.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

SBSTTA 26 Chair Senka Barudanović, Bosnia and Herzegovina, conferring with the Secretariat. Credit: IISD/ENB | Mike Muzurakis

By Stella Paul
NAIROBI, May 20 2024 (IPS)

After a week-long discussion by delegates from 196 countries, the 26th meeting of the Subsidiary Body of Scientific, Technical, and Technological Advisors (SBSTTA) of UN Biodiversity has concluded with a set of recommendations on several issues, including living modified organisms (LMOs) and synthetic biology. All nations must consider the recommendations, discuss them, and possibly adopt them at the Biodiversity COP in October. However, many questions remain unanswered and unclear.

LMOs and Synthetic Biology in Biodiversity COP

Synthetic biology, though identified as a new emerging issue, has been discussed for well over a decade at UN Biodiversity. In fact, 13 years ago, at COP11 in Hyderabad, India, nations took note of the proposals for new and emerging issues relating to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. They had also noted the need to consider the potential positive and negative impacts of components, organisms and products resulting from synthetic biology techniques on the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.

Based on SBSTTA’s suggestions, countries decided to create an ad hoc technical expert group (AHTEG) on synthetic biology in 2014. This group would talk about “synthetic biology as a further development and new dimension of modern biotechnology that combines science, technology, and engineering to make it easier and faster to understand, design, redesign, manufacture, and/or modify genetic materials, living organisms, and biological systems.” Later, the COP also asked AHTEG to discuss synthetic biology and risk assessment under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, an international agreement aimed at ensuring the safe handling, transport, and use of living modified organisms (LMOs). The protocol was adopted on January 29, 2000, as a supplementary agreement to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and entered into force on September 11, 2003.

David Cooper, acting Executive Director of UN Biodiversity and Senka Barudanovic, SBSTTA chair, address the press. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

The Mandate of SBSTTA-26

Brinda Dass is the Gene Drive Policy Lead at Foundation for the National Institutes of Health, US and a member of the AHTEG who attended the SBSTTA-26 in Nairobi. Dass revealed that for the Nairobi meet, AHTEG was given the task of developing a special guideline on engineered gene drive and at SBSTTA, the major discussion on LMO and synthetic biology was centered around genetically modified mosquitoes.

“For risk assessment, the request from the last COP (COP15 held in Montreal, Canada, in 2022) was to have a draft outline prepared. The request was very focused on the specific elements of engineered gene drive mosquitoes because that’s the most proximal use case because there’s work ongoing right now to generate engineered gene drive mosquitoes for malaria elimination and control in Africa.  So, our technical expert group was asked to prepare additional voluntary guidance on living modified organisms that contain engineered gene drives—and that’s what we did,” Dass told IPS.

Dass’s also commented that it was a successful meeting.

“Most parties, especially from the African continent—actually, almost all African delegations—accepted the document as they were happy to send it to the COP. So, they have approved it, they have accepted it, they were happy with what work was done and they wanted to move to COP. They don’t have any reservations on that,” Dass added.

Both Senka Barudanovic, who chaired all the sessions of SBSTTA and David Cooper, acting Executive Secretary of UN CBD, appeared to agree with Dass.

“I sincerely congratulate delegates for their hard work; I think it was a successful meeting where most parties demonstrated a spirit of compromise,” said Barudanovic.

“This meeting showed the willingness of parties to the CBD to reach consensus on the important scientific foundations of our work to achieve the Biodiversity Plan,” said Cooper. “The discussions have wide-reaching implications for biosafety, biotechnology, biodiversity in our oceans, and new global work on the health of people, plants, and animals.”

Brinda Dass, senior technical expert and Gene Drive Policy Lead at the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

Engineered Gene Drive Versus Genetically Engineered Products

Genetic engineering involves the direct modification of an organism’s DNA, often in a controlled environment, without necessarily influencing inheritance patterns in the wild. This technology is usually applied in agriculture, medicine, and industrial biotechnology. For example, BT cotton and other genetically modified (GM) crops.

Engineered gene drive, on the other hand, uses specific genetic constructs to create inheritance patterns, which means the genetic modification has a higher chance of being passed on from one generation to another. The development of engineered malaria mosquitoes is done under this technology.

Since its impact would be on successive generations, engineered gene drive technology naturally raises significant ecological and ethical concerns due to the potential for widespread and irreversible impacts on ecosystems and biodiversity. One of the biggest concern is the potential spread of modified genes beyond the target population. For example, there is concern about the impact and effect of engineered gene drive malaria-resistant mosquitoes on other animals and other insects, including mosquitoes that do not cause malaria.

Experts also say that the whole issue of LMO and Synthetic Biology is also looked at with concern and skepticism because many find it too complicated.

One of the reasons that it is complicated is because there is no universal definition of what synthetic biology is. Because it largely captures many kinds of technologies and products, it is difficult to understand what does and doesn’t fall under the bucket of synthetic biology.

Another factor is the unequal participation of the delegates, which could be attributed to a variety of reasons, including lack of understanding.

“Not all the delegates speak up. So, we don’t know their level of understanding. By level of understanding, I mean, there’s factual understanding and then there’s understanding of what the implications are of the decisions that are being taken here. Of course, I can’t say more (on the reasons why they don’t speak or their understanding), because I don’t know all the delegates and I’m limited to their statements,” said a scientist from the US who works as the focal point on LMO but is unwilling to reveal his name as the US is not a signatory to the UN Biodiversity Convention.

Lucia DeSouza, senior biotechnology scientist at the Public Research and Regulation Initiative (PRRI). Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

The Arguments and the Questions

At SBSTTA, some participants indicated that despite days of discussions, several questions were left unanswered and that many parties and representatives of NGOs and indigenous peoples groups were not in agreement. Some of these experts have been following the biodiversity COPs, the developments at SBSTTA, and the Cartagena Protocol for a long time, and they allege that the issue of gene drive was being discussed at multiple meetings, which led to unnecessary use of time, efforts, and resources.

“If you look at the documents from synthetic biology, one of the things that they prioritize is gene drives. But the thing is that gene drive is also being looked at already under Cartagena protocol. So, if you ask me, it looks like duplication of effort because synthetic biology is supposed to do horizon scanning, which is to look at new and emerging technologies as they apply to CBD and the protocols, right? So, if they look and say gene drive is one of those technologies,. But then, we already have gene drives being worked on, it’s not so much new and emerging,” said a scientist unwilling to reveal her name as she is not authorized to speak with the media.

The same issue was also brought up by the delegate from Japan, who argued that gene drive technology is a technology that arrived several years ago. It has already emerged, and the world is already working on it. So, why was the issue still being discussed at SBSTTA as a new and emerging issue?

“It’s true; technical experts have been talking about synthetic biology for more than 10 years, but they never concluded whether it is a new and emergent issue. Even the self-limiting mosquitoes fall under the definition of LMO and it’s one that has been tested in the field for a long time and it’s actually approved for Brazil, Paraguay, if I’m not mistaken. So, it’s also even been in the market. So, what Japan here raised is a very important point, because we are wasting a lot of time,” says Lucia DeSouza, a Brazilian scientist who is the Executive Secretary of the Public Research and Regulation Initiative (PRRI), a global group of biotechnology scientists.

Recommendations of SBSTTA and the Future Course

According to a statement by the CBD Secretariat, on biosafety and biotechnology, the Parties recommended new voluntary guidance on the risk assessment on engineered gene drives. The recommended guidelines are aimed at strengthening transparency and scientific rigor in the process and continuing the detection and identification of LMOs.

For the issue of synthetic biology, SBSTTA recommended that further discussions are needed on the possibility of continuing horizon scanning, an approach that involves systematically exploring and analyzing emerging trends, innovations, and potential future developments in the field of synthetic biology. This approach helps policymakers, researchers, and stakeholders anticipate and prepare for future challenges and opportunities.

An example of horizon scanning for synthetic biology could be the development of genetically modified fish, which is currently being researched for possible aquaculture efficiency and food security.

However, because SBSTTA is an advisory group, the COP may or may not adopt its recommendations. But once a draft decision is sent to the COP—in this case the issue of engineered gene drive malaria mosquitoes—then the nations will have a chance to read and express their opinions. It is possible that they will object to or reject some of the draft’s provisions, but it is also very likely that the parties will eventually accept some version of the draft decision.

“We are discussing risk assessment. We are discussing how to build a management system based on this risk assessment. And then what? Then, where do we go? It’s a good question,” DeSouza said. “While we can’t predict where things will go from here, as long as this topic remains relevant for parties, they’re going to keep wanting to have conversations related to it. The only way the topic will end is if the products (like gene drive mosquitoes) stop being produced and used or if the parties stop taking an interest in it. If the parties stay interested, then SBSTTA will continue to develop technical guidance documents. Finally, the countries will develop their own domestic regulatory frameworks following all these guidelines and the Cartagena protocol.”
IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Over 1,400 delegates, including 600 representing parties or signatories from over 150 countries and a significant delegation of Indigenous Peoples and other observer organizations, including women’s groups are attending two crucial biodiversity meetings in Nairobi, Kenya. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

By Stella Paul
NAIROBI, May 14 2024 (IPS)

The 26th meeting of the Subsidiary Body of Scientific, Technical, and Technological Advisors (SBSTTA) of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (UNCBD) started in Nairobi, Kenya, on Monday. Over 1,400 delegates, including 600 representing signatories or parties from over 150 countries, are present for the seven-day meeting at the headquarters of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). A large number of members from Indigenous Peoples and other observer organizations, including women’s groups, are also attending the meetings.

SBSTTA will be followed by the meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Implementation (SBI), another subsidiary body of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). The SBI will take place from May 20–29 at the same venue.

Opening the meeting on Monday morning, David Cooper, the Acting Executive Secretary of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, called on the delegates for a successful meeting.

“A key part of ensuring the implementation of the Global Biodiversity Framework is to monitor the progress and that’s why finalizing a monitoring framework includes authenticators for the parties to report on. I would like to give my sincere appreciation to all those working on putting together a comprehensive set of authenticators. I encourage you to make full use of what we have achieved so far and let’s make this meeting a success,” Cooper said.

IPS, which is exclusively covering the meetings, has insights into the meetings and presents here the brief history of both the meetings and their significance in larger global biodiversity protection, especially in the global south, including the implementation of the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), the legally binding international biodiversity treaty adopted by the nations in December 2022

SBSTTA: History, Mandate and Role in the COP

SBSTTA was established 30 years ago, in 1994, as a subsidiary body of the CBD during the first meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the CBD in Nassau, Bahamas. Article 25 of the CBD, which mandated its creation, tasked it with giving the COP timely advice regarding the application of the Convention.

Since then, SBSTTA ‘s main role has been providing assessments of scientific, technical, and technological information relevant to the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. It typically meets once or twice a year to review and assess relevant scientific information, including reports submitted by Parties, relevant organizations, and stakeholders. Its discussions cover a wide range of topics, including biodiversity loss, ecosystem services, invasive species, genetic resources, and biotechnology.

The main output of SBSTTA meetings is a set of recommendations to the COP, which are based on the scientific and technical assessments conducted during its sessions. These recommendations provide guidance to Parties and other stakeholders on key issues related to the implementation of the CBD.

For example, in 2007, SBSTTA recommended that the biodiversity COP consider the potential impacts of synthetic biology on biodiversity and ecosystems and encourage Parties to undertake further research, risk assessments, and regulatory measures to address any potential risks associated with the release of synthetic organisms into the environment.

This recommendation was later taken up by the CBD COP, leading to the adoption of decisions on synthetic biology, including Decision XIII/17, which encouraged Parties to continue their efforts to address the potential positive and negative impacts of synthetic biology on biodiversity, and take a  precautionary approach.

A more recent example is the SBSTTA’s recommendation from 2018 that the COP should encourage Parties to mainstream biodiversity considerations into sectoral and cross-sectoral policies, plans, and programs, including those pertaining to agriculture, fisheries, forestry, tourism, energy, and infrastructure.

The CBD COP later agreed with this suggestion, which led to the adoption of decisions and guidelines on mainstreaming biodiversity across sectors. One of these was Decision XIV/4, which asked Parties to do more to mainstream biodiversity into relevant sectors and to encourage synergies between the goals of sustainable development and biodiversity conservation.

SBSTTA and Genetically Modified Mosquitoes

SBSTTA-26 has a large number of issues on its agenda. Most prominent among them are: 1) creating a monitoring framework for the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework; 2) synthetic biology; 3) detection and identification of living modified organisms; and 4) biodiversity and health.

It is expected that under the detection and identification of living modified organisms, genetically engineered mosquitoes for Malaria prevention will be discussed. Research on genetically engineered mosquitoes for malaria control has been an area of interest and investigation for several years, although little information is available on it in the public domain.

Scientists in many countries, including in the United States and Brazil, have been exploring various genetic modification techniques to create mosquitoes that are resistant to the malaria parasite or are unable to transmit the disease. One approach involves genetically modifying mosquitoes to produce antibodies that neutralize the malaria parasite when it enters their bodies.

The other approach is to use “Gene Drive Technology,” which involves modifying mosquitoes in a way that ensures the modified genes are passed on to a high proportion of their offspring. Already, many field trials of genetically engineered mosquitoes have been conducted or are underway in different parts of the world, most notably those conducted by the company Oxitec in Brazil and the Cayman Islands.

At the SBSTTA, scientific and technical advisors will look closely at the important environmental and ethical considerations related to GE mosquitoes. According to the World Health Organization’s 2023 World Malaria Report, there has been an increase in malaria infections all over the world as a result of climate change. However, several countries and organizations have serious reservations against the release of GM mosquitoes, which they believe may have an irreversible and devastating impact on local biodiversity. One of the most vocal organizations against GE/GM mosquitoes has been Friends of the Earth, a US-based environmental advocacy group. Dana Perls, senior program manager at Friends of the Earth, said, “Significant scientific research on genetically engineered mosquitoes is still needed to understand the potential public health and environmental threats associated with the release of this novel genetically engineered insect.”

The SBSTTA is expected to witness passionate discussions, especially from environmental NGOs and faith-based organizations, including the need to ensure that communities are properly informed and engaged in decision-making processes, especially in the global south.

The agenda for the meetings includes creating a monitoring framework for the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, synthetic biology, detection and identification of living modified organisms, and biodiversity and health. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

SBI: Most Crucial Agenda Items

The SBI was established under the CBD during the third meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the CBD in 1996. The SBI’s mandate includes providing guidance and recommendations to the COP on matters related to the implementation of the CBD as well as identifying obstacles and challenges that may hinder effective implementation.

Like SBSTTA, SBI also typically meets once or twice a year to conduct its work. Its discussions cover a wide range of topics related to the implementation of the CBD, including national biodiversity strategies and action plans, financial resources and mechanisms, capacity-building, and technology transfer.

Chaired by Chirra Achalender Reddy of India, the SBI in Nairobi has placed several items on its agenda. However, the most crucial ones among them are: 1) resource mobilization and financial mechanisms; 2) a review of the progress in national target setting; and 3) the updating of national biodiversity strategies and action plans.

As IPS recently reported, only a handful of countries have so far been able to submit their updated biodiversity action plans, while the rest are said to be facing multiple challenges in doing so, including a lack of capacity. In fact, Kenya, the host country of these meetings, has not been able to submit their updated action plan yet.

On Monday, in her inaugural address during the opening ceremony of SBSTTA, Ingrid Andersen, the Executive Director of UNEP, acknowledged that a lack of capacity to revise and update their action plans has been reported by several member states. “Capacity building is a serious issue and at the SBSTTA and SBI, this will be seriously discussed,” Andersen said.

David Ainsworth, the Communications Director of UNCBD, said that the capacity is lacking in several areas, including communications (where countries do not know how to communicate to different ministries the need for working together to develop their biodiversity action plans), finance (lack of funding, budgetary constraints), and knowledge.

“Perhaps the most crucial of these is finance and this will be seriously discussed at the SBI,” Ainsworth said.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

Bee-harvesting in an urban setting. Preparations are underway for the 16th Biodiversity Convention of the Parties (COP16) in Cali, Valle del Cauca. Credit: USDA

By Stella Paul
HYDERABAD & MONTREAL, May 2 2024 (IPS)

In a world faced with habitat loss and species extinction, climate change, and pollution, it’s crucial that countries develop their national action plans and create a society that lives in harmony with nature, says David Cooper, Acting Executive Secretary of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), in an exclusive interview with IPS.

And in a year where more than 4 billion people across the globe are expected to participate in elections, Cooper believes that politicians should put biodiversity on their manifestos.

Since taking the reins from the previous Executive Director, Elizabeth Mrema, Cooper has been at the forefront of steering the CBD towards the implementation of the Global Biodiversity Framework.

Later this year, world leaders will gather in Cali, Colombia for the 16th Biodiversity Convention of the Parties (COP16) slated for October 21 to November 1, 2024 for which preparations are currently underway.

Cooper gives insight into the core issues that will be on the top of the COP16 agenda, the current status of biodiversity finance, including the newly operationalized biodiversity fund, the upcoming meetings of the scientific and technical bodies of the CBD, the current status of National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAP) and what is likely to unfold in the coming months in Digital Sequence Information (DSI).

David Cooper, Acting Executive Secretary of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).

Biodiversity Finance: On Track but at Slow Pace

The UN Biodiversity Convention aims to mobilize at least USD 20 billion per year by 2025 and at least USD 30 billion per year by 2030 for biodiversity-related funding from all sources, including the public and private sectors.

However, the current situation with biodiversity funding shows that while progress is happening, it’s not fast enough. Some countries and groups are trying hard to give more money to projects that help nature, but overall, it’s still below expectations, and there are unfilled promises, Cooper acknowledges.

“We need to see a serious road map,” Cooper says, “All countries, in particular the donor country community, have to see how we are going to achieve at least that USD 20 billion by 2025 because that’s imminent.”

He called on big donors to honor their commitments.

“It’s really important that the big donors who promise money actually follow through and give the money they said they would. We need everyone to work together to make sure there’s enough money to protect our plants, animals, and the places they live,” Cooper says. “Certainly, we need to see all countries put efforts behind all of the goals and targets of the framework and that, of course, includes those on financial resources.”

Cooper welcomed the decision by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) to establish a new fund, the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund. He said the CBD secretariat was working closely with Carlos Manuel Rodriguez, the GEF CEO, and his team.

“We then saw a number of contributions to that fund coming. The contribution from Canada is a significant one of 200 million Canadian dollars. Other significant donations came from Germany, Spain, Japan, and most recently, Luxembourg. Actually, the contribution from Luxembourg, if we look at its pro rata, given the size of the Luxembourg economy, is also quite generous, even though it’s only USD 7 million in total.”

National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs)

It’s not only about funding, Cooper says, but countries showing their commitment to their agreements, including developing NBSAPs. He acknowledged that very few countries had submitted so far.

“It’s only a few countries so far, and Spain, Japan, China, France, Hungary, and Ireland have submitted their NBSAPS, as well as the European Union,” says Cooper.

While he is optimistic that all the countries will develop their targets, he recognizes that it’s a complex process.

“I think most countries are in the process of developing their national targets, which is the first thing they’re supposed to do. But this is a process that is also supposed to engage all the different sectors of the economy and all the different parts of society, with the engagement of local communities, indigenous peoples, businesses, and so on.”

The CBD supports the countries through the complexities.

“The developing countries in particular have been supported through the Global Environment Facility. We’ve also been organizing a number of regional dialogues so that countries can share their experience as they move forward,” Cooper says.

At COP15, it was decided that all countries should submit their NBSAPs, if possible, before COP16.

“If they’re not able to submit their full NBSAPS by then, then at least they should provide their updated national targets. So, we do expect many, many countries to have progressed on their NBSAPs by COP16. Immediately prior to COP16, there will be another meeting of the subsidiary body on implementation to also take stock of where we are on that.”

COP16: What’s In, What’s Out

The core focus of CBD COP16 is likely to revolve around the adoption and implementation of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. This framework sets out the global targets and goals for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use for the next decade and beyond. Key aspects of the framework may include targets related to halting biodiversity loss, promoting sustainable resource management, enhancing ecosystem resilience, and ensuring equitable sharing of the benefits derived from biodiversity.

“I think I can highlight four key areas for COP 16,” says Cooper. “The first is that we have to see, and we have to have demonstrated progress in terms of implementation of the Global Biodiversity Framework. That means national targets are set. That means NBSAPs developed in at least a majority of countries. That means funds are flowing, which means, as I said before, a credible path towards this USD 20 billion by 2025 target. It also means the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund should be receiving more funds and supporting more projects.”

The second core issue will be the fair and equitable sharing of benefits from the use of Digital Sequence Information (DSI) on genetic resources. There was an agreement made at COP15 to establish this mechanism, but no details were fleshed out at that time, so those details are now being negotiated in an intergovernmental working group.

“Of course, the establishment of such a mechanism with a fund would give another major boost to the Convention because it would bring in another source of funding.”

The third area would be finance, he says.

“The fourth area that I would highlight is the need to further strengthen the role of indigenous peoples and local communities as key actors.”

He also points out that there’s a number of other issues, such as the issue of biodiversity and health and synthetic biology, that need to be managed, including looking at a risk assessment and risk management for, for instance, gene-edited mosquitoes.

“They’ve determined that the theme of the COP will be peace with nature, which is a broad theme that will include many, many issues,” he reveals.

 Plastic Pollution Treaty and CBD’s Role

The fourth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-4) on plastic pollution in April 2024 at the Shaw Center in Ottawa, Canada, aims to develop an internationally legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment, to end plastic pollution by 2040.

Ending plastic pollution is also one of the biodiversity targets, Cooper says, adding that the CBD is actively involved in the logistical organization of INC-4.

“Also, the reduction of waste from plastics and pollution from plastics is one of the elements of target 7 of the Kunming Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. So, we are seeing the success of INC-4 negotiations as hugely important for the implementation of the Framework,” he says.

What to Watch out for Between Now and COP16

Although all eyes will be on the COP16 negotiations, there are a number of global events taking place in the next few months that will contribute to the agenda and determine the level of the world’s preparedness for the conference.

“The most important ones are obviously the SBSTTA (Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical, and Technological Advice) and the SBI (Subsidiary Body on Implementation), then this working group on Digital Sequence Information that will take place in August,” Cooper says.

Like the SBI, SBSTTA is a subsidiary body established under the CBD. While the SBI specifically assists in reviewing progress in the implementation of the Convention and identifies obstacles to its implementation, among other functions, SBSTTA plays a crucial role in ensuring that decisions made under the CBD are informed by the best available scientific evidence and technical expertise.

“Then we have the G7 and G20 processes coming up, which are important processes to show leadership. The CBD COP itself will be followed by the COPs of climate change and desertification, making the linkage between these. Also, we expect Colombia and the indigenous peoples will host just before COP, a pre-cop focusing on indigenous peoples and local communities and their roles,” Cooper says.

Finally, as a record 64 countries across the world hold their elections this year to elect a new national government, does this provide a unique opportunity to speak about biodiversity and should biodiversity, like climate change, be made an election issue?

“Definitely,” says Cooper.

“If we look at many of the extreme events that people suffered from, particularly last year, whether these be fires, wildfires, droughts, storms, or floods, you know, these are largely attributed by the media to climate change. Climate change is increasing the probability and severity of these events, but these events are also happening because of ecosystem degradation because we haven’t been managing biodiversity and ecosystems well. So, I think we all have an opportunity to make this message and these links clearer. Politicians have a particular responsibility to do so, and I hope more of them will do so as these various elections in various parts of the world pan out.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Liane Schalatek joins demonstrators at COP28. After the initial euphoria that accompanied the announcement, questions are being asked about how it will operate and how money will be disbursed. Credit: X

By Stella Paul
DUBAI, Dec 12 2023 (IPS)

On November 30, the first day of COP28, the much-awaited Loss and Damage Fund—a landmark decision to compensate the world’s most climate-affected and climate-vulnerable people—was declared operational. Announcing the decision, COP28 President Dr Sultan Al Jaber said, ‘the fact that we have been able to achieve such a significant milestone on the first day of this COP is unprecedented. This is historic.”

Formed first at the 27th Conference of the Parties held in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, in 2022, the Loss and Damage Fund has been demanded for several years by climate action advocates and countries seeking financial compensation for people who are most adversely affected by climate change. Different contributors have so far pledged about $700 million to the fund.

The announcement by Al Jaber on November 30 was, as expected, overwhelmingly welcomed by parties and delegates. However, as the conference nears its conclusion, the focus has now shifted towards its implementation, and many participants are expressing their general lack of clarity on the exact next steps.

“We know that the World Bank is going to manage it, and there will be a board for basic assessment. But the money that has come in so far is very small. How this money then goes to small CSOs (civil society organizations) and women-led organizations is anyone’s guess,” says Dilruba Haider, who leads the Women’s Climate Change, Disaster Risk Reduction, and Humanitarian Portfolio in Bangladesh, one of the most climate-vulnerable countries in the world.

The Loss and Damage Fund: A Brief History

Loss and damage refer to the negative consequences that arise from the unavoidable risks of climate change, like rising sea levels, prolonged heatwaves, desertification, the acidification of the sea, and extreme events such as bushfires, species extinctions, and crop failures. As the climate crisis unfolds, these events will happen more and more frequently, and the consequences will become more severe.

For example, in 2022, Pakistan witnessed severe flooding, now known as the ‘super flood,’ which caused damage amounting to US$30 billion. But as a nation, Pakistan only emits less than 1 percent of global emissions. Combined with Bangladesh, another highly impacted country in South Asia, in 2022 alone, climate change caused losses worth approximately USD 36 billion and the displacement of about 50 million individuals.

The core thought behind the Loss and Damage Fund is that it is necessary to tackle the gaps that current climate finance institutions such as the Green Climate Fund (GCF) do not fill. The combined adaptation and mitigation finance flows in 2020 were USD 17 billion short of the total USD 100 billion pledged to developing countries. Despite the US’s current pledge of USD 1 billion, the need has since multiplied due to the rise in losses and damages brought on by numerous disasters, making USD 100 billion woefully insufficient.

Access Mechanism: What’s Clear, What’s Not

Liane Schalatek is the Associate Director of Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung in Washington, DC, where she spearheads the foundation’s work on climate finance. Schalatek has been tracking the flow of finance into the GCF for years and is also actively following the developments at the Loss and Damage Fund since its inception.

Schalatek, who has created an infographic to explain the basic facts and characteristics of the fund, says that, like the Green Climate Fund, contributions to the Loss and Damage Fund are also voluntary and without a strict timeline for fulfilling the pledges. The World Bank will be the main facilitator of the fund, but a 26-member board will be constituted to govern it. Of them, 14 members will be from developing countries, and the members will have a rotational tenure. The remaining 12 members will be from developed countries.

The first meeting of the board, according to the COP28 document, is expected to be held in January 2024, while three meetings of the board are expected to be held before the next COP.

It is also known that the Loss and Damage Fund will have multiple modalities, meaning that the funding will be given in different ways. For example, some money may be going through the organizations that are already accredited for managing climate finance; some money may be going to the national governments; and others, like NGOs, may also receive some. So far, the developing countries are demanding that the money be given to their governments, Schalatek says.

What Most-Affected Countries Want

Mirza Shawkat Ali is one of the most senior and experienced members of the Bangladesh delegation and has represented his country at multiple COPs. Ali says that while the concept of giving communities direct access to the fund is noble, from an operational perspective, it would be far easier if the funding was channeled through the national government. The reason, explains Ali, is that it could be extremely difficult to track the flow of the fund and also coordinate with various organizations in a timely manner unless detailed information is not shared in a timely manner.

“The biggest problem we could face is while reporting to the UN on the progress achieved with the fund that has been received. How can we do that if we don’t know the details of how and how much of the fund is coming and to whom it is coming?” Ali asks.

“For us, it would be both easier and more realistic if the government received the fund. We have the infrastructure that is needed to receive, disburse, and utilize the fund. We can also track and report back to the funder,” Ali says.

Haider of UN Women appears to agree with Ali: “I think the government could take some initiatives. If the government could access the funding, it could provide some budgeted support. And if the government then comes with some policies, some directives, selection criteria, and prioritization to support women-led initiatives, then that might be one way.”

María Elena Hermelinda Lezama Espinosa, Governor of Quintana Roo Province, Mexico, also supports the channeling of loss and damage funding through the government.

“We have already been implementing so many programs to help local communities overcome climate change impacts, especially in the areas of water and land. We will be happy to receive this fund to advance our work further,” she says.

From a different perspective, many civil society leaders are strongly advocating for direct access to the fund for extremely vulnerable and highly affected communities.

Anika Schroeder, Climate Policy Officer at Germany-based environmental organization Miseroer, who works with climate-affected communities globally, including Indonesia and Nepal, says that climate vulnerabilities are also about human rights, and giving climate-vulnerable groups and communities access to the Loss and Damage Fund is important to ensure their basic human rights.

A complex and time-consuming mechanism of accessing the fund could result in the already vulnerable people suffering more, which would then mean greater violations of their human rights, Schroeder argues.

“People think that giving one-time aid support to a disaster-hit community is enough, but that is not right; the same community will keep facing more disasters. And every time they are hit, they cannot go to school, they do not have a house, and they do not have water, so it’s about meeting their basic human rights. If this is not integrated while designing the funding access, then it will not be taken seriously,” Schroeder says.

The Devil Lies in the Details

However, Schalatek reminds us that although the fund mentions direct access for affected communities (such as neighborhood non-governmental organizations), the board will likely only approve a small portion of it. In fact, at present, the money that has been contributed is for the setting up of access mechanisms such as the formation of the board, the selection of the board members, deciding the location of the fund, and other infrastructural details.

“In the jubilations of the approval of the Loss and Damage Fund, people are forgetting that the contributions that have come so far are meant for operationalizing the fund, meaning getting the system and infrastructure in place, and not really for providing to the countries right away. For that, we need more pledges to be made and fulfilled,” Schalatek says. “Will the Loss and Damage Fund go directly to small community organizations? No, we don’t have those commitments right now because none of the windows and the substructures are set up yet; the board will decide on that,” she adds.

Developments on the Green Climate Fund

The first replenishment of the fund—$100 billion—is almost complete, except for the USD 1 billion from the United States that is yet to come. The 2^nd replenishment has so far seen pledges of 12.8 billion, of which USD 3.3 billion was announced since the COP28 started, according to a press statement from the Green Climate Fund.

However, there is no fixed timeframe for these pledges to be fulfilled, and contributing countries can give their shares of the money anytime between January 2024 and the end of 2027. “A pledge is as good as a fulfilled commitment, so we will know more about the status of the new pledges once we see the signed contribution agreements from those who are pledging them,” Schalatek says.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

A mask seller in an Indian food market in Kerala during a recent zoonotic disease outbreak. COP28 is the first climate negotiation where the majority of the countries have agreed to declare their commitment to prevent the worsening health impacts of climate change. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

By Stella Paul
DUBAI, Dec 9 2023 (IPS)

One Health activist, Kelly Dent, has been attending UNFCCC COPs since 2009, when it was held in Copenhagen. From there, it has been a 15-year-long journey to Dubai, but Dent is finally having a reason to feel good: for the first time, the majority of the countries have come together to formally declare their commitment to prevent the worsening health impacts of climate change.

“After 14 years of working for this (inclusion of One Health in the climate change negotiations), it is finally there in the health declaration, so we are very happy. It is mentioned clearly—says what it is and uses the exact term; there is no ambiguity,” says Dent, who is the Global Director of External Engagement at World Animal Protection, one of the 14 organizations that issued a statement of endorsement soon after the health declaration was issued in Dubai on December 3.

The Health Declaration

The three-page document called “COP28 Declaration on Climate and Health” says that the parties will facilitate collaboration on human, animal, environmental, and climate health challenges. Implementing a One Health approach would include addressing environmental determinants of health, stepping up research on the connections between environmental and climatic factors and antimicrobial resistance, and finding zoonotic spillovers early to stop, prepare for, and respond to future pandemics.

While the declaration is not legally binding, it serves as a voluntary call to action outside the formal process of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). So far, 124 countries have signed it.

According to Dent, this health declaration should be viewed alongside the “Emirates Declaration on Sustainable Agriculture, Resilient Food Systems, and Climate Action,” another landmark declaration made at COP28 on December 4. This is also the first-ever leaders’ level declaration on food systems and climate at a COP, and it highlights the unique and crucial role that food systems play in either driving or mitigating climate change—as well as adapting to its impacts.

Put together, the two declarations widen the scope of addressing and tackling environmental, human, and animal health, all of which are interrelated.  “Even a couple of years ago, there was nothing on One Health or climate and health connections in the COPs. And now we have not one but two declarations on this. So, this is definitely a great start,” Dent says.

Nathalie Beasnel, a surgical nurse and health philanthropist from Chad. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

Perspective of a Developing Oil-Producing Country

Nathalie Beasnel is a surgical nurse from Chad, a nation in sub-Saharan Africa with alarmingly high levels of air pollution due to industrial emissions, such as the production of oil and gas.

According to Energy Intelligence – a global energy information company, in the first quarter of 2023, Chad’s crude oil production was 141,700 barrels per day. Of this, the country only uses a marginal portion—slightly over 2 thousand barrels; the rest is used by consumers outside of the country. The total revenue from the oil is estimated to be over USD 1.13 billion.

Ironically, Chad ranks 190 out of 191 countries on the UN Human Development Index which makes it among the poorest countries in the world. 42% of the country’s population lives below the national poverty line.

In addition, air pollution has emerged as one of the biggest health crises in Chad. The current PM2.5 concentration in Chad is 4.9 times higher than the WHO 24-hour air quality guidelines, according to live data gathered by AQI.in, the global air quality monitoring tool.

Beasnel, who provides specific and basic medical supplies to hospitals in the rural areas of Senegal, Chad, and South Africa through her charity Health4Peace, receives dozens of requests every quarter from pregnant women to help them go abroad to give birth in a “clean air environment.”

Beasnel feels that the health declaration has hopes for communities facing health challenges induced by climate change and fossil fuel burning in poorer countries like Chad; they can expect some concrete action and support, especially since the announcement of a total of 1 billion USD in financing for climate and health. The billion-dollar funding comes from an array of existing and new funders, including the Green Climate Fund, Asian Development Bank, Global Fund, and Rockefeller Foundation.

“This is a portal. We know that USD 1 billion has already been raised, specifically by the health sector. Now I want to see where this 1 billion goes. For example, we have sudden floods, droughts, farm failures, and air pollution. However, we now need to see the mechanism of the flow of this fund—whether it is through leadership, whether it is through people, or whether it is through the people who are directly affected,” she says.

Coming up Next: One Health Guidelines From the Quadripartite

Last year in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt, four UN agencies (quadripartite)—WHO, UNEP, FAO, and WOAH—collectively drew a Joint Plan of Action (JPA) to advocate for and support the implementation of One Health at all levels and across sectors to tackle interconnected health risks and protect the health of all species.

Since then, the quadripartite has taken several steps to advance the adoption of the One Health approach, which include, among others, a workshop on environmental determinants of health and the One Health Assembly.

At COP28, the quadripartite has developed an implementation guide to provide the countries with step-by-step guidance on how to adopt and adapt the OH JPA at the national level. Scheduled to be launched on December 10, 2023, the guideline is expected to focus on how to adopt a multidisciplinary and inclusive principle. According to Cristina Romanelli, Programme Officer & Biodiversity, Climate and Health Focal Point, World Health Organization, this is one of the most exciting developments that we can expect during the remaining days of COP28.

“Now that we understand what a holistic, multilayered One Health framing means, how does that apply in terms of implementation? So, what will happen on December 10 is the launch of the plan for this implementation,” Romanelli says.

Some Words of Caution

Meanwhile, One Health advocates are urging people to make note of some omissions in the health declaration that could affect its successful adoption and implementation. One of these is factory farming of animals, which significantly raises the chances of trauma and sickness in animals and contributes to at least 11% of total greenhouse gas emissions.

“There is a powerful agriculture lobby that doesn’t allow any changes. We have to challenge this dominant lobby and their business model and expose the harm they are causing. The governments also need to take responsibility, rid away subsidies in industrial agriculture, and support protein diversification,” says Dent.

Dent cites the example of Germany, which, in November, allocated 38 million euros to support the production of alternative (plant-based) proteins.

The German government’s decision follows similar steps taken by the Netherlands, which has already invested 60 million euros to develop an ecosystem for cultivated meat and precision fermentation. Denmark (168 million euros) France (65 million euros) and the UK are other European countries that have announced investing in developing plant-based, alternative proteins.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Women farmers in Mozambique work on a WFP-supported project to strengthen resilience against climate shocks. Credit: WFP

By Stella Paul
HYDERABAD, INDIA, Nov 14 2023 (IPS)

It is crucial to narrow the gaps and ensure that climate finance goes to where people are most vulnerable, says Gernot Laganda, Director of Climate Change Adaptation and Disaster Risk Reduction at the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP)—especially as the most fragile states only receive USD 2.1 per capita while non-fragile states receive USD 161.

Laganda leads WFP country offices to support governments dealing with the effects of climate change on food systems, prioritize concrete actions to avoid, reduce, or transfer growing climate risks in-country programs, and work with new and emerging climate finance mechanisms to implement adaptation solutions for the most vulnerable and food-insecure communities.

In this exclusive interview with IPS, Laganda speaks about a wide range of issues, including the climate disasters that WFP has responded to this year—and the impact of the humanitarian aid the programme has provided across the world, among the most vulnerable people who climate-induced disasters have directly impacted. As the world zooms towards 1.5 degrees of global warming, the number of climate disasters is rapidly increasing, and so is the requirement for more humanitarian aid. However, the current aid financing methods are not able to meet this unprecedented need, and there is always a gap between the requirement and the actual funding received.

As the 28th Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP28) draws near, Laganda speaks of the funding challenges humanitarian aid agencies are facing—an issue that requires urgent attention from the governments and investors gathering at the COP. He also speaks of his expectations from the negotiations, the actions, and the decisions that will determine the success of the conference.

Gernot Laganda, Director / Climate and Disaster Risk Reduction at United Nations World Food Programme (WFP)

Here are excerpts from the interview:

IPS: Which climate disasters did WFP respond to this year, and what kind of assistance did you provide?

Laganda: This year, of course, is a very peculiar year because it is really on track to become the warmest year on record. We have an El Niño phenomenon that overlays with global warming. Last month, on the 2nd of October, we had 86 days above the 1.5-degree threshold, so this year was out of the ordinary. This year, in March, we had tropical cyclone Freddie, which hit Madagascar, Mozambique, and Malawi. This was the longest-lasting tropical cyclone on record for Africa. It killed 860 people with floods and landslides. But it had a peculiar behavior. Typically, cyclones are fed by heated energy from the oceans, so they lose intensity when they touch land. But Freddie developed in February on the west coast of Australia, across the Indian Ocean, made landfall in Madagascar, then to Mozambique before returning to the ocean. But then it gained more energy and hit land again in Malawi. So, it’s a very uncommon behavior.

The response related to humanitarian assistance, of course, is related to supporting the governments with relief operations. For example, in Malawi, which was badly hit by cyclone Freddie, we helped distribute two months of food basket items targeting the most affected districts. We used schools as entry points to provide emergency rations. And, in the case of farmers from whom we buy food for local school meal programs, we substituted these with a feeding (scheme) to allow farmers to recover from the loss. So, there’s the typical humanitarian response machine that kicks into gear. These climate extremes are now happening more frequently; they hit more strongly, and this humanitarian response needs more finances, which is currently not there in the system.

To give you some numbers, in the Horn of Africa, we had an unprecedented sequence of drought in three countries – Somalia, Ethiopia, and Kenya; 47,000 people died in Somalia during the drought in 2022 (and) WFP distributed food assistance to a record 4.7 million people.

IPS: What kind of loss and damage did these disasters cause?

Laganda: First, there’s a national picture, and then after the disaster, you have the loss and damage figures, and the context is very different in different parts of a country, especially in countries like Somalia, where there is also an overlay of climate effects on conflict, on inflation and economic shock. However, the biggest impact is on housing and natural capital.

IPS: Can you elaborate further?

Laganda: Okay. For example, when you are a farmer in a developing country, you have several assets or capitals, including natural capital. This natural capital includes your natural resources like forest and fiber products, cattle, land, and soil. Then, there are disaster preparedness elements like insurance coverage, access to savings, and access to insurance protection. If these capitals are strong and intact, you can recover from disaster shocks and overcome the disaster impact shocks. You can also recover if you have soil restoration, insurance coverage, and access to savings.

But when many of these natural capital areas are degraded or hit (as happened in these above-mentioned disasters), you have no protective shields.

IPS: Three years ago, at COP25, you had said that only 60 percent of the climate finance that’s needed in the aftermath of a disaster is funded, while 40 percent is not funded. Has this ratio changed since then? How?

Laganda: Unfortunately, humanitarian aid after disasters remains chronically underfunded. Also, over the period of five years, UN humanitarian appeals after climate disasters were only funded 54 percent on average. At the same time, we see that these disasters increase, and our requirements are now eight times higher than they were 20 years ago. So, we are really in a time when humanitarian needs are increasing very sharply, especially when it comes to people suffering from acute hunger, but there is not enough financing to meet all these needs after climate disasters.

It’s the same with climate finance. As the recently published Adaptation Gap Report shows, there is a massive gap in investment in adaptation. Also, from 2014 to 2021, the climate finance available per capita in non-fragile states was USD 161, while it was only USD 2.1 in extremely fragile states. So, there is a huge disparity between where that money goes and where people are most vulnerable. This means two things: we need to make sure there is more funding in the system for the humanitarian needs after climate disasters, but it also means we need to invest much more strategically and faster because we are already in the state where we are reaching the 1.5-degree threshold as mentioned in the Paris Agreement. So, we need more targeted efforts in climate projection and protection in the most vulnerable context.

IPS: What is the main reason behind this continued funding gap? Is there some sort of fatigue among funders, or is this just a case of reduced priority?

Laganda: Many disasters are now compound and protracted. That means there are many countries and sectors where humanitarian aid needs to stay for decades. So, it’s not like there is one disaster, then there is humanitarian relief, and then it’s over. You have decades of humanitarian needs that never stop, right? So, it’s really hard to sustain that financing commitment in an ever-growing number of countries where people have this acute humanitarian need. For example, the number of people facing acute hunger has doubled only in a span of three years. We have been seeing a situation where people are caught between these different risk drivers: conflict, economic shocks, and climate change. And so, the old models of humanitarian aid that we have just don’t work anymore.

IPS: Currently, all eyes are on the Loss and Damage Fund. Civil society is already alleging that the fund is compromised and that it lacks the commitment to human rights. What are your thoughts?

Laganda: The Loss and Damage Fund was a very difficult negotiation, and I think it’s understandable that the fund should be guided by human rights. If you ask what climate justice is, then the litmus test for climate justice is at the local level. So, climate justice needs to be judged by how many people are protected from climate-vulnerable conditions that they have no hand in creating. That’s ultimately what we all want to do. But the mechanism that we have available for loss and damage—this has been a very polarized conversation. I understand that there was some disappointment with the way the reference to human rights was being discussed, but I am sure that when this conversation happens again at COP28 in Dubai, there will be a great push to put this language back into the agreement.

At this point, there is a provisional way forward, and I do not think this will be a smooth process, but I do hope that at the end of COP28, there will be a functioning operational modality for a loss and damage facility because this is really a very important aspect to the entire climate change policy landscape.

A decade ago, we were excited about climate change mitigation and adaptation. But now we are failing at mitigation, and adaptation is too little too late. We need an expansion of this conversation from climate mitigation and adaptation to loss and damage, and I think at COP28, this will take center stage. I think it’s important to have that agreement because nobody wants to have a COP28 that is not successful, and that would be an important part of the success.

IPS: And what are your expectations from the COP28? What actions should be prioritized to combat climate-induced hunger?

Laganda: It’s a good question. When we stay on these three headlines – climate change mitigation, climate change adaptation, loss, and damage, it’s clear that on the mitigation side, we would like to see greater ambition, and where governments are making investments, the actions are compatible with the rhetoric because at the moment there is a gap between the rhetoric and the reality.

The Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) need to be more ambitious. We need to bend the temperature curve – there is no question about it. We cannot adapt our way out of the problem. The Adaptation Gap report says there is only USD 21 billion in public financing per year. We need at least USD 40 billion, which is also the goal that the UN secretary-general has. Also, adaptation investment needs to happen much faster and in a less bureaucratic manner, so more funding and more efficient deployment of that financing. And, in loss and damage, we would like to see a successful conclusion to the negotiations so that a Loss and Damage Fund is established with operational criteria that live up to the needs. We have to protect vulnerable people on the frontline of the climate crisis. So, this loss and damage fund makes sure that vulnerable people are protected immediately and not five years from now because 2024 and 2025 are critical years as we are already crossing the 1.5-degree threshold of the Paris Agreement.

These are the expectations I have for COP28, and this is how we will judge its success by the end of the day.

IPS: Finally, do you think the ongoing conflict in Gaza and the conflict-effected humanitarian aid needs will overshadow the discussions of climate-induced humanitarian aid requirements in Dubai?

Laganda: COP28 is the first COP that dedicates an entire day to peace and fragility. There is, for the first time, a recognition that there is a link between climate and fragility and that there needs to be more investment in climate action in a fragile context and in a conflict-inflicted context. There really is a bridge between the climate theme and conflict theme, which will make us think about how we can place investments in places like Yemen, Syria, and Somalia. So, I don’t think this (political conflict) will overshadow it, but how climate risks and conflict risks intersect will be prominent.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

Tacugama Chimpanzee Sanctuary – a conservation center dedicated to rescuing, rehabilitating, and protecting Sierra Leone’s national chimpanzee. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

By Stella Paul
FREETOWN, Nov 3 2023 (IPS)

Thirty-three years ago, Bala Amerasekaran – a Sri Lankan by birth – visited Freetown, Sierra Leone. Since then, the West African nation has been his home, where Amerasekaran has dedicated his life to conserving the chimpanzee – Sierra Leone’s national animal.

In 1995, with support from the national government, he founded Tacugama Chimpanzee Sanctuary – the country’s first conservation center that rescues, rehabilitates, and protects chimpanzees, often hunted, traded, and killed for their meat. Currently home to 100 chimpanzees, the conservation works of the sanctuary also help prevent the spread of any possible diseases transmitted from primates to humans.

However, 20 years later, Amerasekaran’s enthusiasm is declining as he has witnessed massive encroachment within the sanctuary, destroying its forest cover and threatening the sustainability of the conservation program itself.

“I am beginning to feel that I have wasted my life for 28 years because there is no safety for this place,” says a visibly upset Amerasekaran.

Wildlife Connection to Africa’s Zoonotic Disease Trail

“At least 75 percent of emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases of humans—including Ebola, Marburg, Henipavirus, and zoonotic avian flu—have an animal origin, according to Hellen Amuguni – Associate Professor in the Department of Infectious Disease and Global Health at the Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine at Tufts University. “Chances are that when the next illness like COVID-19 emerges to threaten global health, it will originate in animals before it passes to humans, a process known as spillover,” Amuguni says.

West Africa has a long history of recurring zoonotic disease spillovers, the biggest of which occurred in 2014 when the region witnessed a devastating Ebola virus outbreak. The outbreak spread quickly across the entire region, including Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone, where about 11,000 people died.

A 2018 study led by Caroline Huber of Precision Health Economics estimated that the disease outbreak also caused an economic and social burden worth over USD50 billion. Researchers later traced the origin to a spillover event: a two-year-old boy in Guinea likely infected while playing near a tree where bats roosted.

Since then, the conservation of biodiversity, especially the natural habitats of wildlife, has gained attention in the region to prevent any quick transmission of a zoonotic pathogen from animals to humans. But almost all the major forests and key wildlife habitats also face increasing stress from loggers, hunters, traders, and illegal builders.

An example is the Upper Guinean Forest, which covers the lowland forests of West Africa from Guinea to Togo. This forest is a global biodiversity hotspot and contains the world’s second-largest rainforest, the Congo Basin. However, studies have found that the forest has lost 84 percent of its original area, mostly due to agricultural expansion, commercial logging, charcoal burning, and human settlement.

Within the borders of Guinea – where the 2014 Ebola outbreak occurred first – 17.1-kilo hectares of humid primary forest disappeared between 2002 -2022, according to Global Forest Watch (GFW). To put it in perspective, this is the loss of a forest area as big as the city of Washington, DC.

GFW has also tracked large-scale deforestation in Equatorial Guinea –the country that reported the first cases of Marburg – a deadly viral zoonotic disease in May this year that claimed 12 lives. According to GFW’s estimates, in 2010, Equatorial Guinea had 2.63 mega hectares (Mha) of tree cover, extending over 98 percent of its land area, but by 2022, it lost 7.76 thousand hectares (kha) of tree cover, which is roughly the size of Paris.

Sierra Leone’s Vulnerable Forests

In Sierra Leone, several dense forests are habitats of many endangered wildlife species, including 6000 chimpanzees. These include Kangari Hills and Nimini Hills forests, Outamba-Kilimi National Park, and the Gola Rainforest – one of the largest remaining West African tracts extending to neighboring Liberia.

While deforestation has occurred in all these forests owing to illegal logging, unsustainable land use, infrastructural development, and charcoal production, it is particularly high in Gola Forest. According to a 2017 Purdue University research, the Gola forest has been losing its green cover at an annual rate of 4.18 percent. These losses are largely due to the expansion of rice farms within the forest area, says John Christian Abu-Kpawoh, who conducted the research.

In comparison, Tacugama Sanctuary is a tiny patch of forest of only about 40 hectares. Yet its proximity to the national capital, Freetown, a 40-minute drive away, makes it a prime target for encroachers. About 30 percent of the sanctuary has been encroached upon by builders, many of whom are powerful and well-connected.

“Last year, the Ministry of Lands deployed soldiers here (to protect the chimpanzee sanctuary). Yet every name that is coming up in the recent encroachments is of a soldier,” Amerasekaran reveals, indicating deep-rooted corruption in the government.

Worrying News for One Health

Since the COVID-19 pandemic, the One Health Approach to prevent a future zoonotic disease spillover has gained traction. The One Health approach recognizes the interconnection between human, animal, and environmental health and emphasizes an integrated approach to prevent any health crisis, especially related to infections transmitted from animals to humans.

Across West Africa, several large projects are already being implemented where multidisciplinary experts, including veterinarians, zoologists, epidemiologists, social behavior scientists, and risk communicators, are working together to prevent a new spillover.

The USAID-funded STOP Spillover, PREDICT and RESPOND, the Eco Health Alliance projects, and the West African One Health actions for understanding, preventing, and mitigating outbreaks are some examples.

These projects, among others, are engaged in studying and monitoring animal-human interaction, assessing risks of a possible disease breakout, putting surveillance measures in place to detect the early warning of spillover, and raising awareness among locals about the importance of conserving forest and wildlife to prevent a disease outbreak.

Tacugama Chimpanzee Sanctuary is also working with local communities to address some of the threats being faced by the rainforest-dwelling species. For example, the sanctuary is helping to establish livestock rearing projects, setting up swamp rice plantations, improving fuel efficiency of cooking, setting up tree nurseries for sustainable harvesting of wood and food products, and running education programs for school children.

But the uncontrolled development and encroachment on the forest land pose serious threats to the success of these activities, the biggest of them being the shrinking of space between humans and animals.

Although the 2014 Ebola virus outbreak and spillover were attributed to bats, chimpanzees can also be responsible for a new Ebola outbreak as they can contract and succumb to the virus. Ebola has been a major reason for the declining chimpanzee population across Africa. Once humans come in contact with an infected chimpanzee or its body fluids, the deadly disease can be transmitted to humans – leading to a viral spillover.

This means every unmonitored handling of a chimpanzee, including its capture, to sell it as a pet or kill for meat poses a risk of a disease breakout simply because the hunter or the capturer cannot know whether the animal has contracted Ebola virus. On the other hand, protecting a chimpanzee’s natural habitat and ensuring it stays within that habitat not only leads to its conservation but also prevents it from passing on any deadly pathogen, such as Ebola, to humans.

‘Learn from East Africa’

Considering the spillover risks, conserving the habitats of key wildlife species, especially those known to transmit viral zoonotic diseases to humans, is vital. Many feel West Africa can learn from its East African neighbors who have set examples of protecting their wildlife reserves by creating a safe distance between the wildlife and humans.

“Look at countries like Rwanda or Kenya, then you will see that where there is a wild reserve, they create a buffer zone of 2-3 kilometers,’’ says the founder of Tacugama Chimpanzee Sanctuary.

The failure to maintain this distance can pose serious risks to the region’s One Health goal, says Frederick Jobo Moseray, Assistant Conservation Manager at the sanctuary.

“When the forest goes, the animals become homeless. They then come to human colonies. Here, we are talking about chimpanzees. They are hunted, killed, and also kept as pets. All of this is dangerous. We are talking about preventing a zoonotic disease spillover, but first, we must stop the shrinking of safe space between humans and chimpanzees,” Moseray concludes.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Final plenary session of COP15. Some analysts say the adopted framework is a good compromise. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

By Stella Paul
Montreal, Dec 20 2022 (IPS)

In a landmark agreement, all parties of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (UNCBD) adopted the draft Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) to protect at least 30% of the world’s lands and water by 2030.

Led by China and facilitated by the CBD, the parties of the convention adopted the draft very late on Sunday night, after 12 days of intense negotiations over 23 targets that, put together, make the framework for biodiversity protection until 2030.

The Old vs. New GBF

When COP15 negotiations began on December 7, the GBF had 22 targets. However, on December 19, the final day of the COP, there were 23 targets in the adopted document. There have not been any new additions, but Target 19 – focused on finance – has been divided into two targets: Target 19 and Target 20. Target 20, therefore, is now Target 21, Target 21 is Target 22, and Target 22 is now Target 23.

The adopted document looks leaner and shorter compared to the version presented before the parties on December 7. However, the new version – presented by China on Saturday and adopted later by all parties – has all the text considered crucial.

For example, on Target 3 – widely considered as the lifeline of the GBF and equivalent to the Climate Change COP’s goal of keeping global warming to 1.5 degrees – the old text was long and somewhat vague, with too many details but no indication of action.

In Target 19.1, focusing on resource mobilization, the draft framework proposed to increase financial resources progressively and annually from all sources by reaching at least $200 billion by 2030.

The adopted framework has a more straightforward but detailed language: “Raise international financial flows from developed to developing countries … to at least US$ 20 billion per year by 2025, and at least US$ 30 billion per year by 2030.”

In Target 22, the draft version read: “Ensure women and girls equitable access and benefits from conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, as well as their informed and effective participation at all levels of policy and decision making related to biodiversity.”

The adopted version of this target has a language that is richer and more action-oriented:  “Ensure gender equality in the implementation of the framework through a gender-responsive approach where all women and girls have equal opportunity and capacity to contribute to the three objectives of the Convention, including by recognizing their equal rights and access to land and natural resources and their full, equitable, meaningful and informed participation and leadership at all levels of action, engagement, policy, and decision-making related to biodiversity.”

The Big Decisions

In addition to the GBF, the parties at COP15 have approved a series of related agreements on the framework’s implementation, including planning, monitoring, reporting, and review; resource mobilization; helping nations to build their capacity to meet the obligations; and digital sequence information on genetic resources.

For example, digital sequence information (DSI) on genetic resources – a dominant topic at COP15 – has many commercial and non-commercial applications, including pharmaceutical product development, improved crop breeding, taxonomy, and monitoring invasive species.

Francis Ogwal and Basile Van Havre, co-chairs of the Global Biodiversity Framework, at a press meeting after the framework was adopted. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

COP15 delegates agreed to establish a multilateral fund for the equal sharing of benefits between providers and users of DSI within the GBF.

Another big decision was to create a specific fund for biodiversity within the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) – the nodal agency that receives, channelizes and distributes all funds for environmental protection in the world. Reacting to the decision, Carlos Manuel Rodriguez, GEF CEO and Chairperson, called GBF a significant breakthrough and supported the creation of the fund.”

“Resource mobilization has been a central theme here in Montreal over the last two weeks, both to reach an ambitious agreement, and to ensure it is implemented. I am therefore honored and extremely pleased that the Conference of the Parties has requested the GEF to establish a Global Biodiversity Fund as soon as possible, to complement existing support and scale up financing to ensure the timely implementation of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework,” Rodriguez said in a press statement.

A Good Compromise

Jennifer Corpuz of Indigenous People’s Forum for Biodiversity (IPFB), an umbrella of over 10 thousand indigenous organizations across the world, had been lobbying intensely to ensure mainstreaming of indigenous peoples’ rights in the GBF, called the adopted document, a “good compromise” and “a good start.”

According to Corpuz, the GBF – now known as “The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework,” contains strong language on all targets that concern indigenous peoples and local communities. The language is very strong, especially in the areas of spatial planning (Target 1), area-based conservation (Target 3), customary sustainable use (Targets 5 and 9), traditional knowledge (Goal C, Targets 13 and 21), and participation and respect for the rights of Indigenous peoples and local communities to lands, territories, and resources (Target 22).

“The Framework should be celebrated as a historic step towards transforming how we approach biodiversity conservation. The text provides a strong basis for countries to walk hand in hand with Indigenous peoples in addressing the biodiversity crisis and in ensuring that the negative legacy of conservation on Indigenous peoples will be corrected,” Corpuz told IPS.

Basile Van Havre – the co-chair of the framework, appeared to agree with Corpuz. Answering a question on the implications and meaning of various terms such as “equitable governance” in the GBF, Havre told IPS, “it would help local governments to create a mechanism for working together with different sections of the populations, especially the Indigenous peoples.”

On the adoption of a gender target (Target 23) and the adoption of the Gender Action Plan, the CBD Women’s Caucus expressed their gratitude to various parties for their support. A group of women also broke out in a jubilant dance – an expression of their joy and relief after years of persuasion to include Gender as a stand-alone target in the GBF.

The next steps and challenges ahead

According to experts, the success of the GBF will heavily lie on two factors: 1) Adopting and operationalizing GBF indicators relevant to each target and 2) Creating a mechanism quickly for those decisions that involve a multilateral system.

For example, under the new GBF, finances for biodiversity will come from rich and developed nations and private investors. But the pathways and mechanisms for these are yet to be decided, and the sooner these are done, the better it will be for all parties to begin implementing the framework.

A lot will also depend on how quickly the countries can revise their current National Biodiversity Action Plans to make ways for implanting new decisions under the GBF, according to Francis Ogwal, CBD co-chair of the GBF.

Others have also cautioned that if countries are not able to make necessary policy changes, there is a risk that the GBF could fail.

“The agreement represents a major milestone for the conservation of our natural world, and biodiversity has never been so high on the political and business agenda, but it can be undermined by slow implementation and failure to mobilize the promised resources. Governments have chosen the right side of history in Montreal, but history will judge all of us if we don’t deliver on the promise made today,” warned Marco Lambertini, Director General of WWF International.

The agreement also obligates countries to monitor and report on a large set of “headlines” and other indicators related to progress against the GBF’s goals and targets every five years or less. Headline indicators include the percent of land and seas effectively conserved, the number of companies disclosing their impacts and dependencies on biodiversity, and many others.

The CBD will combine national information submitted by late February 2026 and late June 2029 into global trends and progress reports.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Women doing on-the-spot training at COP15. Target 22 is being held up by a single word. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

By Stella Paul
Montreal, Dec 19 2022 (IPS)

Since the beginning of the high-level segment, tensions have been steadily rising at the 15th meeting of the conference of the parties to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD COP15) among all participants, including members of country delegation teams, NGOs, observers, monitors, and media. At the press events held daily at the media center and various other events in the Montreal Convention Center, an outburst of anger and frustration have become a common sight.

In the middle of such high drama, there is one corner at the COP – the Women’s Pavilion in the Palace Quebec room that presents a very different picture: a group of women sitting in a circle on low stools, intently listening to a fellow woman speak about easy and effective ways to connect, coordinate, and collaborate with their community members.

“That is a training in session,” says Mrinalini Rai – the director of Women4Biodiversity – a global coalition of dozens of women-led organizations worldwide working together to get gender equality mainstreamed into the CBD Global Biodiversity Framework.  In March this year, in the 3rd Working Group meeting of the CBD in Geneva, CBD first received a proposal for a stand-alone target on gender to the GBF, which, at that time, had 21 targets. The proposal was officially tabled by Costa Rica and supported by GRULAC – a group with 11 member countries from Latin America and West Africa. These are Guatemala, Argentina, Dominican Republic, Mexico, Chile, Cote d’Ivoire, Ecuador, Togo, Benin, Cameroon, and Tanzania.  Today, barely nine months later, the GBF consists of 22 targets – an inclusion that reflects an extraordinary level of coordination among the women’s coalition and their astonishing level of lobbying with different parties.

Target 22 at COP15: A Quick Look

Target 22 aims to “Ensure women and girls equitable access and benefits from conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, as well as their informed and effective participation at all levels of policy and decision-making related to biodiversity.”

On the sidelines of the high-level segment of COP15, Rai spoke to IPS News on the struggle that has gone behind the current status of Target 22, the level of support it has received from the parties, and the area of contention that still remain to be resolved.

“It has been really a long journey that has taken years of advocacy, lobbying, discourses, and consultations around the importance of recognizing rights of all women and girls at the heart of the Convention,” Rai says candidly before adding that the gender target has received overwhelming support of all parties of the biodiversity convention at COP15. “There are 196 parties to this convention apart from the US, which is a non-party, and the Holy See (the Vatican). Right now, nobody has objected to having a target (22),” Rai reveals.

Mrinalini Rai, Coordinator of Women’s Caucus. Stella Paul/IPS

The reason is simple: mainstreaming gender into all the targets and goals of the biodiversity framework seems easier to perceive and understand far more easily than the other cross-cutting themes like finance or human rights. “If you are looking at how gender mainstreams into COP15 targets, for example, Access and Benefit Sharing, traditional knowledge, etc. – you immediately think of knowledge of women and then how do you ensure women have access. There are some very complicated issues in the COP like DSI (Digital Sequencing Information), invasive species, marine, and coastal biodiversity, etc., but whatever spaces you are looking at, gender ties to it,’ Rai says.

Gender-responsive vs. Gender sensitive – the last remaining challenge

Despite its broad support, however, the target doesn’t have a completely clean text yet. Incredibly, a single country – Russia – has raised objections to a single word, putting that within brackets.

According to Rai, on the opening day of COP15, in the working group’s plenary, Russia put a bracket on the ‘responsiveness’ in the text. This means that although the rest of the text is clean, the target 22 is not ready to be adopted yet because of this single bracket. However, the Women’s Caucus – a group of civil society organizations that is the main focal contact for all gender-related issues and has support from the CBD secretariat – is talking to the Russian delegation and pursuing them to either lift their objection or come up with an alternative that will be acceptable to all.

“Russia said that they want to replace “gender-responsive” with the term “gender-sensitive”. Now, for us, the word sensitive doesn’t really mean anything concrete. It is like being aware of something. You have been sensitized about gender, so now you are gender-sensitive or aware of gender. But the term “gender-responsive” demands action; it means there is an action for you to take and to be held accountable,” Rai explains.

Preparing for the Next Steps

While the lobbying continues, several Women’s Caucus members are already thinking ahead of COP15, strategizing for the time when countries will move to the implementation phase of the Gender Action Plan.

“It will be crucial how everything unfolds at the local level. At this point, it feels a little concerning to the national policies of respective countries in designing a compatible program for women-based organizations and women in the community to have access to finance. But as we see practically, it’s very hard for women to have that access because, one, they are not in any structure that could get them financing, and two, women, particularly in the rural areas, can’t even have access to the necessities, let alone access finance for climate or biodiversity. So, it’s important to engage grassroots women and civil society in the planning mechanism so that financing can be down streamed,” says Tsegaye Frezer Yeheyis, who heads Mahibere Hitwot of Social Development – an Ethiopian NGO and member of the Women’s Caucus.

Sharon Ruthia, a lawyer from Kenya who counsels on gender and biodiversity, further adds, “it will be important for the countries to design a mechanism to build the capacity of women – technically and financially,’

And how can gender be mainstreamed into crucial issues like DSI outside the GBF and are also contentious?  Cecilia Githaiga, another lawyer from Women4Biodiversity, shares some insights: “The biggest challenge (for gender mainstreaming is that the discussions on Nagoya Protocol are very fragmented at this moment. It would be good if these discussions were focused, then there would be a single mechanism for reporting, and that would help us women (who are not able to spread all over) still follow up, monitor, and tell when we are making progress and when there is a need for upscaling.’

When the whole chance of the target is hanging by the thread of one word, it’s easy to be frustrated, especially after crossing such a long journey. However, Target 22 advocates are making a brave effort to be positive. “We do have parties who support the word ‘responsiveness,’ so we are hoping that all 195 countries will support it. This hasn’t yet come to the working groups or the contact groups, so we are keeping an eye on that,” Rai concludes in a hopeful voice.

Note: The last bracket on Gender Target on the term “gender-responsive” was lifted, and the target was adopted when all parties of COP15 formally adopted the Global Biodiversity Framework late last night.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Activists at COP15 believe that keeping infrastructure off the radar is a problem and have expressed concern about the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) of China which impacts on biodiversity hotspots and Indigenous communities. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

By Stella Paul
Montreal, Dec 15 2022 (IPS)

As the COP entered its crucial second week, negotiations are intensifying now. A slew of new contact groups – meeting mostly behind closed doors – are discussing the minutest details of the Global Biodiversity Framework and the contentious issues within or around it, such as Digital Sequencing Information, Access, and Benefit Sharing. The core aim of all these groups is to talk and resolve all issues and produce a draft treaty that will be acceptable to all parties.

In this flurry of activities, however, there’s an elephant in the room that no one wants to see: The impact of mega infrastructural projects on biodiversity. Leading the table of these most impacting mega projects is the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) of China – the president of COP15.

BRI: A Mammoth Project Like No Other

China launched BRI in 2013, intending to revive and strengthen its trade links with the rest of the world. Today, it’s a mammoth project involving several regions of Asia, Africa and Europe with plans to construct roads, railways, ports, and, more recently, health, digital, and space projects, building physical and economic links, enhancing trade and interconnectivity.

It is, however, not a single Chinese government initiative but consists of many different projects in multiple countries, financed through multiple avenues, including Chinese and international banks and investment funds.

According to a 2019 paper published by the Center for Economics and Business Research (CEBR), the BRI was likely to boost world GDP by $7.1 trillion annually within the next two decades. The Information Office of the Chinese government also reports that BRI has created more than 244,000 jobs for locals abroad.

However, a vast majority of BRI projects require the use of Chinese companies, labour, and raw materials, meaning the GDP gains from BRI will go to the Chinese ‘locals,’ not to the locals of the countries in which China has invested.

An Ambition Vehicle or a Debt Trap

Today, at least sixty-four countries fall within its ambit, and the number is increasing.  The terrestrial route of BRI aims to cut across Central Asia, Russia, India, Pakistan and Europe, and the maritime route runs along the coast of Asia, East Africa, and Europe.

However, many of these small countries saw themselves falling into mounting debts. The first is Sri Lanka which recently plunged into a financial crisis from debts owed to China for highways, ports, airports, and a coal power plant. Sri Lanka owes China lenders over $7.4 billion – 20% of its total foreign debt. Other countries following the footsteps of Sri Lanka are Kyrgyzstan and Montenegro; while Kyrgyzstan owes 40% of its foreign debt, including $1.8 billion to Chinese lenders, the European Union (EU) refused to pay off a $1 billion Chinese loan for the BRI but has offered help on other infrastructure projects.

Impacts on Environment, Gender and Indigenous Peoples

The financial crisis put aside, the implication of the BRI on the region’s biodiversity is huge as it includes many different environmentally important areas such as protected areas, key landscapes, Global 200 Ecoregions (a list of ecoregions identified by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) as priorities for conservation), and biodiversity hotspots that cover the distribution range of flagship species.  In fact, the study found that 32% of the total area of all protected areas in countries crossed by BRI corridors were potentially affected by the project. There are also areas that are important for delivering ecosystem services that provide social and economic benefits to people.

According to a geospatial study done by WWF, which examined the environmental impacts of BRI, the initiative will affect 1,700 biodiversity hotspots, threaten 265 species, and potentially introduce hundreds of alien species that threaten these fragile ecosystems.

The BRI corridors also overlap with 1,739 Important Bird Areas or Key Biodiversity Areas and 46 biodiversity hotspots or Global 200 Ecoregions5. This is in addition to the range of 265 IUCN threatened species, including 39 critically endangered species and 81 endangered species – including saiga antelopes, tigers and giant pandas.

According to Allie Constantine, Gender and Indigenous rights Advisor to Global Forest Coalition, there is still no impact assessment on how the BRI affects women, and China has not released data on gender and the BRI. However, given that China has signed and ratified most UN human rights treaties, including the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (Goal 5 being “Gender Equality”), the country is obliged to report on gender impacts of BRI projects it operates.

While China’s 14th Five-Year plan discusses women’s equality and gender rights, there is no indication of how China will implement or enforce this within the BRI.

“However, even without this data, we can still make certain inferences regarding gendered impacts,” says Constantine, who recently conducted a study on the impact of BRI on women and indigenous peoples in Southeast Asia.

The study reveals that BRI’s expansion through important ecological corridors, including Chinese-backed hydropower projects built along the Mekong River that cause changes in river flow, directly puts specific communities and fragile ecosystems at risk. In turn, this impacts fish migrations and creates a further loss of livelihoods for downstream communities in Laos, Cambodia, Thailand and Vietnam that rely on the river for sustenance.

It also says that specific BRI projects often negatively affect indigenous and forest communities. For example, the Indigenous Mah Meri community in Malaysia is frequently harmed by government processes, including the development of BRI ports in Mah Meri territories. Although Malaysia supports the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), it frequently acts against Indigenous land and human rights, Constantine’s study reveals.

Greening or Greenwashing

Since the outbreak of COVID-19, China has been intensifying “Green BRI” efforts, including research on how to make BRI projects more environmentally sound. For example, in 2021, the Chinese ministries of Foreign Commerce and Ecology and Environment released “Green Development Guidelines.” China has also committed to ending coal-fired power plants and investing in renewable energy sources.

Speaking to IPS, Li Shuo, Global Policy Advisor at Greenpeace East Asia, said that within China, there is a growing concern over the country’s investment overseas, especially in high-carbon projects such as coal plants.

“It’s a little hard to say if BRI is a good thing or a bad thing for the local economy or local environment. You have to look at it on a case-by-case basis,“ says Shuo, “But there is a clear recognition that some of the BRI projects are quite problematic from an environmental point of view. I think there is a realization from the Chinese side as well, and that is why a year ago, there was this Chinese commitment to not fund coal-fired power projects. The announcement was made in September 2021 in the UN General Assembly.”

Shuo, however, says that there is still no such recognition or public debate when it comes to biodiversity.

“There is a recognition that China should not invest in high-carbon projects, so there is a slow transition, but on the other hand, where biodiversity is feeding into all these, I think you are in need of more recognition on the Chinese side on the biodiversity implications of the BRI projects. I think climate recognition is slowly getting there but not necessarily on biodiversity. And if you think about it, a lot of the infrastructural projects will have a negative footprint,” Shuo says.

Observers at COP15, however, are saying that with many destructive projects under the BRI, such as large dams built along the Mekong River, which also threaten biodiversity, forests, and forest communities—simply defunding coal and investing in other potentially harmful projects is not the solution.

Exclusion of Infrastructure in GBF

Infrastructure has not been included in the current biodiversity draft framework. On Dec 8, at a side event of the ongoing COP15, Amy Fraenkel, Executive Secretary, Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS), expressed alarm that infrastructure is not addressed in the GBF.

Highlighting that migratory species must be able to reach new habitats, she noted the CMS tackles threats posed to these species by infrastructure. She also called on governments and investors to consider whether there is a real need for new infrastructure developments and to look into alternatives, including “no new infrastructure” options.

Simone Lovera of the Global Forest Coalition has been more vocal in her criticism of BRI, the exclusion of infrastructure in the biodiversity framework and China’s silence on the initiative’s impact on biodiversity. She especially spoke out on how the current financing mechanism – already a contentious issue at COP15 could further fail if mega projects like BRI were continued to be ignored.

“It doesn’t make any sense to just close the financing gap; even US100 billion dollars per year, we have 1.3 trillion US dollars that are going to destructive activities. Sadly, China’s own Belt and Road Initiative is an example of initiatives that are still financing very harmful projects. They are trying to green it up, but they are not doing any gender analysis, and a lot of BRI activities are actually very harmful on the ground. So first and foremost, the thing China should do is look at its own Belt and Road Initiative and make sure that that is aligned. On the one hand, they claim to have ecological civilization at home, but they export the destruction to other countries,” Lovera told IPS News.

Speaking to IPS, Basile Van Havre- Co-chair of the GBF, said negotiators were now “focusing on not adding any new texts to the draft and instead were working to shift as much existing text as possible out of the brackets”. This means if infrastructure has been excluded from the GBF, it is not likely to be included now.

The onus of curbing the harms caused to biodiversity by projects like BRI falls entirely on the countries that own and run them – such as China.

“The European Union just banned commodities that come from deforestation and biodiversity destruction. It’s possible. Let us have an agreement here so they (China) also have a legal alignment. They can say, ‘okay, in line with this multilateral agreement, we will start banning products caused by biodiversity destruction, and I think the EU legislation will show it’s possible. It is a good example, and we very much look at China to do that,” Lovera says.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

COP15 negotiations aim to conserve at least 30 percent of the world’s diversity by 2030. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

By Stella Paul
Montreal, Dec 9 2022 (IPS)

The long-awaited 15th Convention of United Nations Biological Diversity (CBD COP15) finally started this week in Montreal, Canada. After four years of intense negotiations and delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, nations have gathered again for the final round of talks before adopting a new global treaty – the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF).

The GBF aims to conserve at least 30 percent of the world’s biodiversity by 2030. But even as the negotiations intensify, the job appears extremely tough, with many bottlenecks that make a clear outcome highly unlikely.

CBD COPs: A String of Failures

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) was first adopted in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, alongside the Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the UN Convention to Combat Desertification. There are 196 member nations with the glaring exclusion of the United States. In 2010, at the CBD COP10 in Nagoya, Japan, countries adopted a set of 20 targets called the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. These targets were expected to stop the loss of biodiversity by 2020. But by 2020, various assessments made it clear that none of these targets had been met. Now more ambitious and emergency measures are needed.

The failure of the world to achieve the Aichi Targets makes it crucial that the world adopts a new treaty, and the GBF has more ambitious targets with adequate financial support to implement them. It should support groups already leading action on the ground, especially Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLC), and ensure more accountability for regularly monitoring the collective progress. This is what makes Montreal COP so crucial, especially when it’s already 2022, and the world now has only eight years left (out of the ten allotted years) to achieve the targets.

Expectations vs Reality

At the last Working Group meeting of the CBD COP held in Nairobi, Kenya, in June this year, IPS reported that the progress was far lower than expected. To put it into perspective, only two of the 21 targets of the GBF had clean text after the Nairobi meeting. The rest of the texts remained within brackets – 1800 in total, indicating the enormous amount of negotiation left to reach an agreement on the draft agreement.

On December 8, the second day of the negotiations, David Ainsworth – head of CBD Communications, said that in addition to the 1800, there were another 900 newly-added brackets. To ease the uphill task of cleaning this text through different stages of negotiations, a slew of contact groups had been formed, with each group being responsible for working on one of the most contentious issues. Little details were shared about these Contact Groups except that each would hold several rounds of negotiations with the parties – presumably those who raised the brackets – and find a headway. These meetings are closed to media and non-parties, including NGOs and other participants.

However, various civil society organizations, including the leaders of the IPLC, have criticized the groups’ formation because they are barred from participating.

“With the Working Group meetings, we could at least know what is going on. But the contact groups are having closed-door meetings; we don’t even have permission to enter these rooms,” said Jennifer Corpuz, an indigenous leader and a prominent voice for indigenous rights from International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity.

“It was always difficult for us Indigenous peoples to make our voice heard before, but now it’s impossible for us to be included in the discussion and know what is going on.”

The Missing Enthusiasm 

On Tuesday, at the opening ceremony of COP15, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said, “Every leader must tell their negotiator to bring this ambition (conserving 30%of the world’s land and water) to their table as we reach a final framework over the next two weeks.”

Trudeau also announced an additional 350 million dollars for international biodiversity funding by Canada. The announcement and the speech were both received with thunderous applause.

However, three days since then, the mood has quickly changed, with little visible progress. “We see the delegates’ mood going down, together with their energy and hopes that this can have any great outcomes. And we hear the frustration: for many delegates, what took them to pursue such careers was, in essence, a love for the environment, for our peoples, and for the planet. We must dig in to find that motivation that helped many of us start this journey 10, 20, and for many over 30 years ago in Rio,” says Oscar Soria, director of Avaaz, a global advocacy group keeping a keen eye on the developments within COP15.

The ‘Paris Moment’ That May Never Come

Adoption of the GBF and achieving clear, strong results at COP15 was touted by many as the biodiversity’s ‘Paris moment’ – a reference to reaching a crucial global consensus on the conservation of the earth’s biodiversity and scripting a crucial diplomatic victory as it was done in the climate change COP 15 in Paris under the leadership of UNFCCC.

However, at the moment, the chances of this ‘Paris moment’ seem quite bleak. Only two of the 21 targets are for adoption. There are several bottlenecks in the ongoing negotiations, including Digital Sequencing Information (DSI), Access and Benefit Sharing and Resource Mobilization.

In the resource mobilization sector, pledges have overshadowed actual contributions, just as in the recently concluded COP27. For example, a paltry 16 billion US dollars of the expected 700 billion US dollars per year has been contributed so far.

In addition, donors are introducing different “false solutions” that are more populist than effective. These include carbon credits, carbon removals, net zero, net gain or loss, and Nature-positive or Nature-based Solutions (NbS), according to Simone Lovera, Policy Director of the Global Forest Coalition (GFC).

“Alignment of these financial flows with the new global biodiversity framework must be at the heart of the negotiations if it is to have any chance of succeeding. Commercializing biodiversity, making it market-dependent, or allowing offsetting are pathways to failure,” Lovera says.

Others allege that financial institutions dealing with implementation are still stuck in old models and have yet to align their practices with sustainable development. Most financial corporations still fund projects that don’t align with sustainability goals, while debt servicing suffocates the budgets of many developing countries. Continuation of these practices would also destroy that ‘Paris moment’ in Montreal, even if multilateral negotiations here are successful.

The Path Ahead

Clearly, creating a ‘Paris moment’ at COP15 will require a full-scale course correction and far greater leadership and urgency than we have seen from the UN and governments to date. The CBD held emergency working group meetings immediately before COP15, but the discussions failed to achieve significant progress, leaving a successful and ambitious outcome of COP15 in jeopardy.

In a statement yesterday, Campaign for Nature – a global group that focuses on advocacy, communications, and alliance-building effort to help achieve CBD’s 30×30 goal (which calls for 30% conservation of the earth’s land and sea in protected and other area-based conservation measures.)

It laid out the steps that are needed to get past the bottleneck on finance: “The agreement must contain a package which should include a commitment by all governments to increase domestic spending on biodiversity and end subsidies that are harmful to nature, redirecting these funds to protecting and restoring nature; an increase of at least 60 billion USD in new public international biodiversity finance in the form of grants as well as directly to Indigenous Peoples and local communities.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

A placard on display at activists' demonstration outside the 4th meeting of the CBD Working Group at the UNEP headquarter in Nairobi. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

By Stella Paul
Nairobi, Jun 27 2022 (IPS)

As the last working group meeting of the Post 2020 Global Biodiversity Agenda concluded here on Sunday, the delegates’ job at COP15 Montreal just got tougher as delegates couldn’t finalize the text of the agenda. Texts involving finance, cost and benefit-sharing, and digital sequencing – described by many as ‘most contentious parts of the draft agenda barely made any progress as negotiators failed to reach any consensus.

Nairobi – the Unattempted ‘Final Push’

The week-long 4^th meeting of the Working Group of the Biodiversity Convention took place from June 21-26, three months after the 3^rd meeting of the group was held in Geneva, Switzerland. The meeting, attended by a total of 1634 participants, including 950 country representatives, had the job cut out for them: Read the draft Post 2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) and its 21 targets, discuss, and clean up the text – target by target, sentence by sentence, at least up to 80%.

But, on Saturday – a day before the meeting was to wrap up, David Ainsworth – head of Communications at CBD, hinted that the progress was far slower than expected. Ainsworth mentioned that the total cleaning progress made was just about 8%.

To put it in a clearer context, said Ainsworth, only two targets now had a clean text – Target 19.2 (strengthening capacity-building and development, access to and transfer of technology) and target 12 (urban biodiversity). This means that in Montreal, they could be placed on the table right away for the parties to decide on, instead of debating the language. All the other targets, the work progress has been from around 50% to none, said Ainsworth.

An entire day later, on Sunday evening local time, co-chairs of the WG4 Francis Ogwal and Basile Van Havre confirmed that those were indeed the only two targets with ‘clean’ texts. In other words, no real work had been done in the past 24 hours.

On June 21, at the opening session of the meeting, Elizabeth Maruma Mrema, Executive Secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity, described the Nairobi meeting as an opportunity for a ‘final push’ to finalize the GBF. On Sunday, she called on the parties to “vigorously engage with the text, to listen to each other and seek consensus, and to prepare the final text for adoption at COP 15”.

Answering a question from IPS News, Mrema also confirmed that there would be a 5^th meeting of the Working Group before the Montreal COP, indicating the work done in the Nairobi meeting wasn’t enough to produce a draft that was ready to be discussed for adoption.

The final push, it appeared, had not even been attempted.

Bottlenecks and Stalemate

According to several observers, instead of cleaning up 80% of the texts over the past six days, negotiators had left 80% of the text in brackets, which signals disagreement among parties. Not only did countries fail to progress, but in some cases, new disagreements threatened to move the process in the opposite direction. The most fundamental issues were not even addressed this week, including how much funding would be committed to conserving biodiversity and what percentage figures the world should strive to protect, conserve, and restore to address the extinction crisis.

True to the traditions of the UN, the CBD wouldn’t be critical of any party. However, on Sunday evening, Francis Ogwal indicated that rich nations had been dragging their feet on meeting the commitment of donating to global biodiversity conservation. Without naming anyone, Ogwal reminded the negotiators that the more time they took, the tougher they would get the decision.

At present, said Ogwal, 700 billion was needed to stop and recover global biodiversity. “If you keep giving less and less, the problems magnify. Ten years down the line, this will not be enough,” he said.

The civil society was more vocal in criticizing the delegates for losing yet another opportunity.

According to Brian O’Donnell, Director of the Campaign for Nature, the negotiations were faltering, with some key issues being at a stalemate. It is, therefore, up to heads of state and other political and United Nations leaders to act with urgency. “But time is now running out, and countries need to step up, show the leadership that this moment requires, and act urgently to find compromise and solutions,” O’Donnell said in a statement.

The Next Steps

The CBD Secretariat mentioned a string of activities that would follow the Nairobi meeting to speed up the process of building a consensus among the delegates. The activities include bilateral meetings with some countries, regional meetings with others, and a Working Group 5 meeting which will be a pre-COP event before COP15.

Finally, the CBD is taking a glass-half-filled approach toward the GBF, which is reflected in the words of Mrema: “These efforts (Nairobi meeting) are considerable and have produced a text that, with additional work, will be the basis for reaching the 2050 vision of the Convention: A life in harmony with nature,” she says.

The upcoming UN Biodiversity Conference will be held from 5 to December 17 in Montreal, Canada, under the presidency of the Government of China. With the bulk of the work left incomplete, the cold December weather of Montreal is undoubtedly all set to be heated with intense debates and negotiations.
IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Mrinalini Rai, head of Women4Biodiversity and leader of the Women’s Caucus at the UN Biodiversity Convention and Cristina Eghenter of World Wildlife Fund for Nature, at a media roundtable at the ongoing UN CBD Working Group 4 meeting in Nairobi. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

By Stella Paul
Nairobi, Jun 24 2022 (IPS)

“I often hear, ‘What do women have to do with biodiversity?’ And I want to ask them back, ‘What do men have to do (with biodiversity)?’,” says Mrinalini Rai, a prominent gender equality rights advocate at the 4th Meeting of the Open-Ended Working Group of the UN Biodiversity Convention, which started this week in Nairobi.

Her comment appears to reflect the frustration women activists feel as their demand for a specific target on gender equality – known as Target 22 – shows few signs of progress.

Target 22 was first submitted last September at the 3rd meeting of the Open-ended Working Group (OEWG) of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework (GBF) in Geneva. The target, when summarized, proposes to “ensure women and girls’ equitable access and benefits from conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, as well as their informed and effective participation at all levels of policy and decision making related to biodiversity.”

The target was proposed officially by Costa Rica, with the support of GLURAC – a group comprising 11 countries from Latin America and West Africa which has been since accepted as a point of discussion by the CBD. The GRULAC members are Guatemala, Argentina, Dominican Republic, Mexico, Chile, Cote d’Ivoire, Ecuador, Togo, Benin, Cameroon, and Tanzania.

However, this week in Nairobi, when asked by IPS for their comments on Target 22, the co-chairs of the CBD appeared largely dismissive. “We already have a Gender Action Plan,” said Basile Van Havre – one of the two co-chairs, implying little importance or need for a standalone target.

Unsurprisingly, the draft remains a barely-discussed target on Friday – two days before the current meeting ends.

Gender in Biodiversity and Drafting of Target 22

Ratified by 200 nations, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is the first legally binding global treaty. It has three main goals: conserve biological diversity, promote sustainable use of its components, and attain fair and equitable sharing of the benefits derived from the utilization of genetic resources.

The convention’s 14th Conference of the Parties, held in Sharm-el-Sheikh, Egypt, in 2018, adopted a decision to develop a new biodiversity framework that builds on the CBD’s 2011-2020 strategic plan known as “Aichi Biodiversity Targets”. The decision also includes “a gender-responsive and gender-balanced process for the development of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework”.

However, while a lot of progress has been made since 2018 on crafting and shaping the targets for the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), the Convention has yet to truly center gender issues. Of the 21 targets within the draft Framework, only one target mentions women, and no single target refers to gender. Some parties have stated that since the Gender Plan of Action (GPA) will complement the Framework, there is no need for a standalone target on gender. Feminists and gender equality advocates, however, believe it is critical to have strong integration of gender within the Framework itself to anchor and give life to the Gender Plan of Action.

“What we are saying is that this target is not supposed to be seen as something separate from everything in the GBF. When you adopt a standalone target on gender equality, it will guide all the work being done under the framework and to operationalize the framework including the communications, knowledge management, capacity building and financing of the new mechanism”, says Rai.

Cristina Eghenter, Global Governance Policy Coordinator at World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF) links the currently lacking gender-segregated data and how the adoption of Target 22 could help plug the gaps.

“Women’s contribution to biodiversity is often questioned because this contribution is underreported and therefore, undervalued. A standalone target on gender equality would lead to the setting of clear indicators and a monitoring system which would then contribute to the production of gender-segregated data,” Eghenter points out.

Gaining support from other advocacy rights and equity groups

UNCBD Working Group 4 meeting in Nairobi in session. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

Jennifer Corpuz leads the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity (IPFB) – a collection of representatives from indigenous governments, indigenous non-governmental organizations, and indigenous scholars and activists that organize around the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).

On being asked her stance on a standalone, specific target on gender equality, Corpuz says that she wholeheartedly supports this. “When the GBF has included target 21, it is a natural progression that there should be a target 22”. Corpuz also explains that  Target 21 – the only target to mention women in the GFB, emphasizes indigenous communities and therefore, it will be more helpful to have a standalone target on gender equality that goes beyond women and is inclusive of all genders.

“We, therefore, strongly support Target 22 and hope it will be taken up for adoption at COP15,” she says.

Besides, IIFB and WWF, several other rights and equity advocacy groups are supporting the proposed new target. The Global Youth Biodiversity Network – an advocacy group that is demanding greater focus on youths in the GBF, also has voiced its support for a target on gender equality. Other groups lending their support are the UN Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights (OHCHR), the Convention on Biological Diversity Alliance (CBDA), and the Women Caucus at the UNCBD.

Expectation VS Reality

As the Nairobi meeting nears its end – the conference will close on Sunday – there are more meetings of the contacts groups which oversee discussing and finalizing the text of the draft GBF with the negotiation in each meeting turning more intense. However, when it comes to Target 22 – the contact group 4, responsible for discussing and cleaning up the text of both targets related to gender, has had only one reading of the Target 22.

According to Benjamin Schachter, Human Rights Officer on Climate Change and Environment at ORCHR, the text of the target 22 is right now ‘full of brackets’ which indicates there is hardly any agreement among the contact group members discussing the target on its content.

As the GBF is expected to have at least 80% of ‘clean text’ before it is presented by CBD to the parties for discussion and adoption, the question that most people are wondering is if the draft GBF at COP15 includes a target for gender equality at all? Some are even asking if the draft in its current form (full of brackets) can be rejected by the parties altogether if they feel the task to clean it up is too arduous?

Total exclusion is ‘extremely unlikely,’ explains Schafter, explaining the technical process: since the target has been officially proposed by a group of parties and discussed at the contact group, the parties must work harder and get the draft to a shape where it can be considered for consensus building and eventual adoption.

A long way to Montreal

The onus, then, lies equally on parties as well as on groups such as Women4Biodiversity to lobby more parties and gain their support. Already, in the Nairobi meeting, a few more countries including Maldives, Norway, and the EU have expressed their support, taking the total number of supporting parties to 22.

Norway has, in fact,  also proposed an alternative text for the Target which reads “Ensure gender equality in the implementation of the global biodiversity framework and the achievement of the 3 objectives of the convention including by recognizing equal rights and access to land and natural resources of women and girls and their meaningful and informed participation in policy and decision-making”

“This language is both cleaner and stronger”, says Schachter.

Mrinalini Rai of Women4Biodiversity agrees: “Norway proposed and supported by American countries a new way to address the rights of gender equality and rights of women to lands and natural resources which is a fantastic improvement and if this new text comes in, it would be monumental step forward for CBD,” she says.

But can the advocates and supporters get 108 remaining countries to read, give input and prepare themselves for an informed discussion in the next five months? Undoubtedly, that remains an arduous task for the nations, requiring manpower, time, and resources.

The Target 22 advocates appear well aware of the challenge ahead: “It is going to be a long road to Montreal,” says Ana di Pangracio of the Convention of Biodiversity Alliance (CBDA).

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Yohei Sasakawa – WHO Goodwill Ambassador for Leprosy Elimination and Chairman of Nippon Foundation speaking at the 3rd of the “Don’t Forget Leprosy” webinar series organized by Sasakawa Leprosy (Hansen’s Disease) Initiative. Credit: Stella Paul

By Stella Paul
Hyderabad, Dec 3 2021 (IPS)

As 2021 nears its end, public health systems worldwide remain severely strained by COVID 19, which is showing no sign of ending. But even as countries battle to control the deadly pandemic, they must also maintain the progress made against other diseases, including leprosy, global leprosy experts and advocates have urged.

On Thursday, at a webinar organized by the Sasakawa Leprosy (Hansen’s Disease) Initiative, a strategic alliance that links the WHO Goodwill Ambassador for Leprosy Elimination, Sasakawa Health Foundation, and The Nippon Foundation for achieving a leprosy-free world, over 150 members of several leprosy-affected people’s organizations expressed their concerns about leprosy resurgence. In Comoros, in East Africa, hundreds of new cases had been detected in the smaller islands, and many of the affected are children.

“We have carried out case-finding mini-campaigns in targeted areas of Anjouan and Mohéli (islands in Comoros) with the help of community health workers and have detected new cases including in children aged 15 and above,” said Dr. Aboubacar Mzembaba, National Programme Manager, Leprosy & Tuberculosis in the Ministry of Health, Comoros.

Data shared by Mzembaba shows that in 2020, there were 217 new cases, which increased to 239 in 2021. He said about 33 percent of children are affected by leprosy, and the government aims to bring this down to 10%.

The growing number of cases among children was “a concern,” said Pemmaraju V Rao, Acting Team Leader, Global Leprosy Programme, WHO.

Rao, who also facilitated the webinar, said that since cases continued to be unreported in many regions of the world, it was essential to continue with the current strategies of detecting and managing leprosy cases, including door-to-door visits, strengthening local health facilities, regular training, and supervision of health workers.

Tesfaye Tadesse, the Managing Director of Ethiopian National Association of Persons Affected by Leprosy (ENAPAL), said the organization has been at the forefront of Ethiopia’s battle for leprosy eradication. It was also concerned with protecting the dignity and rights of leprosy-effected people.

At the webinar, Tesfaye highlighted how COVID undermined leprosy in Ethiopia even though new cases have continued to grow. Also, fear of social exclusion drove people to seek alternative cures, like faith-healing.

“This year, we have detected 21 new cases, many of them in the holy water areas of the Amhara region. People are so scared of social stigma, instead of seeking medical treatment, they are going to collect holy water for their cure,” said Tadesse.

As stigma and discrimination remain a challenge across countries and cultures, people affected by leprosy have emerged as a tight-knit community. They take the opportunity to come together at any community event and share each other’s struggles and wins. In Thursday’s webinar, the third of a series of virtual seminars in the ‘Don’t Forget Leprosy’ campaign, participants and speakers could be seen encouraging each other and sharing their thoughts freely.

When Kofi Nyarko – a leprosy-affected person from Ghana, stressed the importance of early detection and appropriate treatment without stigma for preventing disabilities in leprosy, participants from other countries were quick to express their support and cheer him on.

Yohei Sasakawa – WHO Goodwill Ambassador for Leprosy Elimination and Chairman of The Nippon Foundation responds to a question from IPS News correspondent at a webinar organized by the Sasakawa Leprosy (Hansen’s Disease) Initiative. Credit: Stella Paul

However, to win their fight in a post-pandemic era, the leprosy-affected community would need more external support as well, said Yohei Sasakawa, WHO Goodwill Ambassador for Leprosy Elimination and Chairman of The Nippon Foundation.

According to Sasakawa, whose foundation has been instrumental in providing financial, technical, and moral support to leprosy-affected organizations worldwide, achieving a zero-leprosy world cannot be accomplished through a technocratic approach alone. A rights-based, human-centered approach that stresses full dignity and equality for the leprosy-affected community is crucial to achieving the goal.

For that, support of new allies would be vital – and Sasakawa advised the participants to seek more partners for their campaigns, including youth and media.

“The young generation is not aware of the struggle of the leprosy-affected people, especially of the older generation. We should therefore find ways to engage with them, make them aware,” Sasakawa told IPS.

“Designing educational programs is a good way to do this. Taking a human-rights approach, sharing your personal stories with the youth can help. It is also important to engage with media who can help highlight the causes.”

All the speakers and participants at the webinar agreed that the best way to achieve the aims of the “towards zero-leprosy” drive is to strengthen their campaign by increasing its global visibility.

Observation of the World Leprosy Day on January 30 presented an opportunity toward that and, the participants agreed to utilize it with renewed passion and a broader outreach plan.

“Engage with the media, utilize the radio networks in your country. COVID is there, but we must continue with our campaign,” Sasakawa advised.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Unable to support her family with the earnings from her farm due to land degradation, Jennifer Kamba (on the right), a smallholder farmer in Machakos county of Kenya, now works as a part-time cook and caterer. Credit: IPS

By Stella Paul
HYDERABAD, India, Oct 14 2021 (IPS)

Jenifer Kamba, 33, has always loved farming – a love passed on to her by her late husband after they married 14 years ago. The young farmer duo grew maise, pepper and vegetables on their two-acre farm in Kivandini of Kenya’s Machakos county. Even after her husband died five years ago, Kamba didn’t stop farming.  However, of late, the soil looks dry, and her production has declined considerably.

“The land is not what it used to be,” she says, “Even a few years ago, my vegetables were beautiful. The pumpkins were big, juicy and my husband sometimes sold some into the local market. But now, they are small and crooked in shape. It feels as if something has sucked the life out of my land.”

Unable to feed herself and her two school-going children from the earnings of her farm, Kamba now takes up seasonal work such as cooking in her wealthier neighbours’ homes.

The ailing factor of Kamba’s land – increasing degradation due to extreme weather events such as droughts and below-average rainfall – is a challenge that farmers worldwide face today, linked to climate change.

According to the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), more than 2 billion hectares worldwide are currently affected by the decline in the quality or arability of land. In Africa, where the livelihood of 70% of the population depends on agriculture, 22 million hectares are degraded. This directly affects the yield, pushing farmers, especially those like Kamba who have small landholdings, into poverty.

Machakos, which lies 56 km east of the country’s capital Nairobi, has been identified by the National Drought Management Authority (NDMA) as one of the most drought-prone counties. In the past ten years, the county has witnessed at least four severe droughts that have caused significant damage to soil health.

“This is something we are taking very seriously,” says Dr Ruth Kattumuri, Senior Director for Economic, Youth and Sustainable Development at the Commonwealth Secretariat. “Land degradation is a two-sided challenge as it is both caused by climate change and contributes to it. Supporting our member countries with sustainable land management efforts is of utmost importance for us.”

Jenifer Kamba’s farm. The farm used to yield enough to support her family, but now she has had to turn to part-time employment to make ends meet. Credit: IPS

While climate change is worsening droughts and erratic rainfall, leading to desertification and soil erosion, Kattumuri adds that deforestation and unsustainable agricultural practices are also driving up emissions at the same time.

“Rural communities, smallholder farmers, and the poor are adversely affected,” she says.
According to a 2016 study by Kenya Livestock and Research Institute, 22 % of Kenyan land area has degraded between 1982 and 2006, including 31 % of croplands.
The Kenyan government has adopted various measures to fight land degradation and promote sustainable land management.

In September 2016, the government announced that it would restore 5.1 million hectares of degraded land. According to an estimate by the World Resource Institute, 65 million acres across the country were restorable for future use. In its Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC), submitted first in 2015, the government committed to creating a tree cover for at least 10% of its total land area to mitigate climate change. Together, the moves are expected to improve livelihoods, curb climate change, safeguard biodiversity and more.

But the problem, say some, is that implementation of these measures has been sporadic, and very few of the most severely affected people, especially women, are aware of them.

The story of subsistence farmers Ruth Mutinda, 41, and her sister Beth, 37, in Mwala village of Machakos is an example: the sisters who jointly own a small farm have seen a sharp decline in their yield of maise, beans and pigeon peas in the past six to seven years.

The village is near Kitui – another county affected by successive droughts, including one in the current year. According to the NDMA, the prevailing drought situation is mainly attributed to the delayed onset of the March to May long rains.

Mutinda sisters say that insufficient rain has increased the heat, which, in turn, has ‘stolen the moisture’ off the farm. In addition, the water level in their village river has also decreased due to the drought and random sand-mining activities, leaving them without an alternative means to water their land.

“There is a small river at the edge of our village. Earlier, we fetched water from there for our farms. But now we can only fetch few buckets for washing and cooking. So, if there is no water, how can the land be good again?” asks Beth.

Though the NDMA has mentioned several measures to support the drought-affected farmers across the nation, including Machakos and Kitui, the sister duo seems unaware of those. They have also not heard of any land restoration initiatives and think that regular irrigation is the only way to increase soil fertility.

The only external support Beth and Ruth ever received was a few fruiting tree saplings from the Rural Resource Center – a local NGO. But the dry soil of the farm couldn’t sustain their growth.

Landscape view of Mwala village in Machakos county. The Commonwealth Living Land’s Charter, which aims to get member countries to integrate sustainable land use management into their national climate action plans, focusing on nature-based solutions, could assist areas affected by climate change. Credit: IPS

The apparent “disconnect” between the policy and its intended beneficiaries is evident in degraded land restoration and climate action in general, says Leonida Odongo, Executive Director of the Nairobi-based NGO Haki Nawiri Afrika. Her organisation fights for marginalised communities’ rights to climate justice and food justice.

She maintains that climate change solutions often fail to envisage how many ways women on the frontline are affected.

“In Africa, the climate crisis means women are travelling longer distances in search of water; it means Gender-Based Violence in the household; it means conflict as communities fight over pasture and water; it means the emergence of Internally Displaced Persons (IDP) camps. It means the death of people and animals and forced relocation. It’s time to act and avert his crisis,” says Odongo.

Ceciele Ndjebet, President of African Women’s Network for Community Management of Forests (REFACOF) in Cameroon, feels that women do not enjoy the benefits of climate action, including sustainable land management, because they do not have access to finance.
This especially applies to NGOs and community-based organisations that directly know women’s climate challenges and can bridge the gap between policies and communities but cannot provide solutions because of the uphill battle to access finance.

“I heard a lot about Green Climate Fund (GCF) and others, that there is funding available. But is that funding available to civil society organisations? I doubt. All the accreditation processes are complicated; we think we need political will for all those who want to recognise what the civil society has to say or the role to play. We need that political will from our government to recognise that we should be part of the solution,” says Ndjebet.

The Commonwealth Living Lands Charter could help address these concerns. The charter is a proposed initiative of the Commonwealth that aims to get its member countries to integrate sustainable land use management into their national climate action plans, focusing on nature-based solutions.

Under the proposed Commonwealth Call to Action on Living Lands, the Commonwealth Secretariat will support member states to access funding to scale up nature-based solutions in implementing their NDCs that address land degradation.

“We are conducting consultations with our member countries and regions. The aim is to bridge the gaps between climate change, nature and land degradation policies. We want to ensure that what we eventually propose to our heads of government for adoption can be a basis for inclusive, sustainable land management,” says Unnikrishnan Nair, Head of Climate Change at the Commonwealth Secretariat. “That includes women, rural communities and other vulnerable populations – we should not leave anyone behind.”

The Living Lands Charter, if adopted by Commonwealth leaders, will serve as an agreement among the 54 member countries to work towards climate-resilient and sustainable land management by integrating the targets of the three Rio Conventions — the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (UNCBD), the Land Degradation Neutrality targets (UNCCD), and the Paris Agreement (UNFCCC).

Focus areas to be explored include climate-resilient agriculture, soil and water conservation and management, sustainable green cover and biodiversity, and the active engagement of indigenous people.

The combined action is expected to propel the progress in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals, including SDG 15 – Life on Lands.

Could this new initiative help the much needed financial and technological support trickle down to women in the climate change frontline communities, including Kamba and Mutinda sisters?

Time will tell.

Meantime, Jennifer Kamba isn’t giving up hope yet on her land: “I just hope when my children grow up, this land will still produce food for them,” she says, with a flicker of dreams for the future in her eyes.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

By Stella Paul
HYDERABAD, India, May 25 2021 (IPS)

On the occasion of World Environment Day, 5 June 2021, drawing from IPS’s bank of features and opinion editorials published this year, we are re-publishing one article a day, for the next two weeks.

The original article was published on April 1 2021

Two elephants cross a stream in Malai Mahadeshwara Hills Wildlife Sanctuary. Thanks to a number of conservation projects run by various government agencies, non-government organisations and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the wildlife population is thriving again. The forest is now home to an estimated 500 elephants and several other big game animals, including bison and tigers. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

HYDERABAD, India, Apr 1 2021 (IPS) – As the sun sets over the canopy of Albizia amara trees, a thin blanket of fog begins to descend over the forests of the Malai Mahadeshwara Hills Wildlife Sanctuary, which lies roughly 150 km south of the Indian city of Bangalore.

Not so long ago, plumes of smoke would rise from the hamlets dotting the forests as women busily cooked dinner for their families over wood stoves. But tonight, dinner will be a smokeless affair in dozens of villages as communities have opted for the use of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), a clean burning fuel that has given a boost to the health and safety of both the forest and its people thanks to a unique conservation project.

Spread over an area of 906 sq. km – slightly bigger than the German capital Berlin — and nestled along the border of two states, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu in southern India, Malai Mahadeshwara Hills (MM Hills) was declared a wildlife sanctuary in 2013.

An estimated 2,000 elephants and 150 people, mostly police and security officers, had been killed here in the past because of rampant poaching by an infamous bandit.

But thanks to a number of conservation projects run by various government agencies, non-government organisations and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the wildlife population is thriving again. The forest is now home to an estimated 500 elephants and several other big game animals, including bison and tigers.

Besides animals, the forest landscape also includes over 50 villages of indigenous peoples. And in a dramatic shift towards sustainability, thousands of forest dwellers have moved to a forest-friendly fuel to save the habitat of these wild animals thanks to a project spearheaded by Nature Conservation Foundation (NCF), a local NGO, in partnership with IUCN.

Conserving the natural habitat of elephants

Funded under IUCN’s Integrated Tiger Habitat Conservation Programme (ITHCP), the project aims to minimise human-wildlife conflict and promote a sustainable living among the forest peoples.

Dr.Sanjay Gubbi, Senior Scientist at NCF, describes the early years when his team first began work in MM Hills.

Almost every village community in MM Hills practices farming, but they were also dependent on forest resources, including using firewood for fuel.

And the destruction of one particular tree, the Albizia amara — also called the Oilcake Tree in many parts of the world — was of significance to the wildlife population.

“We conducted a survey and found that 53 percent of the firewood used by the community came from the Albizia amara tree. Elephants feed on the barks of these trees, so because of the firewood consumption, elephants were directly affected. So, we decided to begin by addressing this firewood problem, especially along the elephant corridors (forest patches used by elephants to move from one part of the forest to another),” Gubbi tells IPS.

Forest women receive LPG stove and cylinder in the Malai Mahadeshwara Hills Wildlife Sanctuary. In a dramatic shift towards sustainability, thousands of forest dwellers have moved to a forest-friendly fuel to save the habitat of the sanctuary’s wild animals thanks to a project spearheaded by Nature Conservation Foundation (NCF) and IUCN. Courtesy: Sanjay Gubbi/NCF

A solution with numerous benefits

The team focused on introducing an alternative fuel source that would be non-polluting, accessible and affordable to the community. Moreover, it had to be something that would help the forest dwellers adopt a more sustainable way of living — one of the core conservation principles practiced by IUCN.

NCF provided each family with a free LPG subscription, which came with a stove, a cylinder and accessories, and cost about 5,300 rupees ($71). In addition, they trained the community to use the stove and connected them with a nearby LPG distributor, so they could re-fill their gas supply independently.

Changing the community’s source of fuel wasn’t easy. The villagers, most of whom had never seen an LPG stove before, were scared of taking one home. Their worries ranged from beliefs that food cooked over a gas stove could cause gastric pain, to the fear that the cylinders would burst and kill them. Every day, NCF field workers travelled to the villages, facing volleys of questions from the community.

And so the team came up with a unique solution to tackle the twin challenges of breaking the taboo and convincing the villagers to embrace LPG: producing a short film in which all the actors were from the community itself.

The 16-minute film answers the questions of community members, allays their fear and informs them about the use of LPG. The film also explains the co-benefits of using LPG instead of firewood; women will spend less time searching for and collecting firewood, leaving them with more time to do other things, improved lung health and reducing their risks of facing elephants while collecting wood.

“The film was a big hit and a great communication tool,” Gubbi tells IPS.

One of the villages where a large number of people have switched to using LPG is Lokkanahalli. The village is of geographical significance as it is located along the Doddasampige-Yediyaralli corridor, one of the paths the elephants take to Biligirirangana Ranganathaswamy Hills, an adjacent wildlife sanctuary.

“I was scared (at first) of using LPG because it might be harmful for our health. I also thought that it would mean an extra cost for our family (to refill the LPG cylinder) and we might not be able to afford it,” 28-year-old Pushpa Vadanagahalli, one of the women from Lokanahalli village, tells IPS.

The refill costs about $8.

“But after I received the first cylinder and cooked with it, I realised there was nothing to be afraid of. Actually, I feel it’s much safer than going to the forest daily and collecting firewood, so we don’t mind spending on the refill,” Vadanagahalli says.

Forty-year-old Seethamma had been braving elephants and other animals in the forest for several years as she collected firewood.

“Cutting trees and carrying them home is not easy, I used to get back pain. We also must watch out for big animals, especially elephants. It would also take so much time every day. Now, I no longer have to do that, so I am very relieved,” she tells IPS of her choice to switch to LPG.

A case study for a global discussion on managing landscapes for nature and people

According to Gubbi, over the past four years nearly two thousand families from 44 villages in MM Hills and its adjoining forest Cauvery Wildlife Sanctuary have given up using firewood as a source of fuel.

Consumption of firewood has reduced by 65 percent among these villagers.

However, the community still continues to use firewood to heat water, but for this they collect agricultural residue or dry, dead branches and twigs that have fallen onto the forest floor. We now need to address the issue of providing an alternative for heating water.

It is a harmonious managing of the landscape for both nature and the people who live there. This is in fact one of the themes of theIUCN World Conservation Congress, which will be held from Sept. 3 to 11 in Marseille. The Congress will be a milestone event for conservation, providing a platform for conservation experts and custodians, government and business, indigenous peoples, scientists, and other stakeholders.

The success of the MM Hills and Cauvery project proves that a balance between “ecological integrity for natural landscapes, a shared prosperity, and justice for custodians on working landscapes within the limits that nature can sustain” — one of the discussion points for the Congress — is possible.

Understanding how to “deliver climate-resilient and economically-viable development, while at the same time conserving nature and recognising its rights” is one of the questions around the theme ‘managing landscapes for nature and people’ that will be discussed at the IUCN World Conservation Congress.

From Poaching to Protection

Another question is how to heed the voices of environmental custodians, especially those that are often marginalised such as indigenous peoples and women.

Perhaps the MM Hills project provides an answer to this. NCF has found a unique way to include the indigenous people of the area in their conservation efforts. And they have found that women are overwhelmingly taking the lead in these efforts.

With each LPG subscription provided by NCF, a written commitment to agree not to cut or destroy wild trees and to not engage in illegal hunting activities is required. The signatories are part of the community committee – a community-based group focused on the conservation and protection of the forest. Currently, 27 villages have a forest protection group, comprising over 80 percent of women.

Towards a sustainable future

The conservation efforts in MM Hills and Cauvery continue. Seven years after it became a protected forest, MM Hills is now home to 12 to 15 tigers and will soon become a tiger reserve. Early this year, the government of Karnataka and the federal government gave their approval and a formal announcement is expected to be made soon.

The formal status of a tiger reserve is expected to bring more funding, which could further help mitigate the human-wildlife conflict and help convert communities there to a more sustainable way of life.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau

Ameenah Gurib-Fakim is the first woman president of Mauritius and a renowned biodiversity scientist. Courtesy: International Labour Organisation/Crozet / Pouteau

By Stella Paul
HYDERABAD, India, May 20 2021 (IPS)

If we want to address the great challenges this world is facing, we have to factor in science into all our narratives, according to Dr. Ameenah Gurib-Fakim, the first woman president of Mauritius and renowned biodiversity scientist.

In an interview conducted over Zoom, Gurib-Fakim tells IPS the real cost of biodiversity loss.

“You know, human beings owe their existence to the byproducts of nature’s activities like oxygen, right? And we don’t value it. We depend on nature and unfortunately, for too long, humans have considered themselves to be outside of the ecosystem.

“We are very much part of this ecosystem, so let us stop destroying it because we’re not preserving nature, we are preserving our own livelihoods,” Gurib-Fakim, who is also a successful entrepreneur, says.

She also tells IPS about the importance of using science diplomacy to better international relations and the importance of investing in the youth. Excerpts follow:

IPS: World Economic Forum’s Global Risk Report 2020 has just identified the loss of biodiversity as one of the two greatest risks to global economy. As a biodiversity scientist, what’s your take on this?

Ameenah Gurib-Fakim (AGF): You have raised a very important question. Nature gives us every year over a hundred trillion US dollars. If you can measure that, that is the input of nature to our livelihoods.

We have read the Word Economic Forum’s Global Risk report and I think by 2025, over 60 percent of the big, big animals, the mammals are really threatened with extinction.

Now, if you look at a country like India, if you look at a continent like Africa, just think of a big animal, like the elephant, how much does the elephant contribute to sustaining the ecosystem, which we thrive on?

A wild elephant takes bath in Moei River near the Myanmar-Thailand border. Elephants contribute to sustaining ecosystems. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

 IPS: We have often heard you speak about science diplomacy. How could science diplomacy help build better relations at an international level?

AGF: Science diplomacy for me is the soft power. For the past few years, there has been an anti-science sentiment voiced by major leaders on this planet. And this undesigned sentiment has weighed very heavily again when it comes to addressing issues like climate science, for example, climate change, biodiversity. They have weighed in as well in terms of handling of this pandemic that we are currently living in. So, I think if you want to address the great challenge that this world is facing, we have to factor in science into all our narratives.

We have also seen, at least in the beginning of this year, how we’re trying to revive the multilateral system. And that’s why we need to bring in science diplomacy because we have to rethink our multilateral system and we have to make it fit for purpose to address major challenges.

IPS:  How can the world help create wealth and jobs for youth across the world and how can tapping into youth power and youth talent help build a more sustainable Africa?

AGF:  If you look at the statistics, 60 percent of the jobs that young people will work in have not yet been created. How do we empower the youth, it’s investment in education, right? And, you know, the education that I received as a child is not fit for purpose for my daughter … So what are we doing in terms of investment in the education system for these kids to be ready for that job that has not yet been created?

If you look at Africa, by 2050 it will be the major provider of labour to the world. And the youth of Africa is considered to be a boon. But I worry because that boon can very quickly become a bane. Why are we seeing young Africans dying in the Mediterranean? Partly because they are climate refugees. Don’t forget that climate change has impacted a lot of the regions in Africa. It has impacted agriculture, for example, and this is a huge sector where the youth have been working in and climate change has impacted crops.

These are things that we have to really consider very, very quickly if we are going to consider the youth as being a boon, otherwise we are going to be in a similar situation as Tunisia 10 years ago, when one person, by setting himself aflame, actually brought the country down.

The Kakum National Park in Ghana is a semi-deciduous rainforest. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

IPS: Can you identify a few sectors where investing in youth is needed right now?

AGF:  The health sector needs capitalisation very, very fast, but I’m thinking of another sector, especially for Africa, the agricultural sector. In Africa, agriculture is estimated to be a $1 trillion business. Now every time there is a messaging on Africa, we see a woman working with a baby on her back with a hoe in her hand, digging a very arid land. And this is not what agriculture is. So, just think what drone technology has been able to do, just think what smart technologies have been able to do to empower youth and investment,…[and] how many jobs can be created.  But again, it calls for smart investment in the youth, in the ecosystem and in infrastructure.

IPS: Many women and young people are trying very hard to become successful entrepreneurs, but they don’t really have a lot of support to guide them or resources. What would be your advice to them?

AGF: To become an entrepreneur, you have to have the appetite to take risks. And it is perhaps easier for a man to take risks, because he would have been told from a very young age that he’s a breadwinner of the family.  In Africa, for example, you see that 12 million graduates are landing on the job market every year. I don’t think any country is going to be able to produce that many jobs. So you need to actually need them to become job creators as to being job seekers. But when it comes to a woman, again, all the odds are stacked against her. For a woman to start taking risks is already a big issue because we tend to be very conservative in our approach.

So this is where we need government to weigh in, to provide the ecosystem so that they become job creators and not just job seekers. So the responsibility comes back to us again, but we have to move fast because the world is changing. And over and above these pandemics, there are so many other factors which are going to deter young people. But one thing that we must not do is allow them to dream big and enact whatever ideas and be confident job creators and not just job seekers.

IPS: Finally, what would be your three key messages today?

AGF: I will summarise it in three words: dream, dare and do. Dream big, your dreams must frighten you. If it doesn’t frighten you, it’s not big. Take risk, go out there and do it yourself. There is no cutting corners when it comes to hard work, because everything that you actually will engage in will demand a huge investment on your side. And one thing that I’m happy to have been able to do is that I have been able to show girls growing up in my village, that it is possible to reach the highest position in the country through hard work and also by taking risks.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

Two elephants cross a stream in Malai Mahadeshwara Hills Wildlife Sanctuary. Thanks to a number of conservation projects run by various government agencies, non-government organisations and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the wildlife population is thriving again. The forest is now home to an estimated 500 elephants and several other big game animals, including bison and tigers. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

By Stella Paul
HYDERABAD, India, Apr 1 2021 (IPS)

As the sun sets over the canopy of Albizia amara trees, a thin blanket of fog begins to descend over the forests of the Malai Mahadeshwara Hills Wildlife Sanctuary, which lies roughly 150 km south of the Indian city of Bangalore.

Not so long ago, plumes of smoke would rise from the hamlets dotting the forests as women busily cooked dinner for their families over wood stoves. But tonight, dinner will be a smokeless affair in dozens of villages as communities have opted for the use of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), a clean burning fuel that has given a boost to the health and safety of both the forest and its people thanks to a unique conservation project.

Spread over an area of 906 sq. km – slightly bigger than the German capital Berlin — and nestled along the border of two states, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu in southern India, Malai Mahadeshwara Hills (MM Hills) was declared a wildlife sanctuary in 2013.

An estimated 2,000 elephants and 150 people, mostly police and security officers, had been killed here in the past because of rampant poaching by an infamous bandit.

But thanks to a number of conservation projects run by various government agencies, non-government organisations and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the wildlife population is thriving again. The forest is now home to an estimated 500 elephants and several other big game animals, including bison and tigers.

Besides animals, the forest landscape also includes over 50 villages of indigenous peoples. And in a dramatic shift towards sustainability, thousands of forest dwellers have moved to a forest-friendly fuel to save the habitat of these wild animals thanks to a project spearheaded by Nature Conservation Foundation (NCF), a local NGO, in partnership with IUCN.

Conserving the natural habitat of elephants

Funded under IUCN’s Integrated Tiger Habitat Conservation Programme (ITHCP), the project aims to minimise human-wildlife conflict and promote a sustainable living among the forest peoples.

Dr.Sanjay Gubbi, Senior Scientist at NCF, describes the early years when his team first began work in MM Hills.

Almost every village community in MM Hills practices farming, but they were also dependent on forest resources, including using firewood for fuel.

And the destruction of one particular tree, the Albizia amara — also called the Oilcake Tree in many parts of the world — was of significance to the wildlife population.

“We conducted a survey and found that 53 percent of the firewood used by the community came from the Albizia amara tree. Elephants feed on the barks of these trees, so because of the firewood consumption, elephants were directly affected. So, we decided to begin by addressing this firewood problem, especially along the elephant corridors (forest patches used by elephants to move from one part of the forest to another),” Gubbi tells IPS.

Forest women receive LPG stove and cylinder in the Malai Mahadeshwara Hills Wildlife Sanctuary. In a dramatic shift towards sustainability, thousands of forest dwellers have moved to a forest-friendly fuel to save the habitat of the sanctuary’s wild animals thanks to a project spearheaded by Nature Conservation Foundation (NCF) and IUCN. Courtesy: Sanjay Gubbi/NCF

A solution with numerous benefits

The team focused on introducing an alternative fuel source that would be non-polluting, accessible and affordable to the community. Moreover, it had to be something that would help the forest dwellers adopt a more sustainable way of living — one of the core conservation principles practiced by IUCN.

NCF provided each family with a free LPG subscription, which came with a stove, a cylinder and accessories, and cost about 5,300 rupees ($71). In addition, they trained the community to use the stove and connected them with a nearby LPG distributor, so they could re-fill their gas supply independently.

Changing the community’s source of fuel wasn’t easy. The villagers, most of whom had never seen an LPG stove before, were scared of taking one home. Their worries ranged from beliefs that food cooked over a gas stove could cause gastric pain, to the fear that the cylinders would burst and kill them. Every day, NCF field workers travelled to the villages, facing volleys of questions from the community.

And so the team came up with a unique solution to tackle the twin challenges of breaking the taboo and convincing the villagers to embrace LPG: producing a short film in which all the actors were from the community itself.

The 16-minute film answers the questions of community members, allays their fear and informs them about the use of LPG. The film also explains the co-benefits of using LPG instead of firewood; women will spend less time searching for and collecting firewood, leaving them with more time to do other things, improved lung health and reducing their risks of facing elephants while collecting wood.

“The film was a big hit and a great communication tool,” Gubbi tells IPS. 

One of the villages where a large number of people have switched to using LPG is Lokkanahalli. The village is of geographical significance as it is located along the Doddasampige-Yediyaralli corridor, one of the paths the elephants take to Biligirirangana Ranganathaswamy Hills, an adjacent wildlife sanctuary.

“I was scared (at first) of using LPG because it might be harmful for our health. I also thought that it would mean an extra cost for our family (to refill the LPG cylinder) and we might not be able to afford it,” 28-year-old Pushpa Vadanagahalli, one of the women from Lokanahalli village, tells IPS.

The refill costs about $8.

“But after I received the first cylinder and cooked with it, I realised there was nothing to be afraid of. Actually, I feel it’s much safer than going to the forest daily and collecting firewood, so we don’t mind spending on the refill,” Vadanagahalli says.

Forty-year-old Seethamma had been braving elephants and other animals in the forest for several years as she collected firewood.

“Cutting trees and carrying them home is not easy, I used to get back pain. We also must watch out for big animals, especially elephants. It would also take so much time every day. Now, I no longer have to do that, so I am very relieved,” she tells IPS of her choice to switch to LPG. 

A case study for a global discussion on managing landscapes for nature and people

According to Gubbi, over the past four years nearly two thousand families from 44 villages in MM Hills and its adjoining forest Cauvery Wildlife Sanctuary have given up using firewood as a source of fuel.

Consumption of firewood has reduced by 65 percent among these villagers.

However, the community still continues to use firewood to heat water, but for this they collect agricultural residue or dry, dead branches and twigs that have fallen onto the forest floor. We now need to address the issue of providing an alternative for heating water.

It is a harmonious managing of the landscape for both nature and the people who live there. This is in fact one of the themes of theIUCN World Conservation Congress, which will be held from Sept. 3 to 11 in Marseille. The Congress will be a milestone event for conservation, providing a platform for conservation experts and custodians, government and business, indigenous peoples, scientists, and other stakeholders.

The success of the MM Hills and Cauvery project proves that a balance between “ecological integrity for natural landscapes, a shared prosperity, and justice for custodians on working landscapes within the limits that nature can sustain” — one of the discussion points for the Congress — is possible.

Understanding how to “deliver climate-resilient and economically-viable development, while at the same time conserving nature and recognising its rights” is one of the questions around the theme ‘managing landscapes for nature and people’ that will be discussed at the IUCN World Conservation Congress. 

From Poaching to Protection

Another question is how to heed the voices of environmental custodians, especially those that are often marginalised such as indigenous peoples and women.

Perhaps the MM Hills project provides an answer to this. NCF has found a unique way to include the indigenous people of the area in their conservation efforts. And they have found that women are overwhelmingly taking the lead in these efforts.

With each LPG subscription provided by NCF, a written commitment to agree not to cut or destroy wild trees and to not engage in illegal hunting activities is required. The signatories are part of the community committee – a community-based group focused on the conservation and protection of the forest. Currently, 27 villages have a forest protection group, comprising over 80 percent of women.

Towards a sustainable future

The conservation efforts in MM Hills and Cauvery continue. Seven years after it became a protected forest, MM Hills is now home to 12 to 15 tigers and will soon become a tiger reserve. Early this year, the government of Karnataka and the federal government gave their approval and a formal announcement is expected to be made soon.

The formal status of a tiger reserve is expected to bring more funding, which could further help mitigate the human-wildlife conflict and help convert communities there to a more sustainable way of life.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Participants from organisations focused on assisting Hansen’s disease-affected people from Asia, Latin America and Africa with World Health Organisation (WHO) Goodwill Ambassador for Leprosy Elimination, Yohei Sasakawa (centre pink shirt) pictured in 2019. Participants were attending the Global Forum of People’s Organisations on Hansen’s disease in Manila, Philippines, which was sponsored by the Sasakawa Health Foundation and The Nippon Foundation. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

By Stella Paul
HYDERABAD, Jan 29 2021 (IPS)

Lilibeth Evarestus of Lagos, Nigeria doesn’t like the concept of handouts — she is against the idea of thinking of leprosy-affected people as weak.

Yet, for several months now, Evarastus – a human rights lawyer and founder of community welfare organisation, Purple Hope Foundation – has been spending a lot of time on the road, distributing food items and hygiene products among the leprosy-affected people in her community.

It’s because the COVID-19 pandemic has increased the challenges that the leprosy-affected community face: deep and widespread stigma, discrimination, misinformation, unfounded fear, besides living with the disease itself.

“If we want to really strengthen them and support them, we have to go to the people of the community where they are, instead of expecting them to come and get the help,” Evarastus tells IPS.

COVID 19 and leprosy-affected people

The economic, social, and health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has so far infected over a billion people and killed more than two million worldwide, have led to a significant increase in the need for humanitarian aid and social protection measures globally. According to experts, people affected by leprosy have been especially impacted by the worst consequences of the pandemic, largely because of pre-existing vulnerabilities and economic insecurities.

According to a report published by Global Partnership for Zero Leprosy (GPZL), 76 percent of leprosy-affected people in 26 countries have been adversely affected by the pandemic. These range from disruptions in their leprosy-elimination programmes to a loss of livelihood.

In Jharkhand, eastern India, the poorest leprosy-affected people, especially those living with disabilities, were forced to beg on the streets when India went into a nationwide lockdown to contain the spread of the coronavirus. This is according to Atma Swabhiman – a charity based in the city of Dhanbad, Jharkhand.

“Access of health services during COVID-19 period has become a challenge leading to further deterioration of health of people affected by leprosy specially elderly, with deformities and are on regular medication. Many are not being able to procure medicine in the absence of the money,” Shailendra Prasad, head of the charity, tells IPS.

The big gaps: drugs, medicare

On Jan. 27 and 28, members of leprosy-affected organisations from Asia, Africa and Latin America gathered online to share their experiences of dealing with COVID. It was organised by the Sasakawa Health Foundation of Japan, which has been working to support and strengthen leprosy-affected people’s organisations worldwide.

But in Brazil, where COVID-19 cases have surpassed 9 million and a new study by Sydney’s Lowy Institute ranked the South American nation with the worst response to the pandemic, leprosy-affected people are reporting a shortage of Multi-drug Therapy (MDT) supplies, which is crucial for the treatment of leprosy or Hansen’s Diseases. The reduced supply is due to the disruption in transportation and distribution caused by the pandemic and subsequent lockdown, said Faustino Pinto – a community leader from the Brazilian leprosy-affected people’s organisation, MORHAN.

However, according to the GPZL report, 13 other countries across the world have also experienced delays with in-country supply, distribution, and/or shortages. Some have also experienced challenges in accessing MDT because of travel restrictions and there is also a shortage of drugs for side-affects of the treatment.

Standing together

But the leprosy-affected community and their programme partners are also drawing strength from the fact that the community hasn’t seen a specific spike in the number of COVID-related deaths.

“We are fortunate that till today nobody has died in our community (in Bogra) from COVID-19,” Shahid Sharif, head of Bogra Federation, tells IPS. Sharif credits this to the federation’s early warning and awareness-generation activities. “As soon as we learnt of the pandemic, we started educating our community members about washing hands with precautions like washing with soap and wearing masks as soon as we heard of the pandemic. We also distributed soap and masks, besides dry rations like rice, dal etc,” Sharif says.

However, when it comes to social stigma, the community has remained as vulnerable as ever.

In Tanzania, where the president has ruled out purchasing any coronavirus vaccines, citizens have been rushing to buy health insurance to secure themselves against any possible health challenges. 

But people affected by leprosy cannot access this facility as health insurances are not sold to them, Fikira Ally, an activist from Tanzanian Leprosy Association, tells IPS.

“Those affected by leprosy have no access to this. This is important because it is a human right issue. Everyone would need this once in their lifetime and I request the authorities to look into this,” explains Ally.

Community leader Maya Ranavare is from Maharashtra – the worst COVID-affected state in India with nearly 2 million cases and over 150,000 deaths.  Ranavare tells IPS that people still continue to look at leprosy as more infectious and scarier than the coronavirus.

“The whole world has been in lockdown, flow of life has been disrupted but still most people follow the social distancing only because there is a government rule. But the same people maintain social distancing from a leprosy-affected person even when there is no scientific reason to do it,” Ranavare says.

Calls to end stigma and discrimination

Some, however, are optimistic of ending the social stigma if the community has better access to education, healthcare and economic sustainability. “We can change the minds of the entire community, but we need a sustained support, until we have become truly empowered,” says Ally.

Yohei Sasakawa, the World Health Organisation (WHO) Goodwill Ambassador for Leprosy and chair of the Sasakawa Health Foundation, has renewed his call for ending the stigma against leprosy-affected people.

“I believe we will achieve a world without leprosy one day. But along the way, we need to realise an inclusive society in which everyone has access to quality treatment and services, and a diagnosis of leprosy no longer comes with a possibility of devastating physical, social, economic or psychological consequences,” Sasakawa said in a pre-recorded speech to mark World Leprosy day on Sunday, Jan. 31.

Excerpt:

Apple farmers in Kashmir package their crops to send to a mandi or market yard. According to policy, wholesale transactions between farmers and traders must take place in a mandi, yet the market yards have become hubs of widespread corruption where a small group of sale agents have taken control. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

By Stella Paul
HYDERABAD, Jan 27 2021 (IPS)

“This road is my home now and it will decide my future,” Sukhvinder Singh, a 27-year old farmer from the Moga district of Punjab, tells IPS. Last November, weeks after the government of India passed three farm bills he felt were anti-farmer, Singh travelled to Singhu, a village near Delhi, to demand the laws be repealed. Since then, he has been living in a tent he shares with five other fellow farmer-protesters.

On Sunday night the temperature dipped to 7°Celsius but Singh’s voice sounded warm and loud, betraying the cold. “Its like spending another night in the field, guarding my wheat crops,” he says.

There are currently an estimated 300,000 farmers protesting at Singhu, which has now turned into a tent city.

Though mobilised by 32 different groups, the farmers are unified in their demand: a total repeal of all three new laws:

• the Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act,
• the Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, and
• the Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act.

Farmers protests: Outburst of years of anger

The farmers’ protest on the edge of New Delhi started on Nov. 26, but this has been a movement years in the making.

According to food and farm experts, uncertain and erratic pricing, lack of access to the market, low returns, recurring losses and debt burdens have been part of an average farmer’s life across the country, including Punjab, for a very long time.

While a section of the experts think that the state must accept responsibility for the well-being of farmers and compensate them for their losses, the other section believes that the government should just embrace and promote a free market policy with minimal interventions and regulations over the agriculture market.

The government interventions have, till now, included Minimum Support Prices (MSPs) — a system where the states announced MSP for 22 crops before their sowing seasons. This also included the procurement of grains and pulses from farmers by the government to run its subsidised food distribution to the poor (PDS system), the regulation of wholesale trade with farmers, control of stocks with traders, and control of exports and imports.

However, the new farm policies have sided with the free-market policy advocates and adopted exactly the opposite of what farmers want: strict enforcement of the MSP and greater intervention by the government in the procurement and wholesale trade. 

“Indian farmers have been protesting for years, but the country failed to take notice. For example, in recent years, we have seen milk farmers pouring pails of milk on the streets and vegetable farmers have crushed their fresh produce under bulldozers – all in a way to protest the volatile and erratic pricing that forced them to suffer huge losses,” Kavitha Kuruganti, a well-known activist and farm expert from Alliance for Sustainable and Holistic Agriculture or ASHA-Kisan Swaraj network, a national network of organisations working on food, farmers and freedom, tells IPS.

“But every time, the protest ended with a verbal assurance by the government or a piece of paper saying their grievances would be looked into,” says Kuruganti.

Sandhya Mohite, a marginal cotton farmer in Maharashtra state’s suicide-affected Yavatmal region. Cotton is one of the crops where Minimum Support Prices (MSPs) system has worked but now, according to the country’s new farm laws, farmers will be no longer guaranteed a minimum price on produce. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

What farmers want vs what they are offered

In India, the wholesale purchase of produce from farmers is regulated by the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (APMC) Act 2003. According to the policy, wholesale transactions between farmers and traders must take place in a mandi — a designated market yard.The sale of produce under public scrutiny brought a level of protection from being cheated on weights and measures and price. There are hundreds of such mandis across the country, which are governed by an elected body of APMC authority. 

However, over time, the market yards have become hubs of widespread corruption where a small group of sale agents have taken control and influenced APMC officials with their economic power and ties to major political parties. Unable to stand up to these price fixers, the farmers have had no option other than to play along and bear the losses.

The government acknowledges the cartelisation and, as a solution, is allowing alternate channels such as privately-managed market places which can compete with the regulated APMC mandis for the farmer’s produce.

In addition, farmers will be able to sell directly to consumers. Large buyers, such as firms engaged in food processing, large scale retail or exports can also bypass the wholesale markets altogether and buy directly from farmers.

These ideas were first recommended by the Swaminathan Commission – an experts’ committee tasked by the government in 2004 to finding solutions to problems faced by farmers.

However, the Swaminathan Commission also recommended a higher MSP and protective regulations for farmers while doing contract farming for large private traders. But the new laws do not include either of these recommendations.

The farmers now fear that since the MSP is no longer mandatory, they will be forced to accept any price large firms offer. Food crop growers also argue that they cannot even transport their produce to the nearest market yard without incurring losses. And they question how can they reach and sell at markets faraway.

The big player scare

In December 2020, even as their protests gathered steam, farmers across Punjab pulled down hundreds of mobile towers belonging to Reliance Jio Infocomm — India’s largest cellular service network. The protesters targeted the network after it was rumoured that large corporations like Reliance industries, along with Adani group, would be entering the contract farming business, potentially pushing independent farmers out of their livelihoods. After over 1,500 Jio telecom towers were damaged, the company finally approached the court and also clarified in a statement that it had no farm business plans. But the fear lingers.

Harmandeep Singh, a farmer from Tarn Tarn, Punjab tells IPS: “Today they are saying there are no plans. But tomorrow it may change. These companies are so rich, they can buy any amount of land and push us out of the business. Who will stop them?”

However, the entry of big corporations in agriculture happened well before a more corporate-friendly Modi government came in power, Subramaniam Kannaiyan, General Secretary of South Indian Coordination Committee of Farmers Movements (SICCFM), tells IPS.

“In 2011, the then Congress Government had allowed 100 percent foreign investment in several sectors of agriculture, so the corporates have been there for a long time already. In fact, since we joined World Trade Organisation (WTO), opening up of the markets has become inevitable. However, there should be a balance and ways to support and protect the local, small farmers and for that the APMC should play a stronger role, not be done away with,” says Kannaiyan, who is also a member of the global small farmers movement La Via Campesina.

No takers for a 3^rd party role

On Jan. 12, the Supreme Court of India formed  a 4-member committee to hold talks between the government and the farmers to resolve the protests over the farm laws. But the farmers were quick to reject the committee and refused to be part of it.

“When there is a dialogue underway between the government and the protesting farmers, there is absolutely no need for the Supreme Court to take on a mediatory role given that neither the government nor the union leaders have approached the Supreme Court and said, ‘please resolve this,” says Kuruganti, who is also a member of the 41-member farmers delegation that has been holding the talks with the government.

So far, there have been 11 rounds of dialogues which centre around not just ‘techno-legal’ issues but also on policy directions and policy implications — “areas where the Supreme Court has no role to play,” Kuruganti says, explaining why the farmers do not see any merit in joining the review committee.

“The problem today is, except for Punjab and Haryana, there is no large farmers union anywhere else in this country,” says Kannaiyan of SICCFM.

“This is why a movement of this magnitude can be led only by farmers from those states. But we stand by them strongly in solidarity.”

Digging their heels deeper

Yesterday, Jan. 26, India celebrated its Republic Day – the day the country’s constitution came into effect. The celebration usually includes a token display of the country’s military might by parading its nation’s defence weaponry.

But this week, the nation witnessed a different parade: a 100-km long tractor rally by the protester farmers. The government tried to prevent the rally by getting a court order and some of states also banned sale of fuel to tractors, but this failed to dissuade the farmers who were determined to carry out the rally. Many vowed to only return home after the 3 farm bills have been repealed.

Yesterday, thousands of protesting farmers marched to New Delhi’s historic Red Fort.

“The government is trying to show the world that it has done a great job by building weapons. Now we want to tell the world that a country that a country is not made great by making weapons but by respecting its farmers and by restoring its economic lifeline – the agriculture which is not happening right now,” Mandeep Kaur, a woman farmer with small land holding from  Punjab’s Ludhiana who has travelled to Singhu several times during the past two months to join the protests, tells IPS.

Indeed, the Food Sustainability Index, developed by the Barilla Center for Food & Nutrition and the Economist Intelligence Unit, ranks India 4th overall, behind Colombia and China, in a ranking middle income countries’ sustainability and greatest progress towards meeting environmental, societal and economic key performance indicators for agriculture.

On Jan. 22, after the 11th round of discussions, the government offered to delay the implementation of the farm laws for 12 to 18 months – allowing farmers the additional time to prepare themselves for the future.  However, as the farmers refused to settle for anything less than a full repeal of the legislation, the government declined to announce dates for further discussions. 

The impasse has failed to move the farmers from their stance, but some are asking the government to not make it a show of ego.

“Accepting the demands of the farmers and repealing the farm laws should not be seen as a victory of the farmers or the loss of the government; it should be seen as a victory of democracy,” Kuruganthi says.

Meanwhile, farmers from several states including Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Assam, Kerala and Telangana have lent their support to the protest movement.

And today, Jan. 27, a day after the Republic Day protest, Kuruganthi says “the protest movement will continue peacefully”.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt: