IPLCs

The following events were covered by IISD Reporting Services on Thursday, 8 December 2016: GEF Investments and Donor Coordination to Address the Poaching and Illegal Wildlife Trade (IWT) Crisis Synthetic Biology — Opportunities, Challenges, and Environmental Benefits Multiple Approaches to Valuing Nature: The Work of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) on Diverse Values and its Echo in Practice Sustainable Agriculture for Biodiversity: Taking Concrete Transformative Steps Operation Target 16 - Operationalization of the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) in Germany “Let Nature be the Solution” Insights in National Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) Capacity Building Needs – Tools, Measures and (Regional) Approaches to Address Them IISD Reporting Services, through its ENBOTS Meeting Coverage, is providing daily web coverage of selected side-events from the UN Biodiversity Conference. Photos by IISD/ENB | Diego Noguera For photo reprint permissions, please follow instructions at our Attribution Regulations for Meeting Photo Usage Page. GEF Investments and Donor Coordination to Address the Poaching and Illegal Wildlife Trade (IWT) Crisis Presented by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and the World Bank This event, moderated by Jaime Cavelier, GEF, presented the GEF-funded Global Partnership on Wildlife Conservation and Crime Prevention for Sustainable Development (the GPW project), which aims to tackle the poaching and the IWT crisis. Mohamed Bakarr, GEF, said the GPW project follows GEF funding principles, including country-driven actions and partnerships. Cavelier presented an overview of the GPW project, highlighting components including: reducing poaching through enhancing wildlife benefits to communities; reducing IWT through increased law enforcement; and reducing demand for illegal wildlife products. Elisson Wright, World Bank, presented a report analyzing international funding to tackle IWT. The report, he noted, maps out donor contributions from 24 bilateral agencies involving 1100 projects that tackled IWT in Africa and Asia between 2010 and 2016. He discussed: interventions in protected area management; promotion of sustainable use and alternative livelihoods; policy, research and assessment; and communication and awareness. Matthias Krause, Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), Germany, reported on the ‘Wildlife Crime in Africa: from Crisis to Solution’ consultative meeting, held in June 2016 in Berlin, emphasizing that the magnitude of the IWT crisis requires international coordinated efforts. He reported German support of €800 million to support 400 protected areas. Christine Dawson, US Department of State, said that, in 2010, the US contributed US$10 million towards IWT, which was up to US$95 million in 2015. She noted that an interministerial taskforce has been set up in the US involving 17 agencies, including the Departments of Justice and Defense, to address this issue from a crime perspective. Kenichiro Tanaka, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Japan, said as one of the largest donor of the GEF, his country is committed to continued work on IWT, including support for law enforcement particularly in customs. Midori Paxton, UN Development Programme (UNDP), said her organization supports 13 national projects relating to IWT, including aspects of capacity building for enforcement, intelligence and landscape management with communities. She urged for long-term investment in sustaining successes in combatting IWT. Johan Robinson, UN Environment, cited community projects providing incentives to prevent IWT and work with UNEP’s World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) on issues regarding the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Presenting GWP project recipient country experiences, Hoang Thanh Nhan, Viet Nam Environment Administration, pointed out that tackling IWT requires involvement of all ministries and agencies, and not just those dealing with wildlife conservation. She noted an additional US$10 million from the US Agency for International Development to support the GWP project. She also reported on the Hanoi IWT conference held in November 2016 in Hanoi. Agostinho Mangueze, National Administration for Conservation Areas (ANAC), Mozambique, demonstrated progress in addressing IWT, including: legislative changes to increase jail terms for wildlife crimes; regional collaboration with Tanzania and South Africa; capacity building of law enforcement; collaboration with Viet Nam to address supply chains; and community awareness. Theresa Mundita Lim, Biodiversity Management Bureau, the Philippines, said that besides being a transit point for IWT, her country was also losing revenue amounting to US$ 230 million annually from IWT in marine biodiversity. She drew attention to the recently developed National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan that will enhance wildlife protection. In ensuing discussions, participants noted the need to measure success of IWT interventions alongside funding trends. Nepal said whereas they have halted rhino poaching, tiger poaching is on the rise. Participants also noted the important role played by the media in reducing the value of ivory by almost half in China. Mohamed Bakarr, GEF, said the GPW project has received US$131 million to date to combat IWT. Jaime Cavelier, GEF, said the GPW project involves 19 countries for work on elephants, pangolins, rhino, gorilla and big cats and has leveraged an additional US$703 million. Participants watched a WildAid video on the illegal wildlife trade. Elisson Wright, World Bank, said the establishment of a donor engagement platform on IWT would allow proactive discussions and information sharing to enhance efforts in combatting IWT. Partners of the GWP project Contact: Jaime Cavelier (Coordinator) | jcavelier@thegef.org Elisson Wright (Coordinator) | ewright1@worldbank.org More Information: www.thegef.org www.worldbank.org Synthetic Biology — Opportunities, Challenges and Environmental Benefits Presented by CropLife International (CLI) This event, moderated by Taiwo Koyejo, CLI, addressed different applications of synthetic biology and how this technology should be regulated. Henrik Toft Simonsen, Technological University of Denmark, noted different research aims of bioengineering, including: the production of chemicals, such as those used in drugs, vaccines, biofuels and vitamins, in a sustainable manner; novel use of engineered cells, such as through tissue engineering and diagnostics; and novel tools for engineering, such as “transformation tricks” and sequencing of DNA. Robert Friedman, J. Craig Venter Institute, highlighted his Institute’s work on synthetic biology, and said the ongoing synthetic biology discussions at the thirteenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD COP 13) contact group provide a good basis for risk assessment regarding living organisms developed through current and near-future applications of synthetic biology, noting such methodologies may need to be updated and adapted in the future. Mark Tizard, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), distinguished between gene editing, genetic modification and gene drives, highlighting an opportunity, through gene editing to move from a “responsive” approach, typified by “slowness and luck,” to a “directed” approach, typified by “precision and speed.” On the possible release of gene drives, he called for: “a route with flashing lights, check points and off-ramps, rather than barricades.” Kate Wildauer, SynBioBeta, highlighted potential positive impacts of synthetic biology, including: production of biodegradable forms of products such as plastics and inks, and conservation of plants and animals by providing alternatives to them. She said limiting the growth of synthetic biology tools with “disproportionate regulation” could have negative economic, ecological and security impacts, and called for supporting industry with appropriate regulation and governance that allows for safe outcomes. In the discussion, participants considered, inter alia: ethical concerns, such as the loss of livelihoods in Africa due to the proliferation of synthetic biology; the risks of promoting synthetic biology versus the risks of banning it; dialogue as key to addressing the concerns of different groups; the need for adequate national biotechnology regulatory systems as the field progresses; the value of connecting early-phase start ups with regulatory agencies prior to commercialization; and the need for capacity building in the area of synthetic biology. (L-R): Robert Friedman, J. Craig Venter Institute; Kate Wildauer, SynBioBeta; Mark Tizard, CSIRO; and Henrik Toft Simonsen, Technological University of Denmark Mark Tizard, CSIRO, highlighted “the dynamic tension between conserving biodiversity and feeding the planet,” underscoring: “we are not in full control and new tools are urgently needed to help.” Kate Wildauer, SynBioBeta, stressed that “synthetic biology is part of the next industrial revolution.” Henrik Toft Simonsen, Technological University of Denmark, stated that over the next 40 years the world will need to build “a new Manhattan” every eight weeks due to increasing urbanization, and will need to do so in a different way from the past, noting bioengineering can assist. Robert Friedman, J. Craig Venter Institute, noted his organization’s work on creating a “minimal cell” with the smallest set of genes necessary for growth, “to help us understand the fundamentals of life.” Taiwo Koyejo, CLI, moderated the event. A view of the room during the event Contact: Taiwo Koyejo (Moderator) | taiwo.koyejo@croplife.org More Information: https://croplife.org/ Multiple Approaches to Valuing Nature: The Work of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) on Diverse Values and its Echo in Practice Presented by the UN University Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability (UNU-IAS), Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH and IPBES This side event, moderated by Ulrike Tröger, GIZ, presented the IPBES guide on multiple values of nature to support more holistic decision making and for incorporating these values into social and environmental assessments. Anne Larigauderie, Executive Secretary, IPBES, spoke on the IPBES Work Programme 2014-2018 in providing scientific and methodological assessments for biodiversity and ecosystem services, and stressed the importance of considering plural or multiple values for nature to design appropriate methods which take these into account. David González, National Autonomous University of Mexico, described a framework illustrating how to integrate different “ways of knowing and relating to nature” to encompass the diverse meanings of value. He compared the use of a single worldview for valuing nature, which often results in the use of cost-benefit analysis to measure economic value, with a plural perspective of worldviews for identifying the variety of policy instruments and governance systems that reflect diverse values for nature. Suneetha Mazhenchery Subramanian, UNU-IAS, described a valuation methodology to strengthen access and benefit sharing (ABS) of biological resources in India. She noted that in order to go beyond economic valuation, it is necessary to consider the uncertainty of values, which varies according to the type of resource, ownership regime and sector involved. She stressed the need for mediation by competent authorities to ensure that the equity considerations of multiple actors are addressed, and the need to account for sectoral business models, uncertainty and the product life cycle for ABS. Unnikrishnan Payyappallimana, UNU-IAS, described the work of the Regional Centres of Expertise (RCEs) in promoting education for sustainable development. He noted RCEs are innovative platforms for multisectoral and interdisciplinary information sharing and collaboration, which link formal education with networks and informal forms of learning, and, thus, provide added value in promoting multiple values for nature. The ensuing discussions took place through a “fishbowl” style discussion in which panelists addressed topics raised by participants, such as, inter alia: the role of future generations in articulating values for nature; the challenge of accounting for “non-visible” values; raising political interest in identifying plural values for ecosystem services; and the need to consider continua and gradients in the assessment of ecosystem service values. (L-R): Ulrike Tröger, GIZ; Suneetha Mazhenchery Subramanian, UNU-IAS; Anne Larigauderie, Executive Secretary, IPBES; Unnikrishnan Payyappallimana, UNU-IAS; and David González, National Autonomous University of Mexico Ulrike Tröger, GIZ, described the ValuES Initiative, which provides an inventory of methods and instruments to assess and value ecosystem services. Unnikrishnan Payyappallimana, UNU-IAS, described how RCEs promote “community-to-community” learning.   David González, National Autonomous University of Mexico, stressed that plural values for nature are needed to design management and policy interventions in a transparent manner. Suneetha Mazhenchery Subramanian, UNU-IAS, stated that plural valuation for ABS need not focus only on economic values.   Participants during the discussion Contact: Ulrike Tröger (Coordinator) | ulrike.troeger@giz.de More Information: http://www.ipbes.net/work-programme/values http://www.aboutvalues.net Sustainable Agriculture for Biodiversity: Taking Concrete Transformative Steps Presented by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO) This session was moderated by Dan Leskien, FAO. Braulio Ferreira de Souza Dias, Executive Secretary, Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), highlighted the challenges facing agriculture including droughts and floods, and noted the need to adapt agriculture to new realities such as the impacts of climate change. He said that due to some unsustainable practices, agriculture is also a source of biodiversity loss and degradation, and called for robust actions to promote mainstreaming biodiversity into agriculture. Chikelu Mba, Seeds and Plant Genetic Resources Team, FAO, called for a transition to a narrative that reflects the mutually reinforcing nature of agriculture and biodiversity. Noting that the focus has often been on the negative impacts of agriculture on biodiversity, he cited an example of agroforestry as a sustainable agricultural practice, which has the additional benefit of climate mitigation. He stressed the need to go beyond research on the positive impacts of agriculture, to making farmers embrace sustainable practices as part of their regular routines. Rafael Obregón Viloria, National Commission for Knowledge and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity (CONABIO), Mexico, presented on innovations by the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor in Lacandon Tropical Forest, noting that the country began working on this multisectoral, participatory project to ensure that farmers continue to be stewards of nature by engaging in sustainable agricultural practices, diversifying their livelihoods, and conserving and restoring the landscapes around them. He stressed the importance of involving farmers, “respecting their value as producers,” and incentivizing them to voluntarily engage in biodiversity conservation. Tauti Fautino M-Leota, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, Samoa, spoke on the overall policy framework facilitating the mainstreaming of biodiversity into national planning processes in her country, including the Strategy for the Development of Samoa, which considers the environment as a cross-cutting issue throughout. She pointed to the objectives of the environment sector, including governance, administering natural capital, and mainstreaming climate and disaster resilience, and noted the synergies between the agriculture and environment sectors. Gunnstein Bakke, Directorate of Fisheries, Norway, presented on the ecosystems-based fisheries management in his country, noting the evolution of the sector from the 1970s when there was an overfishing crisis, to the current ecosystems-based system, which maintains both profitability of the fisheries sector as well as ecological sustainability. He stressed the need to maintain the adaptive capacity of the fisheries sector even after the recovery of fishstocks, including through the reduction of fishing vessels, and underscored the need for political will to ensure the sustainability of the sector. Jeanine Volken, Federal Department of Economic Affairs, Switzerland, spoke on the role of agriculture in not only food production but also in the conservation of biodiversity. She drew attention to national agricultural policies, including the Proof of Ecological Performance tool to ensure sustainable agricultural practices. Moderating the discussion, Kim Friedman, FAO, noted the need to strengthen mainstreaming efforts already underway, underscoring the need to include both farmers and consumers in these efforts. Participants and panelists then considered, inter alia: the need for community engagement to promote the achievement of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets; the role of markets in creating more sustainable fishing patterns; and the need for national-level institutional frameworks to successfully implement the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). (L-R): Chikelu Mba, Seeds and Plant Genetic Resources Team, FAO; Dan Leskien, FAO; Irene Hoffmann, Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, FAO; and Braulio Ferreira de Souza Dias, Executive Secretary, CBD Braulio Ferreira de Souza Dias, Executive Secretary, CBD, noted “huge opportunities” for win-win solutions between the agriculture and environment sectors. Dan Leskien and Irene Hoffmann, FAO A slide from Chikelu Mba’s presentation Chikelu Mba, Seeds and Plant Genetic Resources Team, FAO, called for packaging solutions tailored to farmers and providing the financial and technical solutions to incentivize them to move towards sustainable practices. (L-R): Jeanine Volken, Federal Department of Economic Affairs, Switzerland; Tauti Fautino M-Leota, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, Samoa; Rafael Obregón Viloria, National Commission for Knowledge and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity (CONABIO), Mexico; and Gunnstein Bakke, Directorate of Fisheries, Norway A slide from the presentation of Rafael Obregón Viloria Rafael Obregón Viloria, CONABIO, Mexico, noted the country’s promotion of local and regional agricultural value chains. Jeanine Volken, Federal Department of Economic Affairs, Switzerland A view of the room during the side event Contact: Chikelu Mba (Coordinator) | Chikelu.Mba@fao.org More Information: http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ebs/CBDCOP13_FAO_AG__Flyer-A5.pdf Operation Target 16 - Operationalization of the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) in Germany Presented by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB), and the German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN) This side event, moderated by Stefan Lütkes, BMUB, provided an overview of the steps undertaken by Germany to operationalize the Nagoya Protocol in order to achieve Aichi Biodiversity Target 16 (on ABS). Lütkes cited the German Act Implementing the Obligations under the Nagoya Protocol and Transposing Regulation of July 2016, noting that Germany is taking its obligations under the Nagoya Protocol very seriously. He elaborated on the relationship between BMUB as the Protocol’s national focal point and BfN, the competent national authority for the Protocol. Thomas Ebben, BMUB, presented a case study on the practical and legal aspects of implementing the Protocol in Germany. He said four institutions have national experience in ABS: BfN; the Federal Agency for Agriculture and Food; Robert-Koch-Institut; and the German Patent and Trade Mark Office. BfN, he noted, is the “one-stop-shop,” providing users with services, such as information, advice, declarations, checks and sanctions in regards to ABS issues. Thomas Greiber, BfN, said the role of his institution includes: processing and verifying criteria for applications for inclusion in the EU register of collections; checking user compliance; enforcing compliance and sanctioning infringements; and providing information and advice. He demonstrated the ABS Clearing-House Mechanism and highlighted some challenges, including constraints in identifying risk criteria for compliance checks. In discussions, participants asked for clarification on how BfN deals with confidentiality and assures adequate checkpoints. Panelists noted that confidentiality of information requires clarity on why this should be private, and noted two control point stages during declaration of due diligence. Participants were also informed that the EU regulates compliance measures but that ABS is under the sovereignty of individual member states. (L-R): Thomas Ebben, BMUB; Thomas Greiber, BfN; Stefan Lütkes, BMUB; and Ellen Frederichs, BfN Stefan Lütkes, BMUB, moderated the event, discussing the legal framework for implementing the Nagoya Protocol on ABS in Germany. Thomas Ebben, BfN, discussed the role of his institution in promoting and monitoring compliance and enforcement and demonstrated submissions of due diligence through the EU-developed online DECLARE platform. Thomas Greiber, BfN, discussed the role of his institution in promoting and monitoring compliance and enforcement and demonstrated submissions of due diligence through the EU developed online DECLARE platform. A participant asks a question during the discussion. Contact: Thomas Greiber (Coordinator) | thomas.greiber@bfn.de Thomas Ebben (Coordinator) | thomas.ebben@bmub.bund.de More Information: http:/abs.bfn.de “Let Nature be the Solution” Presented by the European Commission (EC) This event, moderated by Marco Fritz, EC, and Barbara Livoreil, Foundation for Biodiversity Research, France, discussed “Nature-Based Solutions” (NBS) which provide business opportunities for regenerating urban areas, improving air and water quality, -and disaster risk reduction (DRR). Andrew Deutz, The Nature Conservancy (TNC), highlighted the investment opportunities that exist in reframing nature as infrastructure, stressing that nature improves water and air quality and is the first line of defense in protecting coastal developments from disasters. He also identified the role of NBS in regenerating cities, offering insurance values in the face of hydrological risks, and for climate mitigation. Sarah Bekessy, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT), highlighted the critical role of “everyday nature” for the future of urban development, emphasizing its role in, inter alia: mitigating and adapting to climate change; “re-enchanting” people with nature; providing health benefits for adults and children. She also emphasized opportunities to connect urban dwellers with indigenous knowledge through urban greening projects. Karen Sudmeier-Rieux, IUCN Commission on Ecosystem Management, spoke about the role of NBS for DRR. She stressed that ecosystems can: prevent or mitigate hazards; reduce exposure by functioning as natural buffers; and reduce vulnerability by supporting livelihoods before, during and after disasters strike. She noted that a key challenge for incorporating biodiversity and ecosystems into DRR lies in convincing engineers and finance ministries to compare the costs and benefits of “grey” versus “green” infrastructure. Ángela Andrade, IUCN Commission on Ecosystem Management, summarized lessons learned from the event, noting that NBS is a “problem-oriented approach” that addresses the key challenges facing urban areas by enhancing flood protection, food security, climate mitigation and the health of urban populations. She underlined the importance of showcasing the social, cultural and economic benefits of NBS, as well as the need to adopt a collaborative approach across different sectors, including for agriculture, mining and engineering. In the ensuing discussion, participants discussed the potential of NBS to rejuvenate the most industrialized areas within urban settings. Andrew Deutz, TNC, said that people tend to think of nature as a “victim in the face of infrastructure development,” but that “we need to think of nature as part of the solution.” Sarah Bekessy, RMIT, stressed that we must shift thinking from biodiversity as an urban constraint to a massive opportunity for sustainable urban development. Ángela Andrade, IUCN Commission on Ecosystem Management, stressed that a “big opportunity” exists to change people’s perceptions about development as being synonymous with ecosystem restoration. Karen Sudmeier-Rieux, IUCN Committee on Ecosystem Management, highlighted the multiple benefits of ecosystem approaches to DRR. A view of the room during the event Contact: Marco Fritz (Coordinator) | marco.fritz@ec.europa.eu More Information: http://europa.eu/!Jg99bW https://ec.europa.eu/research/environment/index.cfm Insights in National Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) Capacity-Building Needs – Tools, Measures and (Regional) Approaches to Address Them Presented by the ABS Capacity Development Initiative (ABS Initiative) This event, moderated by Andreas Drews, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit GmbH (GIZ), saw representatives of the ABS Initiative and several African partner countries present and discuss progress made, success factors and challenges. Drews introduced the multi-donor ABS Initiative, noting its work in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific. He said the Initiative’s core activities in its 10 African partner countries comprise support for: national capacity building, focusing on national institutional regulatory ABS frameworks; ensuring effective participation of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs); and the development of ABS agreements. Melle Assia Azzi, Algeria, highlighted ABS activities in her country, including: contribution to the analysis o=f the national legal framework; an inception workshop of the Algerian ABS policy and legal framework project; capacity building of national focal points and stakeholders; and a national diagnostic study. She said work on IPLCs may commence in 2017. Kavaka Watai Mukonyi, Kenya, highlighted activities including: institutional approaches for improved coordination on ABS permits and decisions; legal gap analysis; training; support to three pilot community-based ABS projects; studies on genetic resources and traditional knowledge (TK) utilization; and dialogue between the private sector and providers. Albun William Banye Lemnyuy, Cameroon, noted, inter alia: the drafting of a national ABS strategy; support for development of an interim ABS regulation; and negotiation of, support for, and comments on, various mutually agreed terms (MATs). Prudence Galega, Cameroon, additionally highlighted her country’s intent to develop a law, rather than an interim regulation, on ABS by April 2017. Naritiana Rakotoniaina Ranaivoson, Madagascar, highlighted: a “political letter” on ABS, which provides an overall ABS strategy; development of an interim ABS regulation; clarification of the involvement of local communities in the prior informed consent procedure process; the establishment of a biodiversity community register; and the piloting of valorization activities. Hugues Adeloui Akpona, Benin, noted activities in his country include: popularization of the national ABS strategy; support to the development of an interim ABS regulation; a pilot bio-cultural community protocol project; preparatory consultations on a TK documentation strategy; creating the basis for a valorization strategy; and capacity building to make existing partnerships ABS compliant. Opening the discussion, Suhel al-Janabi, ABS Initiative, called for input from speakers on lessons learned. Speakers expressed an interest in learning from other countries: about experiences of developing ABS laws and signing MATs; how to get “a good deal” within an agreement; how to put in place a fair benefit-sharing mechanism; how to ensure monetary benefits reach communities; and how to identify who represents communities. They also expressed an interest in sharing research. In closing, Mahlet Teshome Kebede, African Union, reflected on the potential for regional or continental implementation. Suhel al-Janabi, ABS Initiative, highlighted very different capacity building and support needs in different countries. Melle Assia Azzi, Algeria, noted that “sometimes it is easy to adopt a law, but difficult to implement it in the field.” Hugues Adeloui Akpona, Benin, noted ongoing efforts to clarify the representation of local communities at the national level. Albun William Banye Lemnyuy, Cameroon, offered to share experiences on MAT negotiation and signature.   Prudence Galega, Cameroon, highlighted training parliamentarians who work with communities as an important entry point for training on IPLCs. Kavaka Watui Mukonyi, Kenya, stressed effective ABS laws are a driver for research and development, which is key for the economy. Contact: Andreas Drews (Coordinator) | andreas.drews@giz.de More Information: www.abs-initiative.info

The following events were covered by IISD Reporting Services On Wednesday, 7 December 2016: Small-scale Fisheries and Aichi Biodiversity Target 11: The Importance of Livelihoods and Food Security in Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) Global Assessment on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Mainstreaming Biosafety Experiences from a Global Project on Integrated Implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety at the National Level Bridging the Science-Policy Gap for Biodiversity and Human Health: From Science to Practice Considering Intellectual Property in the Implementation of the Nagoya Protocol Synergies Across the Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) Towards Sustainable Development Strengthening Global Partnerships to Recognize the Role of Indigenous Peoples’ and Community Conserved Territories and Areas (ICCAs) in Achieving the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Aichi Biodiversity Targets 11, 14, and 18 IISD Reporting Services, through its ENBOTS Meeting Coverage, is providing daily web coverage of selected side-events from the UN Biodiversity Conference. Photos by IISD/ENB | Diego Noguera For photo reprint permissions, please follow instructions at our Attribution Regulations for Meeting Photo Usage Page. Small-scale Fisheries and Aichi Biodiversity Target 11: The Importance of Livelihoods and Food Security in Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) Presented by: the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO) Fisheries and Aquaculture Department; IUCN Commission of Ecosystem Management, Fisheries Expert Group (IUCN-CEM-FEG); the European Bureau of Conservation and Development (EBCD); and the International Collective in Support of Fishworkers (ICSF) This event, moderated by Lena Westlund, FAO, considered the important role of small-scale fishers as part of the solution to healthy marine ecosystems, particularly in coastal areas. It also highlighted the Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-scale Fisheries in the Context of Food Security and Poverty Eradication (the SSF Guidelines). Westlund said that achieving Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 on MPAs and other effective area-based measures (OEABMs) depends on mainstreaming effective fishing community participation. Serge García, IUCN-CEM-FEG, explained why mainstreaming community participation in MPAs and OEABMS is important, underscoring that communities have formal rights to ecosystem services, and that human rights, including the right to food, should be secured if MPAs are to become successful. Alifereti Tawake, Pacific Locally Managed Marine Area (LMMA) Network, discussed the legal and institutional framework and processes enabling LMMAs. She said LMMAs are critical as they help reduce the tragedy of the commons by facilitating adaptive management through fisheries associations. Minerva Arce, El Colegio de la Frontera Sur (ECOSUR), reported on the recognition of human rights and norms of indigenous peoples in the Mexican constitution. She cited the ‘Too Big To Ignore’ project, which addresses community-based and participatory approaches for sustainable small-scale fisheries. Mitchell Lay, Caribbean Network of Fisherfolk Organization (CNFO), shared the challenges of MPAs in the Caribbean, and said they have benefited tourism more than fisheries. Citing the example of the set up and expansion of an MPA in Belize, he noted that fishers’ cooperatives were weakened as tourism blossomed, with fishers displaced from meaningful livelihoods. Vivienne Solis, ICSF, Costa Rica, said the SSF Guidelines have been useful in creating co-management structures and cited the formation of Marine Responsible Fishing Areas spearheaded by fishermen in Costa Rica. She referred to awareness raising, training of trainers, workshops and other activities to popularize the wider use of the SSF Guidelines in Central America. In discussions, participants noted that, inter alia: MPAs should consider equity within the fisheries supply chain, particularly in regards to middlemen; and that finding a solution to fish spoils en route to markets will also address fishing pressure. (L-R): Vivienne Solis, ICSF; Mitchell Lay, CNFO; Lena Westlund, FAO; Serge García, IUCN-CEM-FEG; Minerva Arce, ECOSUR; and Alifereti Tawake, Pacific LMMA Network A slide from the presentation of Serge García Serge García, IUCN-CEM-FEG, said MPAs are one of many mechanisms available to manage fisheries and urged for integration and mainstreaming of OEABMs. Minerva Arce, ECOSUR, discussed good practices for ensuring community participation in aquatic conservation, MPAs and OAEBMS. Lena Westlund, FAO, said the FAO Committee on Fisheries endorsed the SSF Guidelines in 2014. A slide from the presentation of Alifereti Tawake Alifereti Tawake, Pacific LMMA Network, said Fiji is committed to achieving 100% inshore management covering over 35,000 km2 by 2020. Participants during the event Contact: Lena Westlund (Coordinator) | lena.westlund@fao.org Despina Symons-Pirovolidou (Coordinator) | despina.symons@ebcd.org More Information: http://www.fao.org/fishery/en The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) Global Assessment on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Presented by IPBES and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) This side event, moderated by Anne Larigauderie, Executive Secretary, IPBES, discussed the relevance of the IPBES work programme 2014-2018 in informing progress towards the fifth Global Biodiversity Outlook (GBO-5), the Aichi Biodiversity Targets and the review of implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020, through thematic, regional and global assessments and scenario analysis and modeling. Hien Ngo, IPBES Secretariat, stated that the Assessment will critically assess the state of knowledge on past, present and future biodiversity and ecosystem services trends across diverse worldviews and knowledge systems of humans and nature. Mark Rounsevell, The University of Edinburgh, discussed the implications of four regional assessments, which will feed into the Global Assessment to examine the drivers of change, potential impacts of policy and knowledge gaps that need to be addressed. He emphasized that regional assessments will respond directly to requests from governments and will be “broader and more inclusive” than previous assessments by taking into account conceptualizations of values and worldviews to understand nature’s benefits. Paul Leadley, University of Paris-Sud, presented on the role of scenarios and models in the IPBES Global Assessment in stimulating research by: identifying knowledge gaps; supporting the networking of scientists, policymakers and practitioners; developing strategies for mobilizing stakeholders through multi-scale participatory scenarios; and facilitating the inclusion of indigenous and local knowledge. David Cooper, Deputy Executive Secretary, CBD, stated that the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA) welcomed the IPBES work programme to support the work of the Convention and for developing recommendations for consideration by the Conference of the Parties (COP). In the ensuing discussion, participants considered, inter alia: the effectiveness of model-based assessments for assessing future trends in biodiversity and ecosystem services; how biophysical data on biodiversity can be integrated with direct and indirect socio-economic drivers of change; and the extent of capacity building available to support the use of scenarios and modeling for biodiversity and ecosystem services. (L-R): David Cooper, Deputy Executive Secretary, CBD; Hien Ngo, IPBES Secretariat; Anne Larigauderie, Executive Secretary, IPBES; Paul Leadley, University of Paris-Sud; and Mark Rounsevell, The University of Edinburgh Paul Leadley, University of Paris-Sud, stressed that the development of new scenarios and models for biodiversity and ecosystem services is a long-term process. David Cooper, Executive Secretary, CBD, noted that the IPBES Global Assessment will be the primary scientific basis underpinning the GBO-5.   Anne Larigauderie, Executive Secretary, IPBES, moderated the event. Mark Rounsevell, The University of Edinburgh, discussed the challenges of harmonizing regional and global assessments for biodiversity and ecosystem services in terms of direct and indirect drivers of change and options for governance, among others. A participant asks a question to the panel. Participants during the event Contact: Anne Larigauderie (Coordinator and Moderator) | anne.larigauderie@ipbes.net More Information: http://www.ipbes.net/event/cbdcop-13 Mainstreaming Biosafety Experiences from a Global Project on Integrated Implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety at the National Level Presented by the CBD This session heard presentations on lessons learned from parties participating in the project, ‘Capacity building to promote integrated implementation of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and the CBD at the national level,’ and on ongoing activities to develop capacity-building material for enhancing mainstreaming of biosafety. Presenting on the capacity-building project, Peter Deupmann, CBD Secretariat, noted it aims to have pilot countries document experiences on practical actions to promote integrated implementation of the CBD and the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, and to ensure training of CBD and Cartagena Protocol national focal points on integrated implementation. Martha Mphatso Kalemba, Malawi, identified lessons learned through implementation of the project in her country. On the way forward, she noted the need to: continue creating enabling environments and initiatives for biosafety mainstreaming; develop and implement a mainstreaming strategy; and identify additional funding opportunities to build on current momentum. Letchumanan Ramatha, Malaysia, highlighted his country’s 2007 Biosafety Act, noting the benefits of having one law in this area that includes centralization of risk assessments, decision making and capacity-building efforts. Sol Ortíz García, Mexico, highlighted the value of the project in: promoting an active discussion on biosafety with different stakeholders; improving collaboration between national focal points; promoting the use of a “common language” among participants; and identifying common challenges and opportunities for future policy planning and design. Angela Lozan, Moldova, noted her country’s main findings on strengthening mainstreaming, including on: the importance of improving cross-sectorial cooperation and synchronization of activities of ministries; the need to garner political support; the need for toolkits, roadmaps and training material; and the value of regional and sub-regional cooperation to exchange best practices and lessons learned on successful mainstreaming. Elisa Morgera, Strathclyde Centre for Environmental Law and Governance, highlighted her institute’s contribution to three outputs to promote capacity building in this area: a synthesis report of national desk studies by the project’s nine participating pilot countries; an e-learning module to enhance understanding of biosafety mainstreaming and its importance; and a more practice-focused toolkit on how biosafety mainstreaming can be achieved. In the discussion, some participants stressed, inter alia: the need to capture biosafety in National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) and to ensure, in turn, that NBSAPs are integrated into national development plans; that governments should be encouraged to have one common body to manage the Convention and the Protocol; and the need to consider a variety of approaches so if a model is not feasible or appropriate in a national context, another approach can be implemented. (L-R): Sol Ortíz García, Mexico; Letchumanan Ramatha, Malaysia; Elisa Morgera, Strathclyde Centre for Environmental Law and Governance; Martha Mphatso Kalemba, Malawi; and Angela Lozan, Moldova On the benefits of coordinating action among different stakeholders, Sol Ortíz García, Mexico, observed that “having six different perspectives on the table takes longer, but is worth it.” Angela Lozan, Moldova, highlighted her country’s 2015-2020 NBSAP and draft law on genetically modified organisms as examples of biosafety mainstreaming. Among the findings of the synthesis report, Elisa Morgera, Strathclyde Centre for Environmental Law and Governance, noted that addressing information exchange; political will and the mandates of key actors and institutions may lead to enhanced access to funding for biosafety mainstreaming. Peter Deupmann, CBD Secretariat A participant during the discussion Participants listening to panelists Contact: Peter Deupmann (Coordinator) | peter.deupmann@cbd.int More Information: https://www.cbd.int/doc/?meeting=BSMBWS-2016-02 http://www.strath.ac.uk/research/strathclydecentreenvironmentallawgovernance/ Bridging the Science-Policy Gap for Biodiversity and Human Health: From Science to Practice Presented by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the UN University - International Institute for Global Health (UNU-IIGH), the UNU Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability (UNU-IAS), European Hematology Association (EHA), UN Environment, Bioversity International and TRAFFIC Moderator Cristina Romanelli, CBD Secretariat, drew attention to the joint CBD-World Health Organization (WHO) report ‘Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health, a State of Knowledge Review,’ and underscored the linkages between environment and health and achieving the Aichi Biodiversity Targets and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Calling for closer collaboration between the WHO and CBD, Anne-Hélène Prieur-Richard, Future Earth, highlighted that the synergies now being discussed at the policy level have been discussed by scientists for years, underscoring the importance of the State of Knowledge Review in linking biodiversity to health. Marleni Ramírez, Bioversity International, shared the organization’s work on agro-biodiversity, and noting that agro-biodiversity is shrinking, pointed to the fact that the world does not grow enough vegetables, fruits, nuts and seeds. She shared Brazil’s experience in promoting agricultural biodiversity, through widening the knowledge base on the nutritional content of 73 fruit tree species, noting that these findings are being shared through an educational programme and used in awareness-raising campaigns. Catherine Machalaba, EcoHealth Alliance, spoke on the State of Knowledge Review’s chapter on infectious diseases, underscored the need to study hosts and pathogens together, and underlined that land-use changes for agriculture are expected to create new interactions, which could facilitate pathogen spillover. Drawing attention to a One Health approach, she highlighted the need for an ecosystems approach to health and biodiversity, and pointed to the gap of information on marine infectious diseases. Daniel Buss, WHO, noted that the Review’s chapter on water highlights the drivers of ill health and biodiversity, including mercury contamination and endocrine disruptors. He stressed that to move to an even more integrated approach to addressing health and environment, we should redefine health to being more than just disease control, but rather as a more cross-cutting theme across the SDGs and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Cristina Tirado, University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA): pointed to climate change impacts on microbial biodiversity, noting increasing resistance to antibiotics; and lamented the silos between the health, climate change, and biodiversity communities. He described the need for interdisciplinary work on biodiversity, health and nutrition within the climate change agenda. Suneetha Mazhenchery Subramanian, International Partnership for the Satoyama Initiative, spoke on a community learning exchange between India and Africa, stressing that traditional healers are usually the first point of contact for communities regarding health and wellbeing. She also pointed to the importance of these healers for migrants and refugees. Calling for more integrated assessments that include health, wellbeing and the state of biodiversity, she stressed the need to translate the Aichi Biodiversity Targets and the SDGs for communities on the ground. Anne-Hélène Prieur-Richard, Future Earth, stressed the need to leverage the health and biodiversity work on the ground in order to promote national, regional and global collaborations. Marleni Ramírez, Bioversity International, said that the Rio Olympics provided a forum for athletes to speak about healthy, sustainable foods. Catherine Machalaba, EcoHealth Alliance, cited examples of diseases from animals, plants and vectors, noting that certain communities are more affected due to poverty and nutritional deficiencies. Cristina Romanelli, CBD Secretariat, and Daniel Hougendobler, WHO Panel speaker photo at the end of the event. Contact: Cristina Romanelli (Coordinator) | Cristina.Romanelli@cbd.int More Information: http://www.ecohealthalliance.org/ Considering Intellectual Property in the Implementation of the Nagoya Protocol Presented by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the Access and Benefit-Sharing (ABS) Capacity Development Initiative This event, moderated by Claudio Chiarolla, WIPO, and Suhel al-Janabi, ABS Initiative, presented key lessons learned from multi-stakeholder practical workshops on the interface between intellectual property (IP) and ABS, and introduced new tools and resources on IP and ABS. Al-Janabi introduced two practical multi-stakeholder workshops on IP, genetic resources, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions held in Namibia and Morocco aimed at building capacity and raising awareness amongst representatives of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs) and key government agencies from those countries. Pierre du Pleissis, Advisor, African Union Commission (AUC), said there is a disconnect between the technical experts attending negotiations on the Nagoya Protocol and policymakers responsible for ABS laws. Kauna Betty Schröder, Ministry of Environment and Tourism, Namibia, said that in order to successfully bring together IPLCs and government agencies to discuss IP and ABS, her ministry organized an initial meeting to introduce essential concepts and terminologies. She said the emphasis on practices, systems and tools enabled an understanding of the issues at stake. Khalid Lalami, Ministry of Environment, Morocco, said the second workshop on IP and ABS allowed IPLCs and government officials to understand the importance of cooperating in the valorization of traditional knowledge and the protection of knowledge holders. He urged for more emphasis on integrating certificates of origin in patenting processes. Chiarolla introduced upcoming capacity-building tools and resources on IP and ABS. He said resources on new patent disclosure requirements (PDRs) would be released to enable parties to, among other things, understand these new PDRs, types of remedies and sanctions for non-compliance, and their relationship with other treaties. He also reported that a guide on IP issues in ABS is in the pipeline. In discussions, participants, inter alia: called for elaboration on issues regarding patents for gene sequences; and noted reduced research and development on traditional knowledge resources. Suhel al-Janabi, ABS Initiative, said that argan oil is a good case study for ABS, with numerous patents but no ABS clarity. Claudio Chiarolla, WIPO, said a study on key questions to address when developing patent disclosure requirements relating to genetic resources and traditional knowledge will be released in 2017. Pierre du Pleissis, Advisor, AUC, said the Aichi Biodiversity Targets focus more on conservation and sustainable use and not enough on ABS. Kauna Betty Schröder, Ministry of Environment and Tourism, Namibia, reported on the first Practical Workshop on IP and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions held in August 2016 in Windhoek, Namibia. Khalid Lalami, Ministry of Environment, Morocco, reported on outcomes of the second Practical Workshop on IP and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions held in Marrakech, Morocco in September 2016. Participants listening to panelists Contact: Claudio Chiarolla (Coordinator) | claudio.chiarolla@wipo.int Suhel al-Janabi (Coordinator) | s.aljanabi@geo-media.de More Information: http://www.wipo.int/portal/en/index.html http://www.abs-initiative.info Synergies Across the Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) Towards Sustainable Development Presented by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) This session, moderated by Chizuru Aoki, GEF, featured GEF efforts and country experiences in promoting synergies between the different MEAs. Braulio Ferreira de Souza Dias, Executive Secretary, CBD, highlighted a key opportunity for countries to implement National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) together with Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and national adaptation plans (NAPs) under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). He also noted the thirteenth session of the Conference of the Parties to the CBD (CBD COP 13) draft decision on bringing together various national reports as “a real opportunity” to create convergence between the biodiversity-related MEAs. Noting the GEF’s unique mandate across all global environmental concerns, Gustavo Fonseca, GEF, said that countries are signaling integration across sectors as a priority, and highlighted that 55% of the GEF’s sixth replenishment (GEF-6) financing went towards multi-focal area projects or integrated approaches. Neil Pratt, CBD Secretariat, noted that integration of MEAs “has been under discussion for at least the last 20 years,” and highlighted renewed attention to synergies as a result of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development process as an important opportunity for progress. Chencho Norbu, National Environment Commission, Bhutan, highlighted the value of: good baseline data; top-down approaches in certain contexts; and participatory approaches and tools for informed decision making. Arturo Caso, Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, Mexico, highlighted two examples of GEF-supported, integrated projects in Mexico on: conservation of coastal watersheds, and creating natural protected areas through a “vegetation corridor.” Souleymane Diallo, Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development, Senegal, highlighted GEF-funded projects on piloting integrated and sustainable management of cities, and on food security as contributing to implementing MEAs on climate change, desertification, biodiversity and chemicals. In the ensuing discussion, panelists discussed three guiding questions. On opportunities and barriers to promoting synergies and integrated agendas among the different MEAs, panelists noted, inter alia: geographical constraints related to where secretariats are housed; not all countries being party to each convention; the need for enhanced dialogue at the national level; the potential for common planning frameworks and monitoring progress towards the SDGs; and the potential and limitations of integrated information management. On what countries need to foster successful, coordinated planning and implementation of MEAs and the SDGs at the national level, panelists highlighted, inter alia: sharing of information between federal and local governments; organization by the GEF focal agencies of national workshops with attendance of all Rio Convention focal points, SDG coordinators and relevant parliamentary committees; and good data systems and national-level support to track NAPs, NDCs and NBSAPs. On suggestions to the GEF to further facilitate synergies and coordinated implementation of MEAs and the SDGs, panelists underscored, inter alia: support for capacity building; room to “rotate Conventions,” whereby a different MEA is prioritized in each GEF cycle; the need for more funding; and the need to consider how to measure project success. During the Q&A session, participants discussed, inter alia: experiences with the national portfolio formulation exercise in supporting synergies across MEAs; how the GEF could “do the unfinished homework of the UNFCCC” by ensuring oil, coal and gas reserves are kept in the ground in biodiverse areas; opportunities for extended constituency workshops to tap into synergies; how the GEF’s approach differs when an integrated, versus a specific approach is taken to projects; concerns about whether biodiversity allocations are really covering biodiversity; and how the GEF is addressing synergies within the biodiversity-related conventions. Participants during the event Chencho Norbu, National Environment Commission, Bhutan, stressed “the meeting point of the environmental conventions is at the household and community level.” Arturo Caso, Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, Mexico, underscored that “the key is to work together, because any strategy that addresses climate change will also help biodiversity.” Souleymane Diallo, Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development, Senegal, noted that coordination among partners remains a key challenge in enhancing the effectiveness of integrated projects. Chizuru Aoki, GEF Neil Pratt, CBD Secretariat, indicated that there are also many opportunities to strengthen synergies between the MEAs in terms of communication and awareness raising, resource mobilization, and the science-policy interface. Gustavo Fonseca, GEF, said the Facility’s mandate creates “a very complicated but very exciting” landscape for environmental financing at the global scale. Jozef Buys, Belgium Participants during the discussion Participants during the event Contact: Chizuru Aoki (Coordinator) | caoki@thegef.org More Information: http://www.thegef.org/ Strengthening Global Partnerships to Recognize the Role of Indigenous Peoples’ and Community Conserved Territories and Areas (ICCAs) in Achieving the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Aichi Biodiversity Targets 11, 14, and 18 Presented by: the Global Environmental Facility (GEF); the GEF Small Grants Programme (GEF-SGP); the ICCA Consortium; UN Environment Programme-World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC); the German Ministries for the Environment and for Economic Cooperation and Development of the German Federal Government; and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) This side event, moderated by Terence Hay-Edie, GEF-SGP, began with a short video describing the Global ICCA Support Initiative (GSI). The event discussed the central role of ICCAs in achieving several Aichi Biodiversity Targets and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and in enhancing protected area governance around the world. Elsa Nickel, Director General, Federal Ministry for the Environment, Germany, reiterated Germany’s commitment to supporting ICCAs for the achievement of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, and underlined the role of the GSI in promoting ICCA conservation in at least 26 countries. Yoko Watanabe, GEF, described the extent of GEF projects and portfolios, which support indigenous peoples, noting 220 full and medium-sized projects representing approximately 15% of GEF-SGP projects. Hay-Edie, GEF-SGP, described ICCAs as either: “defined” and requiring greater recognition; “disrupted” and requiring support for the revival of traditional knowledge; or “desired” and requiring further support over time. Trevor Sandwith, IUCN, stressed that the governance of protected areas and ICCAs should be seen in the broader context of “what’s going on in the country, jurisdiction and territory.” He noted the need to “go back to the basics” in engaging with communities to identify and understand the diverse legal regimes for protected areas that exist in the field. Naomi Kingston, UNEP-WCMC, described a project to enhance the interoperability of global protected areas databases to enhance recognition of territories conserved by ICCAs. She noted the aim of the project is to develop a more comprehensive picture of conservation areas and to encourage ICCAs to register their territories. Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend, ICCA Consortium, emphasized that ICCAs: refer to a “profound bond” between a human community and a natural area or territory; consist of a relationship that is “umbilical in nature”; and results in nature conservation in both visible and invisible ways that are inextricably linked to culture and livelihoods. She praised local, national and global efforts to support ICCAs, but underscored that misrecognizing ICCAs can destroy rather than help them. In the discussion, an indigenous participant from Guatemala praised efforts in building links between indigenous peoples’ and global institutions, but cautioned against the “imposition of the ICCA concept” from global actors. Elsa Nickel, Director General, Federal Ministry for the Environment, Germany, underscored the crucial role ICCAs play in achieving the Aichi Biodiversity Targets and the SDGs. Yoko Watanabe, GEF Secretariat, described how the GEF is supporting the participation and capacity building of indigenous peoples and local communities in the design, implementation and management of protected areas. Trevor Sandwith, IUCN, underscored the role of collaboration to amplify the integration, vitality and quality of governance across protected and conserved areas. Terence Hay-Edie, GEF-SGP, stated that by the end of 2019, at least 200 ICCA projects in 20 countries will be supported. Naomi Kingston, UNEP-WCMC, noted that ICCAs account for less than 5% of entries in the World Database on Protected Areas, yet may represent the majority of conservation governance. Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend, ICCA Consortium, said ICCAs are the oldest successful examples of what can be considered “conservation” and closely relate culture and livelihoods with land. A slide from Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend’s presentation. Contact: Terence Hay-Edie (Coordinator) | terence.hay-edie@undp.org More Information: http://www.iccaconsortium.org/?page_id=35 http://www.iccaregistry.org http://www.wcmc.io/iccadatamanual