COP 15- HITS AND MISSES

The COP15 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) concluded with high drama. In the final plenary session, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) objected to the 30 by 30 deal but was forcefully overruled by the COP 5 President, Mr Huang Runqui from China.

While the initial impressions are positive for the developing world, a closer examination is required to truly assess what was achieved in real terms in Montreal.

Background

The Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) was an outcome of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit and came into force in 1993. CBD is concerned about the conservation and restoration of ecosystems, sustainable use of natural resources, and equitable sharing of benefits from these resources. Additionally, the CBD has created two supplementary agreements, the first being the Cartagena Protocol of 2003, which seeks to protect biodiversity from genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The second is the Nagoya Protocol of 2014, which deals with commercialising biological and genetic resources.

The GBF contains four goals and 23 targets, one known as the ‘30x30’ target, as it commits to protecting at least 30 per cent of the world’s lands, oceans and coastal areas by 2030. This differs from the Aichi targets adopted during the 2010 UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), where most targets were not quantified.

Analysis

The question of financing the GBF targets had pitted developed nations against the developing world. DRC objected vehemently to the current financing system, calling it unviable and far short of the need of the countries that are expected to halt their development for the sake of biodiversity. It called for a new Global Biodiversity Fund with more ambitious financing goals where the developed countries contribute US$ 100 billion a year to halt biodiversity loss. The idea has been propagated before and at various stages by countries such as South Africa, India, Brazil, etc.

The developed countries have already failed to meet the obligations under the climate financing agreement, where they were supposed to contribute US$ 100 billion a year. Therefore, it is not surprising that developed countries such as the UK and the EU were strongly against any such fund. The developed countries bitterly opposed the inclusion of ‘Common but Differentiated Responsibility’ in the agreement as they wanted to avoid the financial implications of biodiversity actions that would majorly be in the Global South. Namibia stated in the end that the deal had made everyone "equally unhappy".

The developing countries also sought access to the Global Environment Facility (GEF), which was set up in 1992 so low-income nations could adopt biodiversity actions. The representatives from developing countries even resorted to walking out of negotiations as there was an attempt to equate private financing to legal obligations enshrined in Articles 20 and 21 of the CBD. Finally, a Special Trust Fund named GBF Fund was announced that would be operational from 2023-2030. However, the developing nations are unhappy with the fund’s ‘financing from all sources’, including the Jeff Bezos Earth Fund that pledged US$110 million for “restoration in Africa”. They find it highly hypocritical that the private corporations responsible for most of the destruction of Earth's biodiversity for profit are now using the same money to protect biodiversity!

The Target 18 of GBF talks about eliminating subsidies that affect biodiversity, for instance, agricultural subsidies. This must be seen as another attempt by the developed countries to disempower the small farmers in developing countries that rely on government subsidies for their subsistence. Another shortcoming is in the ‘ratcheting’ step of the GBF that allows countries to better their actions and strategies if the implementation is lacking. This has given cause for doubt whether the developed countries would keep their side of the bargain, something that they have failed to do on climate financing.

Though a mechanism was developed at COP15 to share the benefits derived from genetic sequencing of the diverse fauna (Digital Sequencing Information, or DSI), it has not been made clear what is the trigger at which the benefits will be shared and does not talk about the distinction between sharing of monetary and non-monetary benefits. Some developing countries are concerned that the private sector could escape from benefit sharing as they are only voluntarily required to share it. Predictably, the U.S. and pharma representatives opposed any benefit-sharing system to have authority over pathogen data.

Looking at the larger picture, we can see that developing countries, including India, have received a positive outcome from COP15. At first glance, the text adopts a weak stance on subsidies; for instance, the references to fisheries and agricultural subsidies were dropped from the final text, strong recognition of indigenous rights (the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity has hailed the text), adoption of a DSI benefit sharing system, and dropping of references to mercury pollution (which is generated during thermal power generation).