On Friday, I attended a special joint session of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA) and the Subsidiary Body on Implementation (SBI) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) on the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. Like the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the CBD is governed by a Conference of Parties (COP) which meets annually. This special joint session was held in preparation for COP15 in Kunming, China, which is expected to take place in spring 2021.
As background, the CBD is an international convention that entered into force in December 1993 after ratification by 168 countries, 150 of which signed the agreement at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2020a). It was the culmination of a global effort to develop an international tool for sustainable development, and thus has three objectives: 1) the conservation of biological diversity, 2) sustainable use of the components of biological diversity, and 3) Fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources (from the CBD website). In this way, the CBD does not prioritize conservation, but rather aims to support the three pillars of sustainable development (environmental, social, and economic development) equally (for more on sustainable development, see Waas et al., 2011).
Evaluating the extent to which all three of these objectives are met is imperative when parties come together to design a multilateral framework, as they are doing so now in the preparation of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF or “zero draft”). In the session I attended, a delegate from Uganda representing the African Group made this explicitly clear by reciting the third objective (which deals with equity) and calling for specific targets on Access and Benefit-Sharing (ABS), as outlined in the Nagoya Protocol to the CBD, in the post-2020 framework. It is the African Group’s position that the gaps in resource needs and biological conservation must be mutually pursued so that, for example, protected biological corridors continue to allow connectivity between populations of wildlife while also supporting the poor communities living in adjacent areas. Specifically, the African Group made a request to better incorporate U.N. Sustainable Development Goal 1 (end poverty) with Target 8, which was, at the time of this session, as follows:
“By 2030, ensure benefits, including nutrition, food security, livelihoods, health and well-being, for people, especially for the most vulnerable through sustainable management of wild species of fauna and flora.” This is from the zero draft updated Aug. 17, see Convention on Biological Diversity, 2020b.
In addition, the African Group asked for recognition that poverty and population drive unsustainable resource use, and as a result, sustainable resource management is not possible without economic stability, which is, in turn, not possible without sustainable management. The two are inextricably linked.
Other countries echoed this message. The Latin American and Caribbean countries called for the need for capacity-building and the mobilization of resources from developed to developing countries.
Even though this session was for a different international convention than the one we have been focusing on in class, I was pleasantly surprised by how united the messages were both within negotiating groups and across the two conventions. For example, in their statements, the less-developed countries insisted that industrialized countries take the lead, prioritized the issues of capacity-building and adaptation, and asked for a financial mechanism to allow them to implement the post-2020 GBF. The EU also took a familiar stance, siding with the less-developed countries and calling for greater ambition as well as increased efforts to involve the participation of indigenous peoples, local communities, civil society, women, youth, academia, and business. Bhutan had an interesting situation that was very country-specific, as they cited high ambition (more than 50 percent of the country’s area is already protected, according to the delegate), yet predicted they would suffer from an inability to monitor new targets efficiently. They, too, suggested the use of a financial mechanism, but for implementation and monitoring.
It is clear that resources need to be allocated to developing nations, although the mechanism remains a point of contention. I think that countries should be allowed to allocate financial resources according to their specific needs and priorities, and the mechanism should acknowledge that these may differ based on level of development and conservation capacity. While countries in Africa may need to first establish a balance between sustainable resource use and economic development, other countries like Bhutan need resources to monitor their current efforts before taking on new commitments. Compared to the UNFCCC, which is primarily focused on reducing GHG emissions – a burden I believe should fall on the shoulders of industrialized countries, I think the CBD and the post-2020 GBF will be much more meaningful and create prosperous returns for developing countries. Of course, it would be ideal if clean energy and green infrastructure could be incorporated into this model of sustainable development. However, there seems to be a lot of debate on the financial mechanisms in the UNFCCC, and in the meantime, as storms, wildfires, and sea-level rise increase in intensity, adaptation and capacity-building have become the priorities in developing countries.
As the CBD addresses these issues and sustainable development directly, I am inclined to believe that it will have a more noticeable and timely impact on developing countries. I just hope that delegates can get us one agreement closer to “living in harmony with nature” with an ambitious Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework this spring.
References:
Convention on Biological Diversity. (2020a, Sept. 16). History of the Convention. Available at: https://www.cbd.int/history/.
