COP29 – Cabot Institute for the Environment blog

Fresh reflection on COP 16 of the Convention on Biological Diversity

Posted on November 11, 2024December 9, 2024 by amanda.woodman-hardy

Margherita Pieraccini and Naomi Millner at COP16. Sat down and holding a block representing the SDGs, — Margherita Pieraccini and Naomi Millner at COP16.

As 2024 is drawing to a close, Conferences of the Parties (COPs) of three major Multilateral Environmental Agreements are happening in close succession: COP 16 of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) was held between end of October and the beginning of November, COP 29 of the UN Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is happening in mid-November, and COP 16 of the UN Convention to Combat Desertification will take place in early December.

Although exploring the synergies between these three COPs is of great importance and their close temporal proximity this year facilitates such discussion, I will focus solely on the CBD COP 16 as I had the opportunity to attend it in person as a University of Bristol academic observer.

CBD COP 16, held in Cali, Colombia started on the 21^st of October and was due to end on the 1^st of November. Negotiations overrun until the morning of the 2^nd of November but they were suspended as the quorum was lost, leaving discussions on some key issues such as the strategy for resource mobilization to be resumed at a later date.

As biodiversity COPs are held biannually, COP 16 was the first COP since the adoption of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) at COP 15 in 2022. No one was expecting the negotiation of another major agreement at COP 16, with the key issue being the implementation of the GBF framework.

An introduction to the GBF

Differently from the Paris Agreement under the UNFCCC, the GBF is not legally binding. Nevertheless, given that the boundary between binding and non-binding instruments in international environmental law is not always so clear-cut, the GBF has a central role in directing biodiversity law and policy. The GBF is a largely aspirational goal and target-oriented instrument. It contains four Goals to ‘live in harmony with nature’ by 2050 and 23 global Targets for 2030, split into three categories, namely ‘reducing threats to biodiversity’, ‘meeting people’s needs through sustainable use and benefit-sharing’ and ‘tools and solutions for implementation and mainstreaming’. The Targets have different degrees of ‘quantifiability’, impacting also on Parties’ strategies and methodologies of implementation.

For example, the well- known ‘30 by 30’ target (Target 3) sets the threshold of 30% of the coverage of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) in terrestrial and inland water areas as well as marine and coastal areas to be reached by 2030. In contrast, Target 5, which still falls within the first category of ‘reducing threats to biodiversity’, is framed using a more general language: ‘ensure that the use, harvesting and trade of wild species is sustainable, safe and legal, preventing overexploitation, minimizing impacts on non-target species and ecosystems, and reducing the risk of pathogen spillover, applying the ecosystem approach, while respecting and protecting customary sustainable use by indigenous peoples and local communities.’

There are not only differences between Targets but the wordings of individual Targets themselves is sometimes contradictory, making for complex implementation as conflicting directions are suggested. For example, Target 19 pushes for the marketisation of nature, encouraging the private sector to invest in biodiversity and employing uncritically the language of green bonds and payments for ecosystem services, whilst, at the same, promoting the role of ‘Mother Earth centric action and non-market approaches’. Even if not all targets are rife with internal contradictions, other internal differences may exist, with some objectives expressed in a qualitative rather than a quantitative manner or by reference to concepts that lack unified legal definitions. This makes it more difficult to devise specific indicators, with the consequence that Parties will likely concentrate on the objectives requiring easier interpretative skills. For example, going back to the ‘30 by 30’ Target 3, the quantitative component is followed by references to ‘equitably governed systems’, which could mean very different things to different regulatory actors and there is still much work to be done on the identification of OECMs.

It should be recalled that this is not the first time the CBD employs the language of Targets and Goals. Notably, the CBD Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 included the Aichi Biodiversity Targets structured around 5 strategic goals, though most were not achieved and few partially achieved, as reported in the Global Biodiversity Outlook 5. COP 16’s focus on implementation was therefore crucial to avoid historical failures repeating themselves in 2030.

The spaces and voices of COP 16

COPs are notoriously busy and chaotic events. COP 16 of the CBD did indeed feel busy, with many side events happening simultaneously and in parallel to the formal negotiations of the two Working Groups and plenaries, as well as press conferences and Pavilion events. It was also the largest-ever CBD COP with some 23,000 registered delegates. Yet, the Conference Centre that hosted COP 16 in Cali was very capacious and the horizontal disposition of the spaces facilitated inter-ethnic, inter-generational, inter-disciplinary and of course inter-jurisdictional discussions under a Colombian sky often veiled by clouds.

It was a pleasant surprise to witness the high representation of youth, as well as indigenous peoples and local communities advocating for their rights and the rights of nature, though one may wonder if this was primarily due to the fact that COP 16 was organised in South America where the question of who is indigenous and who is not is not as contested as in other continents (such as Africa) and where youth environmental activism is thriving.

Side events also saw the participation of a plurality of voices, hosting delegates from a myriad of Inter-governmental organisations (IGOs) and Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs), as well as researchers, Secretariat members and sometimes Parties. Thus, cross-fertilisation of ideas dominated the Conference with the hope that points made in side events by activists, academics, and others could filter through Parties to the negotiation tables. Indeed, many times in side events speakers addressed the audience as if it were an audience entirely made up by Parties’ delegates (seldom the case in practice), encouraging it to report back to the contact groups, which are closed working groups attended by Parties discussing draft texts of decisions.

Human rights as a framing device for different world-makings

The language of human rights pervaded the whole COP 16. This is a recent turn for the CBD, considering that the CBD itself and its instruments pre-GBF do not explicitly refer to human rights. In contrast, the GBF lists among the considerations for the implementation of the Framework a ‘human rights-based approach’. Section C 7(g) states in full that ‘the implementation of the Framework should follow a human rights-based approach, respecting, protecting, promoting and fulfilling human rights. The Framework acknowledges the human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment’. There are a few other references to human rights language scattered in the text. For example, in Target 22, reference is made to the ‘full protection of environmental human rights defenders’. The GBF’s explicit inclusion of human rights language and also the acknowledgement of a substantive human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment—which cross references the UN General Assembly Resolution of 28 July 2022—has solidified the link between human rights and biodiversity protection. Thus, it is not surprising that delegates at COP 16 used human rights language extensively.

In this context, it was interesting to observe that different groups internalised and strategically deployed human rights language to advance different, sometimes, but not always complementary, world-makings. Youth representatives referred to human rights as a tool for achieving inter-generational equity in biodiversity conservation; many indigenous peoples’ representatives employed human rights language to advance substantive claims such as rights to land and resources as well as procedural ones such as participatory rights in conservation decision-making; women representatives employed human rights language to address gender inequalities in conservation; some UN representatives strongly supported a human rights-based approach to area-based conservation as a means to avoid the tragedies brought about by ‘fortress conservation’; others used human rights language to reiterate key objectives of existing international law instruments.

The concept of human rights returned over and over in COP discussions intersecting with other reflections that unwrap the many lines around which biodiversity is framed and practiced by different communities and actors.

Outcomes and beyond

As mentioned above, COP 16 was suspended leaving for a later date, decisions on some critical issues, such as finance mechanisms and monitoring mechanism to measure Parties’ progress in achieving GBF Targets and Goals. Considering the slow implementation of the GBF- only 44 Parties have submitted revised National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs), which are the main national implementation tools under Article 6 of the CBD- it is disappointing that decisions on budget and monitoring mechanisms have been left pending. However, there were also many achievements at COP 16, including:

the launch of the ‘Cali fund’ to operationalise the sharing of benefits from uses of digital sequence information (DSI);
decisions on Article 8(j), focused on traditional knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities, including the adoption of a new Programme of Work on Article 8(j) and the establishment of a new permanent subsidiary body on Article 8(j);
a number of sectoral decisions, including one on the mechanism for identifying ecologically or biologically significant marine areas (EBSAs), which had been the subject of legal and political discussion for eight years.

The decisions related to Article 8(j) stand out considering the central role indigenous peoples and local communities play in the protection of biodiversity and the importance of including different epistemologies in biodiversity decision-making. During COP itself, there were arguments in favour and against the creation of such subsidiary body. Concerns revolved around questions such as ‘Why fixating on only one article of the CBD? Why a subsidiary body on this specific article and not others?’, ‘Would the subsidiary body silo indigenous peoples and local communities concerns?’, ‘Should indigenous peoples and local communities still be clustered together?’ Many counter-arguments were raised promoting the establishment of the subsidiary body as a way to legitimise and render more visible indigenous peoples and local communities’ practices turning these actors as policy makers instead of policy takers included in NBSAPs. The new subsidiary body’s modus operandi will be developed over the next two years, and it will be interesting to follow such development.

Outcomes are important, and in a goal and target-oriented environmental law world such as the one the CBD governance infrastructure presents, it is natural and logical to focus on what is achieved and what is not. However, the success of COP 16, like all COPs, should not solely be determined by its outcomes. It is essential to remember the spaces and the conversations that unfolded in between, the sharing of knowledge by a global community coming together for a few days from very different paths of life and with different agendas, a multitude unified by the shared concern of biodiversity loss, which continues at unprecedented rates and deserves everyone attention in COPs and beyond.

————————————–

This blog is written by Cabot Institute for the Environment member, Professor Margherita Pieraccini, Professor of Law at the University of Bristol Law School.

Why UN climate summits still matter – and what to expect from Cop29

Posted on November 8, 2024 by amanda.woodman-hardy

Every autumn, the UN holds its international climate summit or “Cop” (Conference of the Parties). Between each Cop, a smaller, lower-profile gathering takes place. Called the SB – short for “subsidary bodies” of the UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) – these smaller meetings matter but don’t draw as much public attention.

The SB meetings are a world apart from Cops. Held in the same small venue in the German city of Bonn every year, the latest, SB60, had 8,606 participants whereas last year’s Cop28 in Dubai had around 100,000. Observers make up about half of the SB participants, and the atmosphere is less about being there to show you care and more focused on the matter at hand – global negotiations.

In contrast to Cops, there are no pavilions and exhibition spaces. The focus is on negotiations and side events. In June 2024, our team of climate law and policy experts from the Cabot Institute at the University of Bristol attended SB60 as observers. We prioritised going to Bonn instead of the upcoming Cop29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, because SBs offer a chance to see negotiations in flux.

In Bonn, there’s more chance to speak directly to negotiators including diplomats, heads of state, and UNFCCC staff (who are less pressed for time) – and to have an influence on policy outcomes (because positions are not yet as cemented as they are at Cops).

SB60 revealed some important sticking points and challenges for delegates going to Cop29 in Baku, which starts on November 11. The negotiations proved to be particularly difficult in three key areas.

1. A stalled transition

The first is “just transition” – the idea of making society fairer for everyone as we respond to climate change. Negotiations collapsed before the end of SB60 due to disagreements on scope, timelines and implementation planning.

The term just transition was only defined and planned for at a global governance level for the first time at last year’s Cop28. There was a real push and pull between developing and developed countries when it came to setting out the aims and scope of this plan.

Developed countries, including Norway, the US and the EU, pushed to focus on jobs and technology. Developing countries, including the UN’s coalition of 77 developing countries known as the G-77, China, small island developing states, and 54 states of the UN’s Africa Group, wanted costs to be shared fairly in a way that recognises existing inequalities between countries, and with compensation for past harms.

There was a sense that developing countries wanted to see broader system changes within the UNFCCC. One of us (Alix Dietzel) noted down how the G-77 plus China stressed that getting just transition right was “key for the future of the Cops and the regime of the UNFCCC”.

Eventually, the developed countries’ version won out at Cop28. But at SB60, it became clear there were still deep disagreements over what a just transition means and how this will play out. Negotiations over how to achieve the targets for a just transition collapsed when states could not agree whether to include wider discussions of systemic inequality and new finance goals, and whether the UNFCCC’s five-yearly global stocktake required a scaling up of ambition.

The outcome document produced on the final day of SB60 stated that parties met and negotiated – but frustratingly, did not capture any views that can be used as a basis for further negotiations.

Co-authors Alice Venn and Alix Dietzel at SB60.
Alix Dietzel, CC BY-NC-ND

2. Responding to climate loss and damage

There is increasing urgency to deliver meaningful support to developing countries experiencing the worst economic and non-economic losses from climate impacts. These range from extreme weather and sea level rise to damage to ecosystems and communities. A key priority is funding to support the recovery and preparedness of the most at-risk countries and communities.

A new loss and damage fund, currently hosted by the World Bank, was established at Cop28. So far, it has received more than US$702 million (£540 million) in pledges. At SB60, the debate focused on how best to urgently scale up this funding and make it more easily available to the communities most in need of it.

Many countries and observers called for a more inclusive approach based on human rights, and stressed the need for technical support in less developed countries.

3. Finance is key

Cop29 is all about money. Billed as “the finance Cop”, leaders in Baku must agree on a new climate finance goal. Known as the “new collective quantified goal” (NCQG), this aims to support developing countries with climate action. Industrialised nations have only met the current annual target of US$100 billion once, in 2022. SB60 was meant to lay the groundwork for a finance deal at Cop29. The outcome in Bonn, however, was disappointing.

We observed that developing countries felt frustrated at the dithering of developed nations over who should pay and how much. The Colombian government, for example, is committed to decarbonisation, but in Bonn expressed dismay at the lack of concessionary climate finance to support this process.

Developing countries seemed angry that finance flows prioritise private infrastructure investment over key sectors that are considered non-profitable, such as education, health, coastal flooding defences or landslide prevention. This makes climate adaptation harder, especially in the context of high debt burdens.

The road to Baku

The intimate setting of the SB negotiation space might look like it could deliver better climate outcomes compared to huge Cops. Negotiators at Cop28 were crowded out by lobbyists and industry representatives. In Bonn this year, smaller numbers meant delegates could more easily meet for informal huddles outside the negotiation rooms.

conference room with chairs, signs for country names and big screen with blue presentation for climate finance discussions — Finance negotiations will be centre stage at Cop29.
Alix Dietzel, CC BY-NC-ND

At the Cop climate summits, observers like us normally don’t have a significant voice. But at SB60, interactive workshops and contact groups gave observers opportunities to speak. We held a side event with the global mayors network, C40 Cities, and Earthshot prize winners, the environmental and youth empowerment group Green Africa Youth Organization. Discussions focused on how to make urban climate policy more inclusive, and we later introduced ourselves to the UK negotiation team.

Contributions from civil society observers were recorded by the UNFCCC and incorporated into official SB reports on finance and loss and damage. Nevertheless, big decisions on just transition, loss and damage, and climate finance are constrained by competing geopolitical and economic interests, regardless of the size of the negotiating space.

SB60 set the scene for two weeks of fractious negotiations in Baku. Climate change-induced extreme weather events and changing weather patterns are accelerating. Key climate tipping points could be breached soon.

Developing countries will require trillions of dollars a year to adapt to and mitigate these extreme scenarios. Based on what we experienced in Bonn, a finance deal at Baku that delivers climate action for developing countries seems a long way off.

—————————————

This blog is written by Cabot Institute for the Environment members, Drs Alix Dietzel, Senior Lecturer in Climate Justice, University of Bristol; Alice Venn, Senior Lecturer in Climate Law, University of Bristol, and Katharina Richter, Lecturer in Climate Change, Politics and Society, University of Bristol. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.