|
||
|
TWN Info Service on Biodiversity and Traditional Knowledge (Nov26/02) London, 12 Nov (Lim Li Ching) – Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) have made important progress in the resource mobilization discussions. A feared collapse of the item’s negotiations was averted by deft co-chairing at the Contact Group level and sensitive handling by the Armenian COP Presidency. The CBD Parties met at their Seventeeth meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP17), in Yerevan, Armenia from 19 to 30 October 2026. At the closing plenary, the L.29 document (final draft decision with limited distribution) on resource mobilization was adopted together with the L.15 document on the global review of collective progress in the implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF). Apparently learning from the abrupt suspension of COP16 in Colombia, where major decisions were not adopted due to the meeting’s overrun and consequent lack of quorum, the COP17 President H.E. Hambardzum Matevosyan, Minister of Environment of Armenia, proposed that the two most anticipated decisions be adopted together early on. (See Biodiversity talks run out of time amidst major wins for Indigenous Peoples and Afro-descendants, 12 Nov 2024). This was at about 11pm on 30 October, the scheduled last day of the meeting. The COP17 President proposed that the text from the closed-door ministerial consultations (held on 27 and 28 October “on issues benefiting from high level consideration”) be used as the basis of negotiations. The proposals based on the ministerial consultations were presented as options in the L-documents, with the word “proposal” next to the paragraph to indicate that the text comes from those consultations. These concerned the most contentious issues, with the Presidency betting on the extensive ministerial consultations and subsequent informal bilateral consultative meetings to engender balance and achieve consensus on the text. The global review L-document was first taken up, remaining brackets resolved to produce a clean text, but not adopted. The resource mobilization L-document was then taken up. No objections were raised to the proposals from the ministerial consultations on the most contentious issues: (i) adoption of the criteria for the institutional structure to operate the financial mechanism, comprising criteria already agreed at COP16, and further developed criteria agreed at COP17; and (ii) options for “broadening the contributor base”, in particular with regard to the list of developed country Parties and other Parties that may voluntarily assume the obligations of the developed country Parties. The COP17 President then proposed that the two documents be taken up together and adopted. Seeing no objections, he declared, “documents L.15 and L.29 are adopted, and that’s it – perfect”. The two documents were then gavelled to applause. Contentious issues before COP17 The resource mobilization discussions were held against a backdrop of declining financial resources for biodiversity. The failure, as laid out in the State of Biodiversity Action, the global report on collective progress in the implementation of the KMGBF, to meet Target 19 and in particular the 2025 target for international public finance, already provoked mistrust along North-South lines. The establishment of the permanent arrangement for the financial mechanism of the Convention, at the resumed COP16 in February 2025 was a watershed, but rested on fragile compromise. (See Resumed COP16 resolves deadlock, takes long overdue decision on financial mechanism, 14 March 2025.) Decision 16/34 recognizes that the operation of the financial mechanism 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, which has long been the call of developing countries. A clear road map lays out the tasks that need to be accomplished by the COP at each of its successive meetings to 2030. COP17 was tasked to further develop the criteria for the institutional structure to operate the financial mechanism. At the Seventh meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Implementation (SBI7) in August 2026, there was not much progress on the criteria, with only the deletion of some redundancies and repetition, whittling down nineteen criteria to thirteen. This was because the SBI7 discussions were overshadowed by the issue of “broadening the contributor base” to provide biodiversity finance, specifically in relation to sovereign contributors. At that meeting, 83 developing county Parties rejected a proposal from the developed countries that Parties classified as “high-income” under the World Bank country income classification should be used to review and amend the list of developed country Parties and other Parties that voluntarily assume the obligations of developed country Parties, with the exclusion of small island developing states (SIDS) (see Developing countries resist efforts to redefine Parties responsible to provide financial resources, 25 August 2026). The developed countries that forwarded the proposal were Australia, Canada, Iceland, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. Article 20(2) obligates developed country Parties to provide new and additional financial resources to enable developing country Parties to meet the costs of the implementation of their obligations under the Convention. Additionally, it provides for other Parties to voluntarily assume the obligations of the developed country Parties in this regard. It also stipulates that the COP will establish, periodically review and amend, as necessary, a list of developed country Parties and other Parties which voluntarily assume the obligations of the developed country Parties. Developing countries pointed to the absurdity of using an income metric as a proxy for development, which is multidimensional in nature. Moreover, Article 20(2) clearly states that the process is voluntary, while the obligations of developed countries to provide biodiversity finance to developing countries rests clearly on the principles of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities. As such, the developing countries rejected the proposed automatic trigger based on the high-income classification, especially as it could redefine legal obligations under the Convention. Despite the broad opposition from developing countries, the developed countries refused to withdraw their proposal. Thus, SBI7 ended with four options in brackets going to COP17 – a proposal by the Secretariat (Option A), the proposal from the developed countries (Option B), a proposal from the European Union (Option C), and a proposal from the Friends of the Co-Chairs (Option D), which was meant to replace the first three options, but this did not happen due to the intransigence of the developed countries. Streamlining the criteria for the institutional structure to operate the financial mechanism At COP17, the Chair of Working Group 1, Gaute Hanssen (Norway), established a Contact Group immediately, as the agenda item on resource mobilization had already been considered at SBI7. The Contact Group was co-chaired by Imèn Meliane (Tunisia) and Carolina Caceres (Canada). As expected, discussions centred largely around the two main issues, and were based on a non-paper, which essentially reproduced the heavily-bracketed SBI7 recommendation. On the criteria, developed countries felt that the four criteria recognized in paragraph 21 of decision 16/34 were sufficient. Whereas developing countries pointed to the delicate balance and road map agreed at the resumed COP16, which tasked COP17 with the further development of the criteria. [Paragraph 21 states that the institutional structure should fulfil “at least the following criteria: (a) It functions for the purpose of implementing the Convention and its Protocols; (b) It is under the authority and guidance of, and accountable to, the Conference of the Parties; (c) It operates within a democratic and transparent system of governance, ensuring a structure that is fair, equitable, inclusive, efficient and representative; (d) It is accessible by all eligible Parties to the Convention in a fair, timely, simplified, equitable, inclusive and non-discriminatory manner.”] In the initial exchange of views, developing countries expressed support for the themes embodied in the thirteen criteria coming from SBI7, which in their view provided more specific elaboration and detail. The Contact Group then agreed to task the Co-Chairs with streamlining the criteria, while leaving the four previously agreed criteria untouched. The Co-Chairs, in version 2 of the non-paper, distilled the thirteen criteria down to five. These five criteria centred around the themes of authority of the COP; accountability, including of the trustee; the nature of finance and eligibility; access and country ownership; and participation and inclusion of indigenous peoples and local communities, women and youth. Developed countries, while reserving their position that they did not see the need for additional criteria, did engage with the streamlined criteria. They asked for the reinstatement of criteria that addressed the contributor base and complementarity with the biodiversity finance landscape, which were added to version 3 of the non-paper. The other area of contention pivoted around the nature of these criteria – were they additional elements or criteria, were they complementary or supplementary to the already-agreed four criteria, and were they mandatory or voluntary? Developing countries saw these criteria as integral and mandatory, mandated by decision 16/34 and part of the road map established therein. Following several rounds of discussion in the Contact Group, a small drafting group, facilitated by one of the Co-chairs, produced a non-paper focused on the Annex containing the criteria. When tabled at the final session of the Contact Group on 27 October, however, divergences still remained. As there was no more time for Contact Group sessions, with the High-Level Segment already on-going, Working Group 1, when it convened on 29 October, had before it a conference room paper (CRP.16) with an inordinate number of brackets. As such, Chair Hanssen provided a mandate for a Friends of the Co-Chairs to resolve remaining brackets, without discussing text emerging from the ministerial consultations (dealing with the contributor base issue and the operational paragraph on the criteria). The Friends met from 6.30pm to 8pm on 29 October and was co-chaired by the Contact Group Co-Chairs. During that session, many brackets were resolved, but not all. At the Working Group session later that evening, a mandate was then extended for a second, closed-door Friends of the Co-Chairs, from 11.30pm to 1am the next day. The inner brackets of the now seven criteria were all resolved. These were the five criteria that the Co-Chairs initially streamlined, and two added on complementarity and cost-effectiveness, and on taking into account the provisions in paragraphs 5, 6, and 7 of Article 20 (relating to the needs of developing countries in specific situations). But final agreement as a whole hinged on the contributor base issue, which was so sensitive that it took higher-level consultations to resolve. From options on contributor base, to refocus on the mandate On the contributor base, there was much unhappiness on the part of developing countries that this issue was even on the table, as it was not squarely part of the road map agreed at the resumed COP16. There is nothing in decision 16/34 that provides a mandate for amending the list of developed country Parties and other Parties that may voluntarily assume the obligations of the developed country Parties. Developing countries reiterated that the mandate in paragraph 18 of the decision was regarding the best periodicity of issuing the notifications inviting Parties to consider if they were in a position to voluntarily assume the obligations of the developed country Parties. While paragraph 24 asked for a discussion on the opportunities for broadening the contributor base, which they took to mean in a broad sense and from “all sources”, rather than a focus on the sovereign contributor base alone. At the first session of the Contact Group, a developing country regional group reminded that, at SBI7, Option D from the Friends of the Co-Chairs had been proposed as an alternative in favour of dropping Options A, B and C, but this was not done. They also said that they had other options to propose at SBI7, but were not allowed to do so at the time, as Option D was expected to move forward on its own. Since this was not the case, they therefore proposed tabling their options at COP17. The Co-Chairs allowed the developing country regional group to submit its options (Options E and F), as well as accepted an option from a developed country regional group (Option G) and another from a developing country (Option H). These were duly reflected in version 2 of the non-paper. Option E proposed concluding the discussions on broadening the contributor base, due to the lack of consensus. Grounded in the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, it recognized the historical responsibility and disproportionate contribution of developed countries to global environmental degradation. It also proposed guardrails so that existing financial obligations are not shifted from developed country to developing country Parties. Option F proposed maintaining the current list, unless otherwise decided by the COP, and only on the basis of voluntary requests. It sought fairer burden-sharing amongst contributors, including reforms to budgetary processes, cessation of unilateral measures with redistribution of revenues back to developing countries, and domestic revenue generation to mobilize finance to developing countries. Option G combined elements from the other Options. It included the Option D process for an analysis of past practice, implications of inclusion in the list, and the relationship between the list and contributions to the financial mechanism. It also suggested consultations on pathways for broadening the contributor base, including through “indicative objective criteria”, and for development of a proposal on how to review and amend the list, with built-in periodic updates. Option H proposed three main elements for a report: on the development of criteria to define a developed country, a process by which to amend the list, and benchmarking the amounts of contributions made. These elements would then feed into a process to eventually use the criteria to amend the list. Recognizing that Parties were far from convergence on the issue, the Co-Chairs proposed carrying out informal consultations. At the next session of the Contact Group, the Co-Chairs, in an attempt to find alternative text for convergence, took Parties through ten elements distilled from the various Options and the informal consultations. They asked for clarification of where Parties’ respective positions lay on each of the elements. The Co-Chairs then put together their text proposal, still with numerous brackets, in an additional non-paper on options. At the fifth and last session of the Contact Group on 27 October, it was clear that divergences still remained. Given the yawning gap and the lack of time, the issue was then passed to the Heads of Delegations (HOD). According to sources, however, the HOD meeting that evening saw no progress. The informal ministerial consultations began on 28 October, on the two elements which had proved the most difficult: how to best address the issue of broadening the contributor base, and how to best define the criteria that will inform the decision, to be taken by COP18, on the permanent arrangement for the institutional structure to operate the financial mechanism of the Convention. H.E. Aliou Gori Diouf, Minister of Environment and Ecological Transition of Senegal and H.E. Daniel Westlén, State Secretary for Climate and the Environment of Sweden co-facilitated the consultations. The Ministers, with the support of the COP17 Presidency, subsequently held a series of further informal consultative bilateral meetings with key delegations. They then prepared a co-facilitators proposal with text still in brackets on the operative paragraph on the criteria, and with clean proposed text that would replace Options A to H. The latter essentially refocused on the mandate set out by decision 16/34. Parties would be invited to indicate their interest in inclusion on the list and to provide views on improving the modalities and timing of such invitations. A notification would be issued requesting Parties to signal interest in bilateral consultations, the indications compiled, and an amended list prepared based on consent. Additionally, the Executive Secretary is requested to prepare a factual compilation of how the COP has given effect to Article 20 as a whole, an analysis of implications of inclusion in the list, a compilation of the views received on the modalities and a report on the consultations, and a report on approaches to mobilizing financial resources from private and other sources. Safeguards on the voluntary nature of contributions of developing country Parties and the obligations under Article 20 would be maintained. Delicate balance preserved, road map on track On 30 October, CRP.16/Rev.1 was tabled at the Working Group. It brought together the proposals based on the ministerial consultations – replacing Options A to H, and with clean text on the operative paragraph on the criteria, existing agreed text from SBI7 and the Contact Group, and text from the Friends of the Co-Chairs on the criteria as set out in the Annex. One paragraph on biodiversity offsets remained in brackets, but consultations on it were ongoing. Chair Hanssen pleaded with Parties not to unravel the compromise by pulling at threads, nor to derail the road map set out until COP19. He moved to approve the text as it stood, but several Parties asked for the floor. The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) raised a few editorial amendments for clarification. The European Union (EU) then came in to say that they had yet to finalise their internal consultations, and that it had three changes to propose, which were substantive in nature. This including identifying the criteria agreed at COP17 as “additional elements”. Other Parties, in quick succession, took the floor to ask that the text not be reopened, as that would open the floodgates and, in China’s words, “break the balance”. The DRC then withdrew its amendments so that its observations would not open a debate on substance. Brazil implored, “if we open this text, we will not close it again. We have to support this text if we are to land a resource mobilization decision in this COP.” Saudi Arabia agreed, saying that “we share sentiments that this is a very delicate package, a compromise that could risk being unravelled.” Other Parties, both developed and developing countries, also indicated they were mutually unhappy and reserved their right to bring in changes if the text was opened up. Eventually, given the overwhelming sentiment in the room that the text not be reopened, the EU withdrew its proposals. The L.29 document was thus brought to the closing plenary and the remaining brackets around a paragraph proposed by Peru was resolved by it forwarding more streamlined text, which was accepted. This paragraph proposed analytical work on the applicability of offsets as a financial biodiversity-related expenditure. With the brackets resolved, the L.29 document on resource mobilization was thus adopted together with the L.15 document on the global review. As delegates heaved a sigh of relief that the delicate balance struck after very difficult and contentious negotiations was preserved, it is worth reiterating that the agreement at COP17 on the criteria means that the road map adopted at COP16 is back on track. The final operative paragraph on the criteria states: “Adopts the criteria for the institutional structure to operate the financial mechanism envisaged under Article 21 of the Convention, as set out in the annex to the present decision, comprising the criteria listed in paragraph 21 of decision 16/34 and the criteria further developed at the present meeting pursuant to paragraph 22 (a) of that decision”. This is key to preparing the way for the COP18 decision, where the road map envisages: (i) if appropriate, a review of progress in the reform of relevant existing financial entities to fit the criteria; (ii) a decision is made either to establish a new entity to operate the financial mechanism, whether by itself or alongside an existing entity or entities, or to confirm an existing entity or entities in that role; (iii) if appropriate, an intersessional process is established to develop the terms of reference and modalities of a new entity on the basis of the criteria; and (iv) the stocktake review on the operations and performance of the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund is acted upon. These elements are reflected in paragraph 6 of the L.29 document, the outcomes of which will be forwarded to SBI8 and subsequently, COP18. The next two years will thus be pivotal in determining whether the CBD will have a permanent financial mechanism that is fit for purpose. +
|
||
