|
||
|
TWN Info
Service on Biodiversity and Traditional Knowledge (Apr21/02) Open letter on virtual negotiations under the CBD A group of civil society organisations, also representing many grassroots organisations, indigenous peoples and local communities, smallholder farmers and youth from developing countries, have sent an open letter raising their concerns about formal virtual negotiations under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). The most recent notification from the CBD Secretariat (1 April 2021) confirms that the Chairs of SBSTTA and SBI have been mandated to prepare proposals for the organization of work for the respective meetings of the subsidiary bodies to be held virtually during a period beginning 3 May 2021. With best wishes, Third World Network 覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧 To: COP-14
President 6 April 2021 Open letter on virtual negotiations under the CBD The recently announced new dates for COP 15 in Kunming in October 2021, and the on-going consultations on 電ates and modalities・with a view to convening SBSTTA 24 and SBI 3 in April or May 2021, and OEWG 3 in August 2021 give rise to concern. These new dates very likely mean that formal negotiations for the initial meetings may commence virtually. We consider that the negotiation and adoption of substantive policy outcomes should be postponed until such time that official and formal in-person negotiations can once again take place. In general, there are some positive aspects of virtual or on-line meetings ・such as online forums, webinars and small meetings of technical expert groups. Such virtual meetings may have their place and may well continue to be convened in the future even after the pandemic. Even so, such virtual meetings must be convened in a fair, transparent and inclusive manner, allowing for equal participation of Parties and observers from developing countries, and in particular of indigenous peoples and local communities, smallholder farmers, women and youth. However, the pressure to convene formal virtual negotiations in the midst of multiple crises affecting developing countries, including that of inequitable access to Covid-19 vaccines and therapies, will exacerbate already present inequities in multilateral negotiations. Developing countries will likely be disadvantaged and face multiple challenges in participating effectively in a dynamic setting of virtual negotiations, when many substantive issues are still to be negotiated. Formal virtual negotiations would be inequitable for developing countries for many reasons including the digital divide affecting internet connectivity and technical capacity and capability. For developing countries, capacity for coordination and consultation within regions and groupings is limited. It is often reliant on the opportunities afforded by physical meetings ・the allocated resources, time, venue, facilities and interpretation, without which such coordination is severely hampered. There are some major problems: time zone differences may disproportionately disadvantage particular regions. The lack of inclusivity, transparency and accountability in decision-making processes during the course of formal virtual negotiations are also cause for concern. And there are real issues over digital privacy and security. Most importantly, the multilateral negotiation and adoption of substantive policy outcomes, which have serious impacts and implications, require inclusive and transparent face-to-face meetings. Without this, efforts to conclude the post-2020 global biodiversity framework (GBF) are unlikely to ensure that both the process and outcomes are equitable and balanced. There has to be full and effective participation of developing country Parties, as well as of observers, in particular indigenous peoples and local communities, smallholder farmers, women and youth. This will be difficult in a virtual setting. Limited time in a virtual setting will also disadvantage civil society the most. Many of the challenges faced by developing countries are also the same challenges faced by civil society, particularly in developing countries. In our experience with virtual meetings thus far, there has often been insufficient time for civil society participants to speak, and there has been no clear or agreed procedure for determining which civil society groups are prioritised with limited time. There is also little chance for civil society to reach out to government delegates, to provide background information, to follow up with country delegations or to have bilateral meetings. It is also unclear how smaller groups such as Contact Groups could function virtually and what this means for civil society participation. Parties must continue fulfilling existing obligations The postponed negotiations must not be used as an excuse to avoid existing obligations under the CBD. There is nothing to keep Parties from addressing the biodiversity crisis, which needs to be dealt with urgently. The focus and priority of Parties now should be, inter alia, on: 1) renewed commitment to implement legally-binding obligations under the CBD, on all three objectives in a balanced manner, including on the means of implementation; 2) achieving the goals of the Strategic Plan and the Aichi Targets which have not been met, in accordance with Decision 14/1, notably paragraph 8; 3) confronting and addressing the root causes of biodiversity loss, including the larger systemic economic and social conditions that drive this loss; 4) supporting and protecting the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities, including smallholder farmers and women, who are at the forefront of protecting and sustainably using biodiversity; and 5) improving, and strengthening national implementation of, NBSAPs. Thus, Parties are in no way hindered from being able to take action to implement their existing obligations, even in the absence of formal negotiations. Moreover, many steps can still be taken virtually to advance the discussions on the post-2020 GBF, without convening formal virtual negotiations. There is therefore no need to rush the negotiations. Only open, transparent and fully participatory in-person negotiations would allow for meaningful and equitable participation and access to such negotiations by developing countries and civil society, and ensure that any negotiated outcomes can also reflect their views and perspectives. Without this, outcomes of virtual formal negotiations would likely be inequitable, and may counterproductively hamper further implementation of the CBD. Endorsed by: International organisations EcoNexus National organisations AbibiNsroma
Foundation (Ghana)
|
||
