|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on Biodiversity and Traditional Knowledge (Mar26/01) London, 12 March (Lim Li Ching*) – Discussions on resource mobilization at the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) have long been contentious and subject to persistent North-South divides. Yet, at a recent subsidiary body meeting, the most difficult issues were not on the formal agenda. CBD Parties met at the Sixth Meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Implementation (SBI6) in Rome, Italy, from 16th to 19th February 2026. The agenda item on resource mobilization was confined to considering three draft studies – on the relationship between debt sustainability and implementation of the Convention, the implementation of safeguards in biodiversity financing mechanisms, and on the relationship between biodiversity and climate finance – commissioned by the Secretariat. Whereas, the most difficult items ahead are the calls by developing countries for increased provision of financial resources from developed countries, and consideration of the institutional structure by which this is delivered. These issues, the subject of a delicate and difficult compromise finally brokered at the resumed Sixteenth Conference of the Parties (COP16) in February 2025, were not on the SBI6 agenda and will instead be taken up at SBI7 in August 2026. The compromise essentially allowed for two separate tracks of work in a parallel manner: establishing the permanent arrangement for the financial mechanism, and assessing and improving the mobilization of finance from all sources (See Resumed COP16 resolves deadlock, takes long overdue decision on financial mechanism, 14 March 2025.) The two tracks were set out as distinct but interrelated pathways, each comprising broad guiding criteria and with roadmaps that set out clear tasks for successive COPs to 2030. An informal workshop on resource mobilization that focused on the two tracks was held in the week preceding SBI6, from 10th to 13th February. However, there will be no formal outcomes from that workshop, as it was not a negotiating session, but rather an informal space to exchange ideas. The co-moderators and the CBD Secretariat will only prepare a summary of the workshop under their own responsibility. Kicking the can down to road to SBI7 At SBI6, even though the pre-session documents only related to the three studies, many developing countries, including the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) on behalf of the African Group, did not confine themselves to commenting on the studies. They also pointed to the elephant in the room, referring to both Articles 20 and 21 of the Convention. [Article 20 deals with financial resources, including the provision of new and additional resources from developed to developing country Parties, to enable the latter to fulfil their obligations under the Convention. Article 21 deals with the financial mechanism of the Convention, for the provision of financial resources to developing country Parties. The resumed COP16 decided to establish the permanent arrangement for the CBD’s financial mechanism, recognizing that its operation can be entrusted to “one or more entities, new, reformed or existing”. This leaves the door open to the establishment of a dedicated fund for biodiversity finance, under the authority of the COP. While Article 39 made the Global Environment Facility (GEF) the interim institutional structure for the financial mechanism, there have been issues with its governance arrangements and operations that have made it inequitable and difficult for developing countries and rights holders to access funds.] To the surprise of many, no Contact Group on resource mobilization was established, and a conference room paper (CRP) was instead issued. It was completely silent on the issues that developing countries had raised with regard to the important work ahead on the two tracks, especially with regard to the institutional structure operating the financial mechanism. Zimbabwe, on behalf of the African Group, attempted to include these issues, which are of critical importance to developing countries, in the SBI6 recommendation. “What we want is the guarantee for the SBI7 agenda”, it said. Zimbabwe proposed a paragraph reiterating the urgency of mobilising resources for the implementation of the Convention, its Protocols and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF), and the provision of financial resources to developing countries Parties in this regard. It also proposed recalling the intersessional process to deliver the mandate set out in Decision 16/34 regarding the two tracks, and relevant steps as contained in the initial road map for progress by COP17. The SBI Chair (Clarissa Nina from Brazil) and the Secretariat gave reassurances that those issues would be definitively taken up at SBI7. South Africa supported Zimbabwe and asked that the proposal on behalf of African countries not be disregarded, as while the resumed-COP16 decision in 16/34 is substantive, the reality is that targets are being missed with regard to resource mobilization. The expectation had been that there is urgent need to discuss the two tracks. Brazil shared the frustration of the African Group regarding the lack of overall improvement in resource mobilization. It recognized that this conversation is meant to be dealt with at SBI7 and suggested that a reference to Decision 16/34 could provide sufficient comfort for all concerned. Brazil thus proposed that this be included in the operative paragraph of the SBI recommendation that refers to the COP17 draft decision. There was support for this approach from other Parties, including Fiji for the Pacific small island developing states (PSIDS). Discussion then pivoted around whether to specify the specific paragraphs of Decision 16/34, and which ones, or to leave the reference as concise as possible and hence, general. Developing countries asked for specific references to the paragraphs dealing with the two tracks and the first steps of their respective roadmaps. The UK, on the other hand said it was “nonsensical” to specify the additional elements when they were already in Decision 16/34. The Chair then convened a small informal group, facilitated by Jamaica, to come to agreement on this paragraph. The final agreed text specifies the relevant paragraphs asked for by developing countries, at least providing some level of comfort that these will be seriously taken up at SBI7. Peer review of studies extended, paragraphs kept in abeyance The three studies that were commissioned by the Secretariat were only made available less than three weeks before SBI6 met, and moreover were subject to a peer review period until 20 March 2026, after SBI6. As such, the draft decision on resource mobilization from SBI6 only has one agreed paragraph that acknowledges the organisation of the informal resource mobilization workshop that was held the week prior. The rest of the seven paragraphs relate to the three studies, and are kept “in abeyance”, pending their finalization. Furthermore, the SBI recommendation extended the deadline for peer review to 20 May 2026. Once finalized, the studies will be submitted to COP17 for its consideration. As such, any suggested amendment to the draft decision resulting from insights contained in the final versions of the studies will be considered alongside. The study on the relationship between debt sustainability and implementation of the Convention clearly states that debt and fiscal consolidation limit finance for biodiversity, hindering implementation of the Convention. Many Parties agreed, and called for the integration of biodiversity considerations into national debt management strategies. Brazil was very clear: “Sovereign debt is… a structural constraint that directly affects the ability of developing countries to implement their NBSAPs [national biodiversity strategies and action plans] and achieve the KMGBF targets.” According to academic observers, however, the debt study has a crucial gap. The analysis sidelines a key channel through which debt affects biodiversity: how debt service pressures, which are experienced unequally due to structural imbalances in the international financial system, push countries into biodiversity-harming sectors to earn export revenue and maintain financial stability. Nonetheless, one of the recommendations in the draft decision calls for Parties and other Governments “to enhance the integration of biodiversity considerations into national debt management strategies and to explore alternative debt management pathways that do not result in harmful flows of finance”. The latter clause was proposed by Zimbabwe, on behalf of the African Group, and supported by Colombia. It provides an opportunity to ensure that the structural economic conditions that shape harmful flows of finance, and therefore biodiversity outcomes, are addressed. These include debt defaults and restructuring conditions that systemically increase biodiversity pressures. The study also highlighted the limits of debt-related finance instruments, finding that debt-for-nature swaps have modest impact on relieving debt stocks and service burdens, while many debt-distressed countries lack access to instruments such as sovereign green or blue bonds, unless there are concessional finance or credit enhancements. Developing country Parties were circumspect on the utility of such instruments, calling also for no new conditionalities. Additionally, they were clear that this should not substitute grant-based financing, tying the issue to that of the provision of financial resources as provided for under Article 20. In this regard, Zimbabwe, on behalf of the African Group, proposed a new paragraph: “Reiterates that debt-related finance instruments are not substitutes for the provision of financial resources to developing country Parties through grants and other flows of public finance”. This was supported by Fiji on behalf of the PSIDS, India, DRC and Cote d’Ivoire. However, Switzerland, the EU, Norway and Canada disagreed. Following informal group consultations, facilitated by Fiji, the African Group agreed to retract its proposal as the study is pending finalization, and vowed to bring it up again at SBI7. It also proposed a preambular paragraph to frame the issue, but this was objected to by Canada. Zimbabwe then asked for their view to be reflected in the meeting report. On the issue of how the guidance on safeguards in biodiversity finance mechanisms adopted in decisions XII/3 and 14/15 have been implemented, that study was mean to identify good practices and lessons learned, as well as opportunities for improving implementation of the guidance. However, one central limitation was its institutional bias toward financial and multilateral organizations. The review focused primarily on the safeguard frameworks of 29 institutions, including multilateral development banks, UN agencies, conservation organizations and financial institutions, but did not include insights from community-based organizations or indigenous governance structures. This is the result of a significant methodological gap, since the survey to inform this study was targeted towards implementing institutions. There was no survey or any other mechanism, such as structured interviews, incorporation of case studies, or a new call for submissions, to gather the views of communities on the ground, who are impacted by the inadequacy or lack of implementation of safeguards. Without systematic engagement of these groups, the study would be unable to fully evaluate whether safeguard mechanisms ensure that human rights and ecosystem integrity are protected; free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) is meaningfully implemented; benefit-sharing mechanisms are equitable; community realities are addressed; or if biodiversity finance mechanisms are creating new forms of exclusion or dispossession. Some Parties did see the value of a more intentional and inclusive process to obtain the views and experiences of indigenous peoples and local communities, whose rights and livelihoods safeguards are intended to protect. Brazil noted that “their assessment of the effectiveness, accessibility and practical implementation of safeguards is indispensable”. Brazil also called for expanded outreach to them, in order to strengthen the evidence base and inclusiveness of the study. However, this was not reflected in the text. As such, the extended peer review may be the only opportunity to highlight the shortfalls of the study. The third study on the relationship between biodiversity and climate finance proved less controversial. The focus was largely on co-benefits, synergies and integration, although developing country Parties made specific calls for the avoidance of “double-counting”. A proposal from Saudi Arabia on avoiding duplication among conventions, and respecting their mandates, was not agreed to and remains bracketed. Brazil also cautioned that when integration occurs in the absence of balance, it risks translating in practice into the subordination of biodiversity objectives to climate priorities. The issue of social and environmental safeguards to reduce and prevent the potentially harmful impacts of climate-related programmes, projects and activities on biodiversity, was also raised, and is reflected in the draft decision. Reference to “nature-based solutions” in the draft decision, as one of the potential actions with biodiversity co-benefits in the delivery of climate finance, eventually used agreed language from COP15. That formulation – “nature-based solutions and/or ecosystem approaches” – provides maximum flexibility for countries to determine what they implement at the national level, given the controversies over “nature-based solutions”. All in all, the discussions on resource mobilization at SBI6 remain unfinished business. SBI7 and COP17 will therefore be key moments that could make or break this issue, which is critical to the implementation of the Convention, its Protocols and the KMGBF. + (* With inputs from Mirna Ines Fernández Pradel.)
|
||
