TWN Info Service on Climate Change (Nov24/07)
15 November 2024
Third World Network

COP16: Long-awaited decision on biodiversity and climate change adopted, key concerns remain

Cali, 15 Nov (Mirna Inés Fernández Pradel) — Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) have finally adopted a decision on biodiversity and climate change, at the 16^th  Meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP16) held in Cali, Colombia.

This comes after failure to achieve consensus on the issue at COP15 in 2022, and during the CBD’s Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA) meeting in 2023.

Some elements of the decision represent an advancement for the countries most impacted by climate change, as well as respond to civil society demands. However, there are important elements that have been lost in the course of the discussions.

The impacts of climate change on biodiversity and the integration of biodiversity into climate policies are addressed in Targets 8 and 11 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF), adopted at COP15 in December 2022.

However, a decision on biodiversity and climate change was not reached at the same time, due to deep disagreement over (i) references to ‘nature-based solutions’, with some Parties raising concerns about the lack of multilaterally-agreed guidelines and safeguards; and (ii) the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR), which creates clear differentiation between developed and developing countries, particularly in regard to the provision of financial resources. (See CBD COP15: Developing countries defend principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, 5 January 2023.)

The discussion on biodiversity and climate change was therefore deferred to SBSTTA-25, which adopted a final document with the whole SBSTTA recommendation in brackets. (See CBD: Disagreements continue to stymie biodiversity and climate change discussions, 1 December 2023.)

COP16 addressed the agenda item in Working Group II. A contact group was established to resolve the divergences. It was co-chaired by Clarisse Kehler Siebert (Sweden) and Xiang Gao (China), and met four times.

Some of the key issues discussed were the cooperation between the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the CBD, as well as with other related conventions; the CBD’s Voluntary Guidelines for the Design and Effective Implementation of Ecosystem-based Approaches to Climate Change Adaptation and Disaster Risk Reduction and a supplement on these guidelines to include nature-based solutions and ecosystem-based approaches; references to Mother Earth-centric actions, ‘nature positive’ and the principle of CBDR; and the negative impacts of geoengineering and bioenergy on biodiversity.

At the contact group, Parties first had a general conversation on the text as a whole. They highlighted the importance of this agenda item in light of the then upcoming UNFCCC COP29 in Azerbaijan and UNFCCC COP30 in Brazil.

(UNFCCC COP29 is currently taking place from 11 to 22 November.)

Developing countries stressed the burden of climate change policies on them, but highlighted that their finance or capacity building needs were not adequately addressed. In this regard, they emphasised the importance of referencing Article 20 of the CBD on financial resources from developed to developing countries. 

Parties also considered ways to strengthen collaboration and synergies in the implementation of the UNFCCC and the CBD, other related multilateral environmental agreements such as the UN Convention to Combat Desertification and the Ramsar Convention, other multilateral instruments and intergovernmental platforms such as the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), as well as related issues such as plastic pollution and the role of wildlife in climate strategies. 

Developing countries highlighted that these synergies should not undermine funding for their implementation of climate- and biodiversity-related agreements.

A deeper discussion into the paragraphs of the draft decision then followed, and a non-paper was produced by the co-chairs as a basis for further discussions. Some of the most contentious issues are highlighted below.

A specific call to ensure a human rights-based approach and the full and effective participation of rights holders, including indigenous peoples and local communities, women and girls, children and youth, and persons with disabilities, was deleted in operative paragraph (OP) 3, which specifies safeguards to be implemented when undertaking actions to achieve Targets 8 and 11.

This was because some Parties felt that rights holder groups like human rights defenders or other rights-based approaches like the rights of nature are not included in the human rights-based approach. Instead, the compromise was to call for consistency with Section C and Target 22 of the KMGBF, bearing in mind that Section C includes the human rights-based approach and Target 22 mentions these specific rightsholders.

There were some discrepancies around a proposal to prioritize species of high integrity carbon-dense ecosystems and species, or species important for carbon cycling in the same paragraph. Some Parties warned that a focus on carbon was already contested at COP15 and that it might not be the best approach to ensure that biodiversity is safeguarded, suggesting a focus on ecosystem integrity as a more appropriate approach.

The final decision text calls on Parties to prioritize the protection, restoration and management of ecosystems and species important for the full carbon cycle; but it also highlights the impacts of climate actions on biodiversity and ecosystem integrity, functions and services.

Another subparagraph under OP3 urged Parties to consider integrating and promoting, where appropriate, nature-based solutions and/or ecosystem-based approaches into their revised national biodiversity strategies and action plans (NBSAPs) and relevant national targets. To provide balance, some Parties later inserted a similar call to consider non-market-based approaches and Mother Earth-centric actions.

A final subparagraph under OP3 urged Parties to take into account the diversity of values and knowledge systems, as well as intersectional approaches. Later discussions welcomed an explicit reference to the traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples and local communities and the protection of their rights over their lands, territories and resources.

A proposal by youth representatives was also included to ensure that potential synergies between biodiversity and climate actions that have direct or indirect impact on land rights or human rights, as well as on the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities, should only be undertaken with their free, prior, and informed consent.

de facto moratorium on geoengineering remains

The impacts of climate geoengineering, including marine and solar geoengineering activities, emerged as a strong concern, especially for the Pacific Small Island Developing States. They proposed including references to these activities and their impacts on biodiversity and the livelihoods of indigenous peoples and local communities.

These Parties also proposed to reaffirm decision IX/16 C on ocean fertilization, paragraph 8 (w) of decision X/33, and decisions XI/20 and XIII/14 on climate-related geoengineering. These decisions establish and reaffirm the CBD’s de facto moratorium on geoengineering activities.

A preambular paragraph on the impacts of geoengineering on biodiversity and the livelihoods of indigenous peoples and local communities was later deleted in the final plenary, but the previous CBD decisions on climate-related geoengineering were reaffirmed in OP6.

The decision also invites Parties, other governments, observers and relevant organizations to provide information on measures undertaken, at the national or other level, in relation to paragraph 8 (w) of decision X/33 or decision IX/16 C, and requests the Executive Secretary to compile the information submitted and to make it available through the clearing-house mechanism.

The reaffirmation of the CBD’s de facto moratorium on climate-related geoengineering represents a major win for the countries and civil society groups concerned about recent geoengineering developments.

Financial resources

Another contentious paragraph was one related to financial support and resource mobilization towards the achievement of Targets 8 and 11. While developing country Parties focused on the call to developed country Parties to provide new and additional financial resources in accordance with Article 20 and to avoid double counting, developed countries leaned more towards a collective approach to scale up investments from all sources.

The final decision text urges Parties to act in accordance with Article 20 and consistent with Target 19, and in line with the COP16 decision on resource mobilization (which was not adopted due to the suspension of COP16 on 2 November; see Biodiversity talks run out of time amidst major wins for Indigenous Peoples and Afro-descendants, 12 November, with a view to strengthening the tracking of various sources of finance to enhance understanding and transparency.   

A youth proposal that was included in the SBSTTA-25 recommendation for this decision requested the Executive Secretary to open a call for and compile submissions by Parties, observers and other relevant organizations of existing information on carbon and biodiversity credits and offsets and other market-based approaches and their effects on biodiversity, and to make the compilation available to SBSTTA at a meeting before COP17.

However, Parties could not agree on this paragraph, so it was eventually deleted, with the intention to bring the topic back on the COP17 agenda. This issue is important to civil society and rights holders, who expressed concerns about emerging biodiversity markets and other market-based approaches being promoted and developed without consideration of their impacts on biodiversity and human rights.

Contentious discussions also surfaced with regard to how to reference the Paris Agreement. “The UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement” is the option preferred mainly by developed countries, whereas developing countries prefer “the UNFCCC and its Paris Agreement”, which clearly implies that the principles of the UNFCCC, including CBDR, also apply to the Paris Agreement.

The compromise reached was to reference “the Paris Agreement” throughout, with a footnote which clarifies that the Agreement has been adopted under the UNFCCC. The decision also calls on the President of COP16 to engage the Presidents of the UNFCCC COP29 and COP30, respectively, on opportunities for strengthened multilateral coordination.

A supplement to the CBD’s Voluntary Guidelines for the Design and Effective Implementation of Ecosystem-based Approaches to Climate Change Adaptation and Disaster Risk Reduction to include some guidelines and safeguards on nature-based solutions and ecosystem-based approaches was another controversial issue.

The paragraph was eventually adopted, and complemented by a reference to Mother Earth-centric actions. The references to ‘nature positive’ and the CBDR principle were deleted. This supplement is to be developed by the Executive Secretary, and will be considered by SBSTTA before COP17.

Another contentious paragraph touched upon the ways in which the secretariats of the UNFCCC and the UNCCD would be notified about this decision in order to discuss it in the context of the Joint Liaison Group of the Rio Conventions and the Liaison Group of Biodiversity-related Conventions, to assess options for better integration.

The final decision text includes a call for submissions from Parties, observers and other stakeholders, of their views on options for enhanced policy coherence, including a potential joint work programme of the Rio conventions, to be compiled by the Executive Secretary for the attention of the Joint Liaison Group of the Rio Conventions. This compilation would be considered at a SBSTTA meeting before COP17.

The decision also requests the Executive Secretary to invite the executive secretaries of the other Rio conventions to collaborate on the organization of a technical information exchange in 2025 to further explore options to enhance cooperation and policy coherence.

Despite these advances in the discussions, some important elements that were previously in the text have been lost, due to the lack of agreement. For example, a paragraph noting that large-scale land conversion for bioenergy can increase risks to biodiversity, water and food security, as well as local livelihoods and the rights of indigenous peoples, was eventually deleted.

References to loss and damage and to the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands were also deleted in the final plenary, with some Parties expressing their regret that these elements were lost in the final decision text in their closing plenary statements, but accepting the amendments made in the spirit of compromise.  

In a nutshell, while COP16 made some notable progress in addressing biodiversity and climate change synergies, the decision ultimately reflects the challenges of balancing competing interests and perspectives, particularly between the global North and South.

The removal of key proposals, such as those related to the assessment of impacts of carbon and biodiversity markets and the references to the risks of bioenergy and large-scale land conversion, as well as the differences of opinion on key terms such as CBDR and the human rights-based approach, suggest that the process remains deeply fragmented.

Nonetheless, the reaffirmation of the CBD’s moratorium on geoengineering, the focus on ecosystem integrity and the protection of indigenous peoples’ rights, represent important steps forward in safeguarding biodiversity and human rights in the face of growing global pressures and a changing climate. +