TWN Info Service on Biodiversity and Traditional Knowledge (Jul22/01)
4 July 2022
Third World Network

CBD: Stark North-South divisions in resource mobilization discussions 

London, 4 July (Lim Li Ching) – Negotiations on the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) have thrown up major differences between developed and developing country Parties on several issues.

Of these, perhaps the most contentious and sensitive are the discussions on resource mobilization, with several developed country Parties attempting to dismantle the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” (CBDR) in the CBD. Meanwhile, a group of developing country Parties put on the table a clear proposal for the relevant target in the GBF, which saw growing support over the course of the week.

Parties to the CBD met at the Fourth Meeting of the Open-ended Working Group on the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework in Nairobi on 21 to 26 June 2022.  This meeting was scheduled after it became clear at the resumed in-person Third Meeting, held in Geneva in March 2022, that negotiations had not progressed as far as hoped (see Fraught negotiations at resumed in-person CBD meetings, 5 April 2022, SUNS #9550).

In Nairobi, consensus was also elusive, with the outcome document containing the revised draft of the GBF remaining heavily bracketed, indicating lack of consensus. Target 19.1 of the GBF, which contains the resource mobilization elements and addresses financial resources specifically, is no exception.

This target was discussed in Contact Group 4, chaired by Co-Leads Jorge Murillo from Colombia and Anne Teller from the European Union (EU). Text from the Geneva meeting that was the basis for negotiations was heavily bracketed, as Parties had preserved their positions and kept all options on the table. In addition, there were two alternative texts proposed, one by a developing country Party (Alt 1) and the other by a developed country Party (Alt 2).

When Contact Group 4 came to consider this issue in Nairobi on 23 June, the developing country Party that proposed the alternative text in Geneva took the floor to explain that it had now worked with several other developing country Parties on another, more elaborated, text proposal.

This new proposal emanates from the statement of the “like-minded group of developing countries on biodiversity and development” that emerged in Geneva. The group includes the African Group, and Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, India, Pakistan and Venezuela.

At the Geneva meeting, the like-minded group had called on developed country Parties to commit to a goal of mobilizing and providing at least USD100 billion annually initially to developing countries in order for them to fulfil their CBD obligations. They stressed that this must be new and additional to, and separate and distinct from, the financing that developed countries are committed to provide under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its Paris Agreement as well as under official development assistance.

The like-minded group had also proposed a more robust and effective financial mechanism to complement existing financial support arrangements such as the Global Environmental Facility (GEF). This mechanism, they proposed, should include agreement on the establishment of a new dedicated Global Biodiversity Fund (akin to the Green Climate Fund for climate change) to complement the GEF for the pooling and disbursement of biodiversity-related financing under Article 20 (on financial resources) of the CBD, to support the implementation of the GBF.

These elements were reflected in the new text proposal tabled in Nairobi as Alt 3. A key concept in the proposal was a clear distinction made at two levels – the first, where all Parties mobilize resources from a variety of sources, and the second, which elaborates on the responsibility of developed country Parties to provide financial resources to developing country Parties, in accordance with Article 20 of the CBD.

The CBD operationalises the CBDR principle in a number of ways, through differentiated obligations of developed and developing country Parties, particularly through the provision of finance and technology transfer by developed country Parties to developing country Parties. Specifically, paragraph 4 of Article 20 clearly articulates the clear rationale and obligation for developed country Parties to provide financial resources to developing country Parties:

“The extent to which developing country Parties will effectively implement their commitments under this Convention will depend on the effective implementation by developed country Parties of their commitments under this Convention related to financial resources and transfer of technology and will take fully into account the fact that economic and social development and eradication of poverty are the first and overriding priorities of the developing country Parties.”

The Alt 3 text was initially proposed by nine developing country Parties. By the end of the meeting, a total of 22 developing country Parties supported the proposal.

Following the tabling of this new text from the developing countries, the Co-Leads of the Contact Group worked to streamline the number of alternative proposals by moving elements from the Alt 1 proposal from the developing country Party into the original Geneva text.  Alt 1 was then deleted.

The Co-Leads also urged deletion of the Alt 2 proposal from the developed country Party as it did not in any way “reflect the complexities of the discussions”. However, the Alt 2 proposer insisted that Alt 2 be kept, despite being told that “we will be in trouble if we go to COP [the Conference of the Parties]” with so many options.

[The CBD COP will be held in Montreal on 5 to 17 December after several postponements due to COVID-19.]

Unable to resolve the differences in the time allocated, the Co-Leads then established a Friends of the Co-Leads group, with a mandate to look at the three proposals on the table (the original Geneva text, Alt 2 from the developed country Party and the new Alt 3 proposed by the group of developing country Parties) and to come back to the Contact Group with one proposal, but without losing any of the elements.

The Friends of the Co-Leads group met the next day, co-facilitated by Jane Stratford of the United Kingdom and Rita Zaghloul of Costa Rica. They attempted some creative means to streamline the text by using different colours to highlight various elements of the three alternative proposals. By colour coding these they hoped to show Parties visually where the duplications of text lay, and hence where and how the text could be rationalised.

Developing country Parties behind the Alt 3 text proposal raised concerns that their alternative text should be discussed since it was a substantive proposal, and importantly did not conflate what they saw as two key pillars of resource mobilization – where the responsibilities lay with all Parties, and where there are specific obligations for developed country Parties.

At the end of the Friends of the Co-Leads session, with still no progress in sight, the co-facilitators scheduled another session in an informal setting for that evening. At that session, the co-facilitators abandoned the previous exercise with the colour coding, and instead proposed to either incorporate the elements of Alt 3 into the original Geneva text structure, or vice versa.

Developing country Parties wanted to use their Alt 3 proposal as the basic structure to which other elements could be added, as they perceived the Geneva text, while rich in elements, as having a faulty structure with a conflation of ideas. They were “not convinced that working with a faulty structure will be better for the building.” Developed country Parties disagreed.

Eventually, the group started with the Geneva text and brought in the elements from Alt 3 into it. No substantive discussions were held, as the exercise was merely around structure and about how to merge the texts.

The streamlined text was then brought back to the Contact Group for discussion on the penultimate night of the meeting. What followed was a lengthy discussion that again laid bare the fault lines between developed and developing countries on this issue.

The developing country grouping once again stressed the importance of their two-pronged approach, in addressing general obligations of all Parties for funding, and in the specific obligations of developed country Parties. A sub-regional group also took the floor to highlight the importance of increasing the level of resources, consistent with Article 20 of the Convention, and was supportive of the proposal for the establishment of a dedicated biodiversity fund.

On the other hand, developed country Parties did not agree with including the spirit, nor the letter, of Article 20 and the differentiated obligations for developed and developing country Parties. They preferred to put the responsibility for resource mobilization on “Parties with the capacities to do so”, despite having clear international legal obligations under the CBD.

The refusal to accept their differentiated responsibilities to provide financial resources was articulated forcefully by one developed country Party, and based on the premise that Article 20 was forged 30 years ago and that “the situation today had changed”.

According to that Party, the intention of Article 20 was for Parties with “large GDPs” to assist countries who need assistance. This despite the clear language in Article 20 referring to “developed country Parties”, and Annex II of COP Decision I/2, updated in the Annex to Decision VIII/18, listing the developed country Parties that have obligations under paragraph 2 of Article 20.

That Party also insisted that the CBDR principle is not in the CBD.

According to experts who have followed the CBD from its inception, this is a blatant reinterpretation of the Convention. While the CBD does not explicitly contain the words “common but differentiated responsibilities”, the fact is that CBDR is enshrined as Principle 7 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development and the CBD is one of the Rio Conventions – all these together formed part of the outcomes of the 1992 Rio Conference on Environment and Development. For a principle to apply, it does not need to be mentioned by name. The fact remains that the CBD clearly operationalizes CBDR in paragraph 4 of Article 20.

The developed country Parties further questioned the USD100 billion figure proposed by the developing country grouping, saying it was not realistic, nor credible. They also questioned the value added of a dedicated biodiversity fund, claiming that this would not necessarily mean new funds would be made available. Several of the developed country Parties elaborated on their existing contributions to biodiversity, and raised the specter of the changing financial landscape where it would be more difficult to provide funding.

The discussions carried on into the early morning of 26 June. Unable to make progress, and close to 2 a.m., the Co-Leads then proposed that substantive discussion be suspended, and that Parties should put on the table text they feel was needed for further discussion.

With that, the floodgates opened for the insertion of new ideas from the developed country Parties that had, to date, not been raised specifically in the resource mobilization discussions. These included controversial concepts such as “nature-based solutions” (NbS), biodiversity offsets and carbon credits.

These concepts raise concerns as their central premise is to rely on market mechanisms to finance biodiversity conservation. However, there are analyses that clearly show offsets and the credits they generate are unable to address biodiversity loss, nor the urgent need to stop fossil fuel emissions or reduce the overall concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which impacts on biodiversity. In addition, appropriating forests and lands to serve such strategies threatens to dispossess indigenous peoples and local communities who are the most effective stewards of biodiversity.

The alternative texts of Alt 2 and Alt 3 were then deleted, and a heavily bracketed and complex draft target 19.1 was forwarded to the plenary and eventually adopted in the draft recommendation from the Working Group. This will be the basis for further negotiations at the next meeting of the Working Group, planned for December 2022 in Montreal, just prior to the COP.

These issues will no doubt continue to dog the negotiations, with similar divisions reflected in the also heavily bracketed recommendation from the Subsidiary Body on Implementation on resource mobilization, and in the relevant section of the draft decision that will operationalize the post-2020 GBF. +