Last October, Newcastle University Researchers from the School of Natural and Environmental Sciences attended the UN Biodiversity Conference (COP16).
Here, they reflect on how the global biodiversity negotiations progressed from their inside perspective.
Contents:
- Making peace: did COP-16 do enough to change the way we value nature and recognise rights? by Alison Hutchinson
- Taking steps towards tackling Invasive Alien Species threats to Biodiversity, by Aileen Mill
- Strategic action to reduce species threats across sectors, by Francesca Ridley
- Academic institutions as key actors for the implementation of the Kunming-Montréal Global Biodiversity Framework, by Elie Pedarros
- A team of changemakers
Making peace: did COP-16 do enough to change the way we value nature and recognise rights?
Alison Hutchinson, Research Associate in Species Conservation, sets the scene for the conference and reflects on the rights of indigenous people.
View from the Cerro de los Cristales - Cali, Valle del cuaca
The underlying ethos of the two-week high-level negotiations in Cali was ‘making peace with nature’, and to do this, many recognised that first we must make peace with people.
Setting the scene in Columbia
Colombia itself has a violent and troubled past, from colonial occupation to guerilla and paramilitary conflicts. The legacy of this turbulence persists today - social and environmental injustices including the pollution of water supplies from mining activities, land grabbing for monoculture plantations, and the exploitation and abuse of both people and nature continue to shape and divide the country.
Examples of CoP-16 posters (left) and protest signs seen throughout Cali. The central poster highlights how ‘without biodiversity there is no future for humanity’
To bring discussions of peace with nature to the world’s stage, the government of Cali deployed over 10,000 police and military officers accompanied by armoured ‘gladiator’ vehicles, security dogs, and police horses - making peace with nature is a multi-species effort! During the COP, the city felt vibrant and alive, and most importantly safe. People from all walks of life filled the streets around the COP’s ‘green zone’ and the pedestrianised areas along the Rio Boulevard - celebrating long into the evening following a packed schedule of performances, theatre, immersive events, and art installations.
The conference centre, nestled between highly uniform and pesticide-rich sugar cane plantations and the vastness of the Farallones de Cali mountains, brought together over 18,000 global government and market leaders, civil society representatives, activists, and Indigenous groups - all to discuss the implementation mechanisms for the Global Biodiversity Framework.
My interests in this space lie in the troubled lines between what is agreed on paper and what is done in practice. From the political manoeuvrings to assert influence and participate in decision making, to the gulf between fundamentally conflicting values and perspectives that separate the ideals of extractive capitalism and coexistence with nature. All of these perspectives and more are forced into collision at these CoP discussions.
The Rights of Nature
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) has made considerable efforts to reconcile diverging perspectives, lengthy discussions around the diverse values of nature demonstrated a willingness to consider how nature can be valued beyond the dominant neoliberal economic sphere. Side-events, meeting rooms, and workshops were filled with discussions on the recognition of the Rights of Nature - a movement that is growing in global and collective awareness with over 35 countries recognising in some capacity the rights of species, ecosystems, rivers, forests, and mountains in national law.
Giving legal recognition and protections to nature marks a significant departure from traditional human-centred laws, which typically view nature, the environment, and wildlife as property. The Rights of Nature movement seeks to shape new legal frameworks that recognise natural systems and non-human beings as having an independent right to exist and flourish; for example, the River Ouse in Sussex has been granted legal rights including the right to flow, to be free from pollution, and the right to regeneration and restoration. To date, over 150 laws and policies have been put in place to formally recognise the rights of nature around the world.
The Rights of Nature movement also illuminates a fundamental challenge for biodiversity politics - how can humans negotiate on behalf of the non-human world, and can we live in peace with nature if the voices and perspectives of nature, species, ecosystems, and non-human beings are not represented in these decision spaces?
There is a lot still to do. The launch of the Fungi Conservation Pledge during COP16 demonstrates how global biodiversity governance is falling short of recognising all kingdoms of life on Earth. Similarly, the Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature (GARN), and partners, launched the ‘Amazon Rights Declaration’ and the ‘Antarctica Declaration’ highlighting how multilateral environmental agreements can leave substantial gaps in the protection of nature. These declarations seek to recognise both biomes as nonhuman entities with a right to exist in the eyes of the law.
To date, decisions for biodiversity remain largely centred on human interests. Movements to recognise the Rights of Nature demonstrate the need for nature to have a voice and representation in international fora.
Speakers at the ‘Ecosystems as Legal Entities: Exploring the Rights of Nature for Antarctica’ official side-event at CoP-16. Roberta Bosu - Antarctic Rights (left-most), Natalia Greene – GARN (second from left), Osprey Orielle Lake - WECAN (second from right), Madhu Rao – IUCN (right-most) (IUCN), Rafaela Iturralde – GARN (panellist, not photographed)
In addition to the Rights of Nature, I also followed discussions on how the Framework can be implemented in sensitivity to human rights and the rights of Indigenous Peoples. A key piece up for discussion here revolved around Article 8(j) and frameworks to recognise the traditional knowledge, innovations, and practices of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. After long deliberations, the decision to adopt a permanent subsidiary body for Indigenous Peoples and local communities is a huge achievement.
Prior to the agreement of a new subsidiary body on Article 8(j), Indigenous Peoples and local communities participated in CoP through informal working groups and relied on the goodwill of Parties to have their perspectives reflected in decisions. Now that a permanent subsidiary body has been established, these groups should be able to participate more fully and equitably in decision-making, adding to the vibrancy and depth of knowledge, values, and perspectives that shape biodiversity policy and action.
Whilst success on Article 8(j) is a long-awaited milestone for the governance of biodiversity, there are still areas of tension to resolve. Terminology around IPLC’s (Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities) remains contentions, as does the language recognising Latin America’s Afro-descendants - specifically language that recognises ‘people of African descent’ rather than ‘peoples of African descent’. As the lengthy deliberations during CoP-16 have shown, words are powerful, and omissions can prove damaging. Neglecting to recognise ‘Afro-descendant peoples’ buffers over the existence and experience of distinct ethnic groups, historical and contemporary injustices, and the unique rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Personal highlights
A highlight for me, perhaps unsurprisingly, didn’t come from inside the sterile and air-conditioned conference halls, but from a welcome trip into the Farallones de Cali National Park.
Here, surrounded by the sounds of the forest, our guide instructed our small group to close our eyes, to listen, and to breathe with nature. This is what our work is for. Everyone who attended COP16 (or who works towards the GBF’s vision) is - or should be - connected by a drive to protect biodiversity and to make better decisions than the ones that have been made before. Yet, it seems that too much of COP is about politics, power, and profit-making - and not enough is about peace and coexistence.
The El Topacio Nature Reserve, Elie Pédarros, Chess Ridley, Alison Hutchinson, and Aileen Mill
Taking steps towards tackling Invasive Alien Species threats to Biodiversity
Aileen Mill, Professor in Modelling, Evidence and Policy, shares how she presented her important work to COP16.
COP16, like its host city and country, was diverse and vibrant, and had an atmosphere that facilitated connections and positivity. Between official events and negotiations, we met with many parties and organisations who are doing great work in the management of Invasive Alien Species, including using the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s (IUCN) Invasive Species Specialist Group (SSG) resources and expertise.
The Invasive Alien Species toolkit
Much of my biodiversity-focused research is on the management of Invasive Alien Species. I was attending COP16 to present an invasive alien species toolkit - a set of resources to support parties in taking actions towards the Invasive species target (Target 6) of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF). This is work that myself, Olaf Booy and Pete Robertson have been developing along with other members of the Invasive Species Specialist Group, IUCN and the CBD secretariat.
The toolkit breaks down the wording of Target 6 into the component parts and makes suggestions of actions that can be taken and the data and evidence that can be gathered to report on progress and develop National Invasive Species Strategy and Action Plans (NISSAPs).
There are many opportunities to use the toolkit, and work with parties to strengthen the actions in their national biodiversity plans or develop collaborations to create Invasive Alien Species focussed research projects.
Increased engagement from businesses
As well as being part of the Newcastle University team at COP, I was representing the IUCN Invasive Species Specialist Group as the policy lead. This meant I was also part of the IUCN delegation. The IUCN community includes 16,000 scientists and experts working across 7 commissions, which meant that the topics of the daily delegation meetings covered the full COP agenda.
In the first few days of the packed COP Agenda, I co-hosted a side event to highlight the data and resources available on Invasive Alien Species. The event was opened by the Japanese Government who had funded our work on the toolkit and the CBD secretariat who outlined the data needs of Target 6. I was also involved in hosting and presenting at numerous other Invasive Alien Species related events throughout the fortnight.
It was noted that the increased attendance at the Cali COP included the greatest number of business representatives of any biodiversity COP to date, highlighting how the importance of biodiversity is becoming increasingly recognised in all sectors of society. This included Invasive Alien Species, and the Task Force on Nature-related Financial Disclosures led some fascinating discussions on how the business sector can contribute to action on Invasive Alien Species.
The increased engagement offers hope that more businesses might start to understand not only how Invasive Alien Species can affect their operations, but also what actions they can take to prevent Invasive Alien Species from being introduced and established and therefore contributing towards Target 6. There was also increasing interest in the role Invasive Alien Species play in biodiversity-health interlinkages, and the need to take a One Health approach when managing Invasive Alien Species, especially highlighting where prevention will lead to co-benefits to human and domestic animal and plant health.
When the formal negotiations turned to the topic of Invasive Alien Species, we saw a decision that included guidance on various issues developed over the past four years by the Ad Hoc technical working group on Invasive Alien Species being formally adopted by the COP - this included work that Newcastle University presented in an impact case study for REF 2021. We were also very pleased to see the adoption of the intervention by Japan to include additional text to ‘note with appreciation’ the work undertaken by CBD, IUCN and ISSG to develop the toolkit on Invasive Alien Species. Also agreed by Parties was the 'Welcoming of the IPBES assessment on Invasive Alien Species and its key messages' - this was a huge comprehensive review conducted by over 200 authors from 46 countries that included reference to over 13000 studies - although it took prolonged discussion into the final plenary session to agree on the exact wording that all were happy with following concern over universal access to databases from the Russian Federation.
What next?
My priority following Cali is to increase awareness of the toolkit and resources.
At the moment they are buried in CBD documents, but we have plans to make them more accessible. We hope to build on the connections and success of Cali with capacity building, training and knowledge exchange activities.
Strategic action to reduce species threats across sectors
Francesca Ridley, Research Associate in Ecology, reflects on her objectives during COP to highlight tools and frameworks designed to guide stakeholders towards their targets using scientifically-backed methods.
Adopted at the fifteenth Conference of the Parties, The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF) outlines 22 ambitious targets, which if achieved by 2030, should put nature on a pathway to recovery by 2050. Here at COP-16, many complementary documents, to facilitate the implementation of the KMGBF, were up for discussion.
Helping businesses to measure their contributions to nature
My objective was to promote tools to support strategic action under goal A (targets 1-8) by governmental and private sector actors and follow negotiations around the monitoring framework.
This involved hosting an official event with Philip McGowan and colleagues from Seychelles and ASEAN (Association of South-East Asian Nations) Centre for Biodiversity, participating in a private expert consultation on nature-positive metrics for freshwater systems, presenting on metrics for businesses to measure their contributions to nature-positive, and observing discussions of the Parties on the monitoring framework.
The objective of the monitoring framework is to guide countries in measuring national progress towards the targets in a way that is scientifically backed and comparable.
As such, progress towards the framework of targets can be assessed. Some notable areas of disagreement were around trust in the proposed indicators, such as doubts of scientific robustness and geographic bias. After scheduling additional discussions on the monitoring framework, agreement on the whole document was not reached. Further discussions will be scheduled between now and the next COP.
A need for strategic approaches
In our official event, Philip McGowan opened with the need for strategic approaches and the consultation process with country representatives that contributed to the tool presented. I then demonstrated an online interactive tool that guides the user through a three-step process to:
- identify action against which threatening human activities and towards which targets in Goal A could have the greatest benefit to species,
- identify which species require urgent management action to prevent species extinctions and
- measure urgent management actions to reduce species extinction risk (an element of target 4).
Following this I was invited to represent the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) at a Business & Biodiversity event hosted at the International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT).
I presented on IUCN’s approach and framework for measuring nature-positive and how the Species Threat Abatement and Restoration (STAR) metric can be used by businesses to measure their contributions. The STAR metric quantifies the potential benefit to species of actions to alleviate threats and restore habitat. As threats represent the human activities (such as agriculture) that contribute to species extinction risk, STAR allows actors in any industry to take action and measure and report their contributions to species conservation.
Following COP-16, my collaborators and I continue to consult with Parties on tools to guide action and measure progress towards Target 4.
Academic institutions as key actors for the implementation of the Kunming-Montréal Global Biodiversity Framework
Elie Pedarros, Research Associate, talks to us about the CASCADE initiative and the important role academia can play in moving towards objectives and targets.
The COP16 had a clear objective: taking action and providing the means to implement the Global Biodiversity Framework.
This need for immediate action was clearly stated by Ms. Susana Mohamad, Colombian Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development and COP16 President, during the opening ceremony and regularly recalled during negotiations.
Academic and research institutions are key in the implementation of the KMGBF, as stated by COP15 decision 15/8 on Capacity-building and development and technical and scientific cooperation, inviting universities and other academic institutions to support the KMGBF.
The recently launched Conservation and Sustainability Consortium of Academic Institutions (CASCADE), consortium including 31 UK Higher Education Institutions, from which Newcastle University is a leading institution, is committed to contributing through knowledge exchange in the implementation of the KMGBF.
During COP16, I represented the CASCADE initiative with my colleagues Philip McGowan, Professor of Conservation Science and Policy and Hannah Nicholas (Oxford University). My objective was to present the network to Parties’ delegations, heads of the freshly created regional and subregional scientific and technical support centres, intergovernmental organisations, researchers, and other actors to envisage potential collaboration to contribute to the implementation of the Global Biodiversity Framework.
One side event was related to academic involvement in CBD processes. This event highlighted that academia acts as more than just an information provider. It also acts as an agent for capacity-building and sharing. I presented some example statements from Parties identified during SBI-04 showing the expectations that Parties have of academia and introduced a network analysis of African National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NCSAPs) NBSAP actors. This side-event confirmed the strong expectations of Parties from academia and CASCADE, as well as the potential of CASCADE as a knowledge exchange initiative.
Members of the CASCADE team meeting with other delegates. Philip McGowan (3rd from the left), Hannah Nicholas (centre), Elie Pédarros (3rd from the right), and Francesca Ridley (rightmost)
COP16 was a very dense and important event concerning negotiations on the COP16 agenda, and as a milestone for CASCADE and for Newcastle University to structure academia presence and active participation in CBD processes. Lengthy negotiations on the financial mechanisms and the monitoring framework led the COP President to suspend the meeting on the last day without any agreement.
Negotiations will resume in February in Rome, Italy. Still, significant progress has been made for the recognition of Indigenous People and Local Communities. The CBD confirmed the creation of a subsidiary body for Indigenous People and Local communities and the recognition of Afro-descents in their contribution to biodiversity. Other success of these “Cali agreements”, the encouragement of businesses to contribute to the “Cali Fund” dedicated to share the benefits made from the use of Digital Sequence Information (DSI), a database gathering DNA sequences of wild organisms. A significant amount will be redirected to Indigenous People and Local communities.
A team of changemakers
Dedicated to achieving the GBF long-term goals around living in harmony with nature by 2050, and its short-term targets to achieve this vision by halting and reversing biodiversity loss by 2030, our teams work together to make change happen – at COP and beyond.
Discover more about what they do below.
You might also like
- discover more about COP16 in our recent blog, "What is COP16 and what does it mean for our planet’s future?"
- explore our research that influenced the GDF
- find out more about our researchers at Newcastle University’s School of Natural and Environmental Sciences:
- Alison Hutchinson, Research Associate in Species Conservation
- Aileen Mill, Professor in Modelling, Evidence and Policy
- Elie Pédarros, Research Associate at Newcastle University for the Conservation and Sustainability Consortium of Academic Institutions (CASCADE)
- Philip McGowan, Professor of Conservation Science and Policy
- Francesca Ridley, Research Associate in Ecology
- discover the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF)
