|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on Climate Change (Dec25/09) La Paz, 8 December (Mirna Ines Fernández Pradel) – Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) engaged in lengthy discussions on biodiversity and climate change at a recent subsidiary body meeting. Instead of finding solutions to address the impacts of climate change and climate policies on biodiversity, the discussions exposed longstanding disagreements over the risks of mitigation-driven approaches, the synergies among the Rio Conventions, and the role of the CBD in climate policies developed at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Discussions on the agenda item on biodiversity and climate change were supposed to address two important documents: the draft supplement to the Voluntary Guidelines for the Design and Effective Implementation of Ecosystem-based Approaches to Climate Change Adaptation and Disaster Risk Reduction, and a summary of the submissions received and outcomes of the technical information exchange containing options for enhanced policy coherence across the Rio Conventions. The outcome document (CBD/SBSTTA/REC/27/3) reflects the differences and remains heavily bracketed. It leaves critical issues unresolved, and some concerns from civil society unaddressed, with the supplement to the Voluntary Guidelines deferred to a round of peer review before the seventeenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the CBD (COP17). [The CBD Parties were convening at the twenty-seventh meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA27), from 24 to 27 October 2025, in Panama City. COP17 is scheduled to be held in October 2026 in Yerevan, Armenia.] Context: Push for mitigation, nature-based solutions There has been increasing pressure in the CBD discussions on biodiversity and climate change to focus on climate mitigation policies and the use of ecosystems for carbon sequestration. (See “CBD: Disagreements continue to stymie biodiversity and climate change discussions” and “COP16: Long-awaited decision on biodiversity and climate change adopted, key concerns remain”.) Despite repeated warnings from many developing countries and civil society, the biodiversity and climate change discussions have focused heavily on using ecosystems to deliver climate mitigation, using market-based approaches and carbon-focused metrics. This risks subordinating biodiversity policy to carbon accounting, promotes tools such as carbon and biodiversity offsets and credits that may undermine ecosystem integrity and national sovereignty, and lacks binding safeguards for human rights and ecosystem integrity in the implementation of climate policies. The CBD discussions have also seen a rise in the concept of nature-based solutions (NbS), which are often related to nature-climate solutions (NCS) and discussed at climate fora. There was no multilaterally agreed definition of NbS until the 5th United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA5). Therefore, the concept has been misused many times for greenwashing and avoidance of urgent emissions reduction, with negative impacts on biodiversity and human rights. Attempts to define implementation guidelines, standards or criteria at the multilateral level have failed (see “UNEA-6: No agreement on an intergovernmental process for guidelines on nature-based solutions”). However, Targets 8 and 11 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF) mention NbS and/or ecosystem-based approaches (EbA) as means for Parties to achieve the targets. That is why some Parties consider that implementation guidance for NbS at the CBD is needed. Hence, the decision on biodiversity and climate change adopted at COP16 (CBD/COP/DEC/16/22) requests the CBD Executive Secretary to develop a supplement to the Voluntary Guidelines for the Design and Effective Implementation of Ecosystem-based Approaches to Climate Change Adaptation and Disaster Risk Reduction, for the design, effective implementation and scaling up of NbS and/or EbA to climate change mitigation and adaptation to support the implementation of Targets 8 and 11. The relevant paragraph also notes Mother Earth–centric actions, and includes updating guidance for fit-for-purpose social and environmental safeguards, based on existing safeguards. In response to the request, the CBD Secretariat, in collaboration with UNEP-WCMC, convened a series of events to obtain input from Parties, NGOs, experts and rights-holders on the structure and the content of this supplement. As part of this process, a hybrid workshop took place in Cambridge, UK, in May 2025, to co-develop the draft supplement to the Voluntary Guidelines, including proposed content, structure and priority themes aligned with CBD decision 16/22. Regrettably, this workshop lacked participation from many developing country Parties and rights-holders because of visa complications. As an outcome of the workshop, the draft Supplement to the Voluntary Guidelines for the Design and Effective Implementation of Ecosystem-based Approaches to Climate Change Adaptation and Disaster Risk Reduction: Primer for Policymakers was appended as an Annex to the draft COP decision discussed at SBSTTA27. Unfinished discussions on the draft supplement, but peer review agreed At the opening plenary, several Parties shared their concerns about mitigation policies, the role of NbS and EbA, and the draft supplement to the Voluntary Guidelines. Egypt emphasized that NbS and EbA should not be a substitute for real emissions reductions, aligning with longstanding concerns that mitigation responsibilities under the UNFCCC could be diluted. Some developed country Parties, such as Denmark, Norway, Finland and the EU, stressed that NbS are crucial in increasing resilience to climate change impacts, especially in areas of extreme vulnerability. South Africa, on behalf of the African Group, highlighted that the voluntary guidelines should address conservation and restoration, stressed that the most effective strategy for climate change mitigation is to reduce emissions at source, and warned that Africa’s participation in the Cambridge workshop was extremely limited, underscoring procedural inequities. A significant number of Parties, including New Zealand, Brazil and Uruguay, stated clearly that the adoption of the supplement would be premature, and that it required extensive revision and peer review. Several developed country Parties supported the idea of a peer review process, but still promoted using NbS to upscale mitigation investments. On the other hand, several developing country Parties stressed that participation had previously been low and would likely remain so without improved modalities. Although many Parties supported a peer review for the supplement, deep disagreements surfaced around questions on who would conduct the review, the timeframe, whether both the short “primer for policymakers” and the long technical version should be reviewed, and whether the COP should “adopt”, “take note of” or merely consider the revised documents. Ultimately, SBSTTA27 noted the work undertaken on the draft supplement and the expanded version contained in document CBD/SBSTTA/27/INF/11, and stressed the need to include strengthened social and environmental safeguards, including for indigenous peoples and local communities, women and youth. Furthermore, SBSTTA27 recommended a peer review of an updated, expanded supplement to the Voluntary Guidelines, with the revised short version (the “primer for policymakers”) forwarded to COP17 for consideration. As an outcome of this discussion, the whole annex was bracketed, as requested by Argentina and supported by Brazil. This peer review process should happen in 2026 and should take into account the submissions from Parties, other Governments, relevant organizations, indigenous peoples and local communities, women and youth organizations, civil society and other observers. This process will be key, since the supplement is still lacking strong and binding safeguards, guidance to implement Mother Earth–centric actions and other non-market approaches, and a precautionary approach for potentially detrimental mitigation-focused policies and interventions. Polarized debate on synergies and enhanced policy coherence In decision 16/22, the COP also requested the Executive Secretary to invite Parties, observers and other stakeholders to submit their views on options for enhanced policy coherence, including a potential joint work programme of the Rio Conventions [viz., the CBD, the UNFCCC and the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD)]. The Executive Secretary was further requested 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 to support the implementation of the Conventions. The technical information exchange was held on the margins of the sixty-second session of the Subsidiary Bodies of the UNFCCC in Bonn, Germany, on 15 June 2025, as a hybrid meeting. It considered the submissions made by Parties and observers and past efforts on this matter, and provided input on options to take forward. A summary of the submissions received, and the outcomes of the technical information exchange containing options for enhanced policy coherence across the Rio Conventions, were provided for consideration by Parties at SBSTTA27. At the plenary discussions, some developed country Parties – including Denmark, Germany, Canada and the EU – pushed for strengthened “synergies” across the three Rio Conventions, proposing joint workplans, shared indicators and formalized collaboration. Many developing country Parties remained cautious. Brazil warned that a single report would risk diluting the specificity of each regime, generating inconsistencies. Saudi Arabia insisted that the competencies of each Convention must be respected to avoid overlaps. Argentina rejected extensive references to synergies on this agenda item, calling for deletion, and expressed a preference for Parties to decide at the national level on policy coherence and enhanced coordination between national focal points. A group of developed country Parties suggested detailed language on policy coherence, mapping studies, multilevel roadmaps and expanded mandates of the Joint Liaison Group. On the other hand, several developing country Parties highlighted the risks of overlapping roles and mandates of different Conventions and stressed that conservation and restoration must not become carbon-driven agendas. Panama, for example, highlighted that NbS cannot be an excuse to put carbon over biodiversity, and stressed the urgent need for common indicators rather than new frameworks. Brazil also recognized the value of indicators across the Rio Conventions, but not a single report, so as not to dilute the specificity of each regime. Some repeated concerns from developing country Parties were about the added value of the synergies work, the risk of duplication, and the implications for sovereignty and CBD mandates. After hours of debate, the text invites enhanced collaboration among the Rio Conventions, but only with careful caveats and multiple qualifications, and with most of the paragraphs related to this issue still in brackets. The SBSTTA recommendation took note of the synthesis of submissions, the statement of the Joint Liaison Group of the Rio Conventions, and the report on the technical information exchange on enhancing policy coherence and cooperation across the Rio Conventions, as contained in document CBD/SBSTTA/27/INF/8. It further requested the Executive Secretary to invite the Executive Secretaries of the UNFCCC and the UNCCD to collaborate on strengthening the role and function of the Joint Liaison Group; and together with the current and incoming presidencies of the COPs of the three Rio Conventions, to collaborate on the organization of further technical information exchanges on the options to enhance cooperation, policy coherence and synergies across the Rio Conventions, to subsequently develop a multilevel roadmap on the headline options for enhancing policy coherence provided in document CBD/SBSTTA/27/4. The outcomes of these activities are to be reported to COP17. Pending issues remain heavily bracketed With many issues not finding consensus, the draft COP decision remains heavily bracketed and leaves important issues and concerns raised by civil society unaddressed: 1. Social and environmental safeguards Although the discussions on biodiversity and climate are strongly related to safeguards and the mention of safeguards is repeated many times in the decision text, these are not further developed, and it is clear that Parties have different understandings of which safeguards should be considered and how these can be implemented. Some developing country Parties such as Guatemala, Morocco and Mexico emphasized safeguards such as full free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) for indigenous peoples, as well as local communities, gender-responsive and human-rights-based approaches, stronger safeguards against market-based mechanisms, and recognition of customary rights. Yemen and Iceland cautioned that market-based climate approaches can lead to land conflicts and undermine vulnerable communities, advocating for stronger safeguards in this regard. The SBSTTA recommendation acknowledges the need for stronger social and environmental safeguards, particularly for indigenous peoples and local communities, women and youth. Nevertheless, the specifics of such safeguards remain a pending issue, especially because the safeguards currently specified in the supplement to the Voluntary Guidelines cannot ensure the protection of human rights and ecosystem integrity. 2. Carbon-rich ecosystems vs. ecosystems with high ecological integrity Some developing country Parties argued that emphasizing carbon-rich ecosystems distorts biodiversity priorities and risks converting diverse ecosystems into carbon accounting units. They proposed instead referencing ecosystems with high ecological integrity. Other Parties proposed to prioritize areas important for the full carbon cycle. On the other hand, several developed country Parties insisted on retaining the term “carbon-rich ecosystems”, citing scientific assessments and the threat of climate tipping points. No consensus was achieved, and much of the paragraph remains a fragile compromise with caveats, brackets and alternative language. The final bracketed paragraph encourages Parties and other governments “to prioritize the protection, conservation, restoration, sustainable management and enhancement of terrestrial, freshwater, marine and coastal, and managed and unmanaged ecosystems, inclusive with regard to wild animal populations, and of ecosystems with high ecological integrity that contribute to carbon storage and sequestration and adaptation, strengthening carbon sinks and reservoirs”. All these qualifiers will be contested at COP17, and it will be important to stress the need to prioritize ecosystem integrity as a whole over specific ecosystem carbon-related functions. 3. IPBES “transformative change” and “nexus” assessments Two important assessments by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) were presented before the SBSTTA: the Thematic Assessment Report on Interlinkages among Biodiversity, Water, Food and Health (“nexus assessment”), and the Thematic Assessment Report on the Underlying Causes of Biodiversity Loss and the Determinants of Transformative Change and Options for Achieving the 2050 Vision for Biodiversity (“transformative change assessment”). After extensive discussions on the welcoming or acknowledging by the SBSTTA of these assessments in this agenda item, the draft COP decision leaves in brackets the options “takes note” or “welcomes” the nexus assessment, while the whole reference to the transformative change assessment is in brackets. Also, the paragraph calling for the promotion and support of the 71 response options of the nexus assessment remains in brackets. This is regrettable, as the consideration of both assessments was contested under different agenda items at SBSTTA27, despite having broad support from civil society and offering a pathway for effective ways to address biodiversity destruction and interconnected crises (see “CBD: Parties bicker over IPBES’ transformative change and nexus assessments”). 4. Impacts of climate interventions on biodiversity remain unaddressed A proposed paragraph requesting the Secretariat to compile information on the impacts of biodiversity offsets and credits, advanced by youth and supported by civil society, was deleted once again, having been proposed and deleted at SBSTTA25. The postponement of this discussion, despite the proliferation of offset schemes globally, is disappointing. Likewise, civil society proposals to reinforce the precautionary approach to geoengineering, reaffirmed in CBD decision 16/22, and to include safeguards against genetically modified trees, consistent with decision IX/5, were not taken up by Parties beyond the mere recalling of these decisions in preambular paragraphs. Another urgent issue highlighted by civil society that should be discussed by the SBSTTA was the forest fires that are increasing worldwide and systematically destroying ecosystems and people’s means of subsistence. This is relevant to the agenda item on biodiversity and climate change because an assessment on how much forest cover is lost to fires would aid understanding of how much we can rely on remaining forests as carbon sinks, and the urgency to address mitigation through strict emissions cuts. Will COP17 protect the primacy of biodiversity in the CBD discussions? Repeated attempts to insert mitigation-focused concepts, such as carbon-rich ecosystems, market-based mechanisms and the mitigation hierarchy, continue to threaten the CBD’s biodiversity-centred mandate. Safeguards remain voluntary, inadequate and deeply contested by civil society, while the synergies discourse risks subsuming biodiversity under carbon priorities. While some Parties promote synergies as efficiency gains, the main risk is that CBD-specific obligations are diluted and global policy converges around carbon metrics, sidelining biodiversity. SBSTTA27 revealed deep structural tensions in the CBD: between climate mitigation and biodiversity protection, between voluntary and binding approaches for safeguards, between carbon sequestration and ecosystem integrity, and between global harmonization agendas and national sovereignty. As the CBD moves towards COP17, the unresolved debates on safeguards for NbS and other mitigation policies, and on the Rio Convention synergies, will return with greater political weight. Without strong, binding safeguards for human rights and ecosystem integrity, as well as a firm biodiversity-first stance, the CBD risks drifting into a carbon-centred governance paradigm that will ultimately fail both climate and biodiversity. +
|
||
