COP16 President Susana Muhamad. Parties to the UN Biodiversity adopted decisions to implementation of the Global Biodiversity Framework. Credit: IISD Earth Negotiations Bulletin/Mike Muzurakis.

By Tanka Dhakal
BLOOMINGTON, U.S.A & ROME, Feb 28 2025 (IPS)

The second round of the UN Biodiversity Conference, COP16, concluded in the early hours of Friday, February 28 in Rome, with an agreement to raise the funds needed to protect biodiversity.

COP16 was suspended in Cali, Colombia, in 2024 without any major financial support decision to support biodiversity conservation. But in the second round of the conference in Rome, Italy, governments agreed on a financial strategy to address the action targets of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF), which was adopted in 2022 with the aim of closing the biodiversity finance gap.

In a final document, all parties to the biodiversity convention agreed to mobilize resources to close the global biodiversity finance gap and achieve the target of mobilizing at least 200 billion dollars a year by 2030, including international flows of USD 20 billion per year by 2025. Which will be rising to USD 30 billion by 2030.

In the closing press briefing in the early hours of Friday, COP16 President Susana Muhamad said the Rome conference came to a successful end. “It was a remarkable achievement of being able to approve all the decisions, especially the most contentious, difficult decisions.” She said, “And not in a way that made the parties feel that they were compromising their main objectives.”

The agreement includes the commitment to establish permanent arrangements for the financial mechanism in accordance with Articles 21 and 39 of the Convention while working on improving existing financial instruments. It also includes a roadmap of the activities and decision-making milestones until 2030.

COP16 president Muhamad also said that the agreement between governments in Rome will help bring the agendas of biodiversity and climate change together. In November, Belem in the Amazon rainforest region of Brazil will be hosting the UN climate conference, COP30.

“The importance of these resolutions that have been approved in Cali and also here of the cooperation between the different conventions,” she said.

The biodiversity COP also adopted a Strategy for Resource Mobilization to mobilize the funds needed for implementation of the KMGBF. Which includes public finance from national and subnational governments, private and philanthropic resources, multilateral development banks, blended finance, and other approaches.

The Cali Fund

The Rome gathering of parties also agreed to establish a dedicated fund for fair and equitable sharing of benefits from the use of Digital Sequence Information on Genetic Research (DSI), known as the Cali Fund.

The fund was launched on 26 February 2025—at least 50 percent of its resources will be allocated to indigenous peoples and local communities, recognizing their role as custodians of biodiversity. Large companies and other major entities benefiting commercially from the use of DSI are expected to contribute a portion of their profits or revenues in sectors and subsectors highly dependent on the use of DSI.

Pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, plant and animal breeding, agricultural biotechnology, industrial biotechnology, laboratory equipment associated with the sequencing and use of digital sequence information on genetic resources, and information, scientific and technical services related to digital sequence information on genetic resources, including artificial intelligence. Academic, public databases, public research institutions and companies operating in the concerned sectors but not relying on DSI are exempt from contributions to the Cali Fund.

The fund is part of a multilateral mechanism on the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of digital sequence information on genetic resources adopted at COP15 in December 2022 alongside the KMGBF.

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
  

Three-Michelin-starred chef Mauro Colagreco, the flag bearer of circular gastronomy, which aims to align food and nature. Credit: Mirazur

By Busani Bafana
CALI, Columbia & BULAWAYO, Zimbabwe, Oct 28 2024 (IPS)

“How we prepare and eat food should not be at the expense of our biodiversity,” says 3-Michelin-starred chef Mauro Colagreco, who is on a mission to change our relationship with food and what we choose to eat.

Colagreco, the owner of Mirazur, an award-winning restaurant in Menton, France, is a tribute to gastronomy. Among other world rankings, Mirazur’s fine food and service have earned it first place in the World’s 50 Best Restaurants. In the 2020 edition of the “100 Chefs” world ranking, Colagreco’s peers named him the Best Chef in the World and Chef of the Year in 2019. 

A passion for cooking and the love of nature shaped Colagreco’s philosophy on gastronomy.

“Feeding others, for me, is the first act of love,” Colagreco told IPS in an interview. “You know, when I was looking at my son being born, the first thing my wife did after giving birth was to feed the baby. For me, it was super strong to see that, and I always think about that, and that, for me, is the first act of love.”

Eating Without Eating the Planet

For over two decades, Colagreco has been the flag bearer of circular gastronomy, a culinary movement he initiated when he opened Mirazur in 2006.

Circular gastronomy aims to reconnect with nature while reconciling the perfect mastery of the techniques of cuisine with a genuine commitment to society’s wellbeing.

The principles of Colagreco’s circular gastronomy are captured in a manifesto that brings together food, nature and sustainability. It proposes a profound change in our relationship with food by making food choices that respect nature. Some of the principles call for the consumption of fresh, local, seasonal, organically or biodynamically grown produce. There is also a particular focus on the restoration of the soil and cooking that preserves plant and animal biodiversity.

In 2022, Colagreco was named the first ever Chef Goodwill Ambassador for Biodiversity by the United Nations Educational and Scientific Organization (UNESCO) in recognition of his promotion and protection of biodiversity. At the onset of COP16 in Cali, Colombia, which is discussing global biodiversity, IPS spoke with Colagreco about sustainable food and nature-positive eating.

UNESCO Director General Audrey Azoulay with Mauro Colagreco when he was announced as the first Chef Goodwill Ambassador. Credit: UNESCO

Here are excerpts from the interview:

IPS: You were appointed the first ever Goodwill Ambassador for Biodiversity? Why would a 3-Michelin-starred chef accept a role like this and what do you see yourself bringing to the role of a global ambassador for biodiversity?

Mauro Colagreco: Well, first of all, it is with deep gratitude and pride. I was super happy to accept this because I am very involved in the implementation of sustainability practices in my restaurant, Mirazur. I am involved with regenerative agriculture, the fight against plastic use, waste management, and all kinds of things we can do to make our footprint more sustainable. This role gives a lot of power to our message and our practices. It is an opportunity for bigger action to democratize a necessary vision for gastronomy—a more circular gastronomy. I believe that, as chefs, if we can act together, we will have a real impact.

This new role of ambassador recognizes that our responsibility as chefs is bigger than our kitchens. It shows that from the soil to the plate, everything is connected, and that we can lead a paradigm shift.

I am a day-to-day peaceful activist, and I’m a campaigner; we can’t be silent anymore. We must take action!

So, that’s why I accepted this role of goodwill ambassador, and what can I bring? I think first of all, I can bring my knowledge of the food industry. I know how it works now, and I know how it can be reshaped to work better. I can bring my experience because we have spent years testing and learning about several topics where we can have a real influence in our industry, in our region, and on our planet. My mission is to save biodiversity, save our food traditions, and make our food more sustainable. For me, the plan to follow is to educate everyone. The key is education.

With my fellow chefs through the Relais & Châteaux Association, of which I am the vice president, we regularly educate chefs about the challenge of biodiversity. For example, we are now continuing a major campaign to stop serving endangered species like eel in all the 800 restaurants of the network. Also, I have initiated a big program that will turn the chefs of Relais & Châteaux into local biodiversity ambassadors on a daily basis. This is a huge program with UNESCO, which we will announce in the coming weeks.

IPS: What motivated your commitment to sustainable food in the first place? What are your personal convictions? Can you explain more about this?

Colagreco: Yes, my personal conviction is that by choosing what we eat and what we cook, we choose the world we want to live in and that is really my motto.

To me, everything is interdependent and interconnected. We cannot isolate one aspect of life from another. If we change the way we grow food, we change our actual food;  we change the way our society works; we change our values. That is my life vision and mission.

What motivates me even more is to propose a real alternative to resolve the alarming situation we are facing. I understood that when I opened Mirazur in 2006. I had a bit of land at the restaurant, and I started gardening on a very small plot.

At that moment, I started to read a lot about agriculture, many books, and one especially, The One-Straw Revolution by Masanobu Fukuoka, really influenced me. This book changed my mind.

That is when I began to understand the profound link between gastronomy and the environment. I understood the importance of biodiversity for our cuisine, for cuisine in general, and, of course, for our planet. And then the small land where I started turned into five hectares of permaculture and biodynamic gardens, where I grew more than 1,500 species and varieties of vegetables. We produce nearly 70 percent of what we serve at the restaurant. So, what we propose, in the end, is a seed-to-plate gastronomy, because we take care of the whole process

IPS: What does it mean to reconcile the environmental impact of the world’s most exclusive fine dining with concerns about sustainability and better stewardship of nature?

Colagreco: That means that making food can no longer be at the expense of the planet. We need to reconnect with nature and rediscover the joy of feeding people in harmony with the planet.

Again, we can no longer eat while eating the planet; that is sure, but the problem is not haute gastronomy. In high gastronomy, you touch a very small segment of the population. The problem is mass consumption. You know, it is how we will feed the 8 billion people on the planet.

That is a huge thing, but that is not a problem because we have great news: we can take the same respectful methods we use in haute gastronomy, apply them to more accessible cuisine, and scale them up. Circular gastronomy, as I say, is not just for the rich elite but for everyone. We’ve tested it, and it works.

Mauro Colagreco believes feeding people is a first act of love and believes food, nature and sustainability should be one. Credit: Mirazur

IPS: You are attending the big Conference of the Parties (COP16) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in Cali, Colombia, this week. What are some of the things that you hope will be achieved by governments around the world at this meeting, and what do you personally hope to do at the COP?

Colagreco: I’m more than honored to be part of this important meeting. All the countries will be there, all the major organizations will be there, and we will all be looking at what we can do to save our biodiversity.

So, for me, in this situation of crisis, we need more ambitious policies to save where we live and our food, fundamentally change the way we live and consume, and fundamentally reorganize the way our society works.

As IPBES says, we need a common strategy because we are all in this together. My role as ambassador is to encourage change and show by example that there are solutions.

What I really want to do is make a solemn appeal to all governments, international organizations, chefs, educators, and citizens around the world to join forces and create and implement a global programme of good nutrition education for our children. I believe that this is the most important action to change the food system. Education is the key.

We need to create a generation that is aware of the importance of biodiversity and committed to making the right food choices. That’s why I really believe this appeal is important, and it is what I want to personally do at the COP.

IPS: You are clearly more than just a chef—your restaurants are exceptionally successful businesses as well. Why does sustainable food make good business sense?

Colagreco: Well, first, because I really believe it is the business of the future. To continue with our current paradigm is like a crime against humanity. The choice of circular gastronomy is a choice of awareness—it’s a choice of values. It means something to everyone. I’m delighted to see the younger generation becoming more aware of that. When I see my children, my sons, I tell myself that we are doing this for them to pass on the right message.

It is a real choice to work for sustainable food—it is usually more demanding—let’s face it. But what I find interesting is that it is like a sport. At first, it is hard to run a mile because you have not built up the muscles, but once you are trained, you can easily run for an hour or even more. So, it is the same for sustainable food and sustainable business; we need to start and be more physically ready.

To change habits is a choice. We must change habits. Of course, it is an effort; it is not easy to go out of your comfort zone. But we must. It is an obligation. Sustainable food is good business.

IPS: You are from Argentina—a country of the Global South—but you have restaurants in France, China, Thailand, and Japan. What role should the developing countries and the hospitality industries in the Global South play in sustainable food and biodiversity conservation?

Colagreco: We have to be careful because my role as ambassador is to lead by example and amplify the voice of biodiversity. We have about 30 restaurants worldwide, and it’s very interesting because the more I travel, the more I realize that the challenges are different everywhere. Situations vary so much that, of course, there is no one way.

It is not the same situation in Asia, South America, the United States, Europe, or Africa. Even in every area, you have very different situations

My first priority when settling in a new country is to identify the local committed producer, with whom I can work to implement our circular gastronomy. My aim is always the same: to cook as much local, fresh and well-grown produce as possible. It is a question of respect for our clients and for the communities that work hard to offer a better food alternative. It’s a question of respecting our planet.

Everyone needs to contribute, and my role is not to point fingers. The role of governments is to support their sustainable agriculture, their sustainable fishing industry, to protect their waste management, to regulate it and to fight against all unsustainable practices.

And the role of hospitality leaders is to have the courage to let circular gastronomy define their food and beverage offers.

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
  

The International Livestock Research Institute is using genomics to breed livestock suited to local conditions and production systems to meet community needs. Credit: Busani Bafana/IPS

By Busani Bafana
BULAWAYO, Oct 22 2024 (IPS)

Christian Tiambo has always wished to uplift local farmers’ communities through cutting-edge science.

As climate change wreaked havoc on local agriculture, Tiambo, a livestock scientist at the Centre for Tropical Livestock Genetics and Health (CTLGH) and at the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), focused on conserving and developing livestock that could withstand environmental stress.

Genomics, a Game Changer

Tiambo’s research took an exciting turn when part of his PhD studies was to characterize and establish local poultry populations with interesting resilience potential. Yet, the need for local access to advanced genomic tools was a barrier to fully unlocking this potential.

Today, the power of digital data and sequencing information is transformative. It is driving the discovery of genes and innovation in agriculture through the identification and deep characterization of pathogens in plants and animals. That is helping scientists to breed livestock suited to local conditions and production systems, thereby benefiting local communities that have been custodians of genetic resources for generations.

But there is a catch: Africa, like other parts of the global south, is a genetic goldmine but has not fully capitalized on the digital sequencing information (DSI) derived from its genetic heritage. DSI is a tool that provides information for the precise identification of living organisms and allows the development of diagnosis tools and technologies for conservation in animals and plants. Besides, DSI is also used in investigating the relationships within and between species and in plant and animal breeding to predict their breeding value and potential contribution to their future generations.

Tiambo said DSI can be used to adjust the genotypes and produce animals with desired traits, adapted to local conditions but which have higher productivity.

A promising innovation has been the development of surrogate technologies in poultry, small ruminants, cattle or pigs—giving opportunity to local and locally adapted and resilient breeds to carry and disseminate semen from improved breeds in challenging environments.

“Farmers would not need to keep requesting inseminators and semen from outside their village,” Tiambo explained, noting that this shift could dramatically improve livestock breeding, dissemination of elite genetics, boost food security and alleviate poverty in remote rural areas of Africa.

Global cooperation among stakeholders of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework is key to establishing international guidelines on benefit-sharing from animal genetics resources and their associated information, including DSI.

Christian Tiambo, a livestock scientist at the Centre for Tropical Livestock Genetics and Health. Credit: ILRI

Using genetics and associated traditional knowledge includes adapting specific livestock to specific environments. This contributes to the development of improved and elite tropical animal breeds with particular traits that meet community needs to improve livelihoods, he said.

“Local livestock is not just for food but is our heritage, culture and social value,” said Tiambo, adding that conserving livestock is conserving local culture, social ethics and inclusion, with gender aspects being considered. For example, the Muturu cattle and the Bakosi cattle in Nigeria and Cameroon are animals used in dowry, The Bamileke cattle remain sacred and maintain the ecosystem of sacred forest in part of the western highlands of Cameroon.

“I have never seen any traditional ceremony done with exotic chicken in any African village,” he said.

Genetics and DSI, according to Tiambo, are “game changers” in breeding livestock with desired traits faster. What used to take five to seven years or more, he says, can now be done in just three or four cycles with the help of genomics.

ILRI has been working with the Roslin Institute, the Kenyan Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization and collaborating with the African Union-InterAfrican Bureau for Animal Resources (AU-IBAR), the National Biosafety Authority, farmer communities, and National Agricultural Research Systems (NARS) in Africa and Southeast Asia in the conservation and development of improved local chicken using stem cell technologies.

Bridging the Capacity Gap

DSI needs infrastructure and human resources. “A lot of infrastructure, equipment and skills are coming from outside Africa, but how can we also generate DSI and use it locally?” Tiambo asked. He worries that without developing local capacity to harness DSI, “a lot of helicopter research will still be happening in Africa where people fly in, just pick what they want, fly out, and no scientists in Africa are involved in generating and using DSI.”

Technologically advanced countries have often exploited these genetic resources, developing commercial products and services without clear mechanisms for sharing the monetary and non-monetary benefits with local communities as ethics and common sense would require—an injustice that needs urgent correction.

The use of DSI on genetic resources is one of the four goals of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework adopted in 2022 with the aim of stopping global biodiversity loss by 2030.

ThankGod Ebenezer, bioinformatician and co-founder of the African BioGenome Project, argues that Africa must seize this moment to build and strengthen local capacity to produce and use DSI from genetic resources.

“The establishment of a benefit-sharing mechanism for DSI is a first step in the right direction and Africa needs to maximise even this first step by putting in a framework to generate and make use of DSI locally,” Ebenezer told IPS, explaining that Africa needs to be able to do genetic sequencing on the ground with local scientists having the capacity to translate and use it.

The Africa BioGenome Project, of which Tiambo is also a founding member, is a continental biodiversity conservation initiative that has laid out a roadmap for how Africa can benefit from DSI and the planned multilateral fund.

“The main benefit comes from being able to use DSI and ultimately share it with the global community in line with the national and international rules and regulations,” said Ebenezer. “Because if you cannot use DSI yourself, you will always feel like a supplier, like someone who gets crude oil from the ground and asks someone else to add value to it and gets several products.”

“The multilateral fund is key,” Ebenezer stresses. “If someone converts DSI into revenue, for instance, they’re only looking at paying 1% back into the fund. Is that enough for the communities that hold this biodiversity?”

At COP16 in Colombia (Oct 21-Nov 1, 2024), world leaders will discuss mechanisms for fair and equitable sharing of DSI benefits, a critical step for Africa and other biodiversity-rich regions. For example, Africa hosts eight of the 34 biodiversity hotspots in the world, according to the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).

“In terms of the negotiation, we would like the DSI fund to be approved so that it’s ready for implementation because this is an implementation COP,” Susana Muhamad, Minister of Environment and Sustainable Development of Colombia and COP16 President-designate, told a press briefing ahead of COP16.

“We would like the decision of the parties to give the COP the teeth for implementation. One is the DSI,” Muhamad said.

Astrid Schomaker, Executive Secretary of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, is hopeful that COP16 will operationalize the multilateral mechanism for the sharing of benefits from the use of digital sequencing information in genetic research.

“We are going to look at that. And I think it’s a very complex term and issue, but it is ultimately about how those industries, sectors and companies that use digital sequence information on genetic resources that are often located in the global south, but not exclusively, how they use it and how they pay for using it,” said Schomaker, noting that COP15 agreed to establish a multilateral mechanism and a Fund for DSI.

The fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising out of the use of genetic resources is one of the three objectives of the CDB, including the conservation of biological diversity and sustainable use of its components. Target 18 of the CBD seeks to reduce harmful incentives by at least USD 500 billion per year by 2030, money that could be channelled to halting biodiversity loss.

The World Resources Institute (WRI), in a position paper, has urged COP16 to provide more finance and incentives to support nature and biodiversity goals.

There is currently a USD 700 billion gap between annual funding for nature and what’s needed by 2030 to protect and restore ecosystems, the WRI said, noting that “many of the world’s most biodiverse ecosystems—and biggest carbon sinks—are in developing countries that cannot save them without far more financial support.”

The WRI commented that bringing in more private sector finance will require incentives, which can come from policy and regulation as well as market-based strategies to make investments in nature more attractive.

But this should not substitute for shifting harmful subsidies and delivering international public finance to the countries that need it most, WRI argued.

As the world scrambles to stop biodiversity loss by 2030, the upcoming COP16 discussions could be pivotal in ensuring that Africa finally benefits from its own genetic wealth.

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,

David Cooper, Deputy Executive Secretary, Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), Canadian Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault, Colombian Environment Minister Susana Muhamad and CBD Executive Secretary Astrid Schomaker at a recent press conference in which they looked ahead to COP16. Credit: CBD

By Cecilia Russell
JOHANNESBURG, Aug 27 2024 (IPS)

‘Peace with Nature’ is the theme for the 16th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP16) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which will take place in Cali, Colombia, between October 21 and November 1, 2024.

But what does ‘Peace with Nature’ mean?

Minister of Environment and Sustainable Development, Susana Muhamad

For COP16 chair and Minister of Environment and Sustainable Development, Susana Muhamad, the theme of Peace with Nature means understanding that climate change and restoring nature are both sides of the same coin.

“That’s the main motivation why Colombia decided to host this conference, we see there is a double movement that humanity has to make,” Muhamad told a press briefing on August 22, 2024.

Her vision clearly places biodiversity as politically relevant as the climate change agenda.

While it is crucial to decarbonize and have a just energy transition, it’s equally important to “restore nature” so that it can, in the end, “stabilize the climate.”

She outlines three political successes: strong engagement from all sectors, positioning biodiversity as a parallel movement to decarbonization, and approving the Digital Sequencing Information Fund.

“At the same time as we are not decarbonizing, the climate will continue changing, and nature will not have the time to adapt,” Muhamad said. “And if nature collapses, communities and people will also collapse, and society will collapse.”

COP16’s role as the first of three COPs (organized respectively by the UNCBD, UNFCCC and UNCCD) this year is to bring “political and economic awareness to biodiversity and so bring humanity back to safe limits during the 21^st century.”

CBD Executive Secretary Astrid Schomaker

For CBD’s Executive Secretary Astrid Schomaker, the Columbian presidency’s theme of Peace with Nature is a call to action.

She describes the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGVF) as the blueprint for making peace with nature, with four goals: protecting and restoring nature, sharing benefits, investing in nature, and collaborating with nature.

Schomaker asserts that COP16 is essential for resolving the outstanding issues from COP 15.

“This is about access and benefit sharing of digital sequence information from genetic resources. Now that’s a very technical subject, but the very, very important one also in terms of the mobilization of resources, but also in terms of the understanding of how we interact with nature, that when we take from nature, we benefit from nature, we give back to nature.”

Schomaker also referred to the need to finance biodiversity with international support, adding to Canada’s donation of USD 200 million. The fund currently stands at USD 300 million.

Finally, COP16 will include initiatives that will bring indigenous peoples and local communities to the table and elevate their voices so that the traditional knowledge they can bring can deepen the debate.

Canadian Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault

Handing over the baton to the COP16 presidency, Guilbeault looked back at COP15, which has been termed biodiversity’s “Paris moment,” referring to the Paris Climate Treaty of 2015, which aims to hold “the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels” and pursue efforts “to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.”

Despite the achievements and hard work, biodiversity issues are still challenging, and are not yet at “Peace with Nature.”

“Species are still going extinct. We still use natural resources unsustainably. And we’ve still not collectively realized that, in the fight against climate change, our biggest ally is nature.”

What are the challenges?

Finance

Muhamad recognized that financing is crucial for “sustained” and secure resources for the future. She called on Parties to come forward and make firm commitments to finance biodiversity, although they have until 2025 to do so in terms of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.

The COP16 chairperson also hoped that this forum would be a “pioneer” for new financing mechanisms that go beyond relying on countries financing the framework and to “open new doors of possibilities for funding mechanisms that are more sustainable and that are at the scale of the challenge that we are facing.”

Business

Muhamad also referred to the proactive role of business with regard to their responsibilities towards keeping a safe environment and its contribution to biodiversity.

The framework mandates government remove, over time, subsidies to sectors of the economy that may impact biodiversity. This could lead to backlash, so human rights and fairness are crucial; however, there are also many opportunities.

“We hope at COP16 to bring a lot of inspiration from those business models that are already incorporated and taking nature as a design into consideration, and that are being the vanguard of new prospects.”

It is also crucial to make this a partnership between government and business to move forward and there will be opportunities in both the green and blue zones at COP16 to take the conversation forward.

Digital sequencing

Muhamad anticipates that the approval of a digital sequencing fund and the mechanism for implementation will be key achievements of the negotiations.

Schomaker added that it had already been “decided that there will be a new global mechanism for sharing the benefits of digital sequencing information on genetic resources, and that global mechanism includes a fund.” What is still under discussion is what form the fund will take.

“Will it be a new fund, a completely new fund, which is one of the options on the table, or will it be one of the existing funds that we have?”

David Cooper, CBD’s Deputy Executive Secretary , agreed that the discussion includes whether to use existing funds like the Global Biodiversity Fund, which is managed by the Global Environment Facility or create a new fund.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Residents of Port of Spain make their way down flooded streets. Credit: Desmond Brown/IPS

By Emilio Godoy
MEXICO CITY, Jul 21 2013 (IPS)

The Green Climate Fund (GCF), created under the auspices of the United Nations to finance the huge investments demanded by climate change, was opened up to participation by civil society and private sector representatives as observers in March.

But non-governmental organisations are pressing for more active participation now that the GCF is moving into the crucial phase of designing policies and distributing resources, especially with regard to the controversial Private Sector Facility.

“Now they are discussing what type of observers and executors can be in the Fund. This opens up the possibility of having financial institutions involved as executors, and they are studying the criteria for qualification and safeguards,” Colombian attorney Astrid Puentes, co-director of the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), told Tierramérica. In this process, “we are being ignored,” she stated.

As one of the observer organisations from the region, AIDA monitors the sessions of the GCF Board, which is based in South Korea.

The creation of the GCF was agreed at the 16th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, held in late 2011 in Cancún, Mexico. The industrialised countries pledged to deliver 30 billion dollars in new and additional financing by 2012, with priority placed on resources for climate change adaptation in the poorest and most vulnerable countries.

A longer-term target was set for the mobilisation of 100 billion dollars annually by 2020.

The World Bank was designated as the interim trustee of the Fund for the first three years.

A year later, in Durban, South Africa, a governing body was created: the 24-member GCF Board, composed of an equal number of members from developed and developing countries, responsible for the execution and oversight of the Fund’s resources.

At its next meeting, scheduled for this September in Paris, the Board will assess the progress made in the development of a business model framework, transparency policies, private financing and conditions for access to GCF resources.

“It’s important that, whatever is done, it has to do with small and medium enterprises. The approach should focus on the needs of ordinary people in the developing countries and then how the private sector is engaged,” Karen Orenstein, an international policy analyst at Friends of the Earth U.S., told Tierramérica.

“It’s incredibly important that a country decides what is good and the private sector obliges to it,” she added.

At a meeting on Jun. 25-28 in the South Korean city of Songdo, where it is based, the GCF Board decided that the Private Sector Facility will commence its operations through accredited national, regional and international implementing entities and intermediaries. It also established that it may over time work directly with private sector actors, subject to consideration by the Board.

This decision derailed attempts by the United States and Australia to give corporations direct access to the funds, bypassing government control.

A report published in June by a consortium of five civil society organisations, funded by the UK-based Climate and Development Knowledge Network (CDKN), stressed the role of national institutions.

“Especially the GCF should prioritise access of local (…) actors to the available funds,” the report states, adding that “clear funding modalities must be put in place to ensure multi-stakeholder decision-making processes, including sub-national and non-state actors, as well as the devolvement of funds to the local level.”

Private sector companies, which also have representatives as GCF observers, want the funds transferred by the wealthy countries to cover their investments in clean development projects in developing countries, which they can claim as reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

Latin American delegates were missing in Songdo, since neither Mexican Senator Ernesto Cordero, a Board member, nor his alternate, Rodrigo Rojo, deputy director for International Affairs at the Ministry of Finance of Chile, was in attendance.

But that was not the only problem.

“The last meeting was disastrous for citizen participation. They shut us out of some discussions, like the definition of the business model, on the pretext that our organisations have no experience in these matters,” said Puentes.

Orenstein commented that “the countries that were the major obstacles were Australia and the U.S., who boast they are the champions of transparency. The real champions were Zambia, the Democratic Republic of Congo and indeed Sweden. It was regressive; they vetoed the presence of civil society delegates in the most important discussions.”

In November 2012 almost 34 billion dollars in climate finance had been pledged, according to an analysis conducted by institutions in the United States, Germany, the United Kingdom, Japan and Norway. Of this total, 28 million had been requested and/or budgeted by the executive bodies of the countries that have pledged the funds.

However, it is difficult to determine if these resources are genuinely “new and additional” and not part of previously allocated assistance or financing. Every country uses different instruments and channels resources through different schemes and institutions. It also is not clear if priority has been placed on adaptation measures in the most vulnerable countries.

The funds actually invested total barely three billion dollars.

On Jun. 24, the day before the last GCF Board meeting began, a large group of non-governmental organisations sent the Board a letter highlighting key issues regarding transparency and public participation and requesting that they be addressed at the meeting.

“The Board would benefit from having civil society participation given the vast expertise and experience found among the different groups and individuals that represent civil society,” the letter emphasised.

* This story was originally published by Latin American newspapers that are part of the Tierramérica network.

Excerpt: