Search our archived site
We updated our website in 2021 to better share our reports from events covered since 1992. It also includes full coverage – including photography and highlights of proceedings – from more recent events.
While we manually migrate some elements, you can still find them on our archived site using a Google custom search.
Search the site
All results
Showing 9081 - 9088 of 9088 results
Summary report 8–9 October 2012
CBD COP 11
Summary report 4–8 October 1999
Experts’ Panel on Access and Benefit-Sharing
Selected other side events coverage for 26 November 2018
2018 UN Biodiversity Conference
A butterfly made from recycled paper
The following events were covered by IISD Reporting Services on Monday, 26 November 2018:
Community Protocols - Lessons Learned for ABS and Launching of the Biocultural Community Protocol Guidelines
China’s Sixth National Report on the Implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity
Photos by IISD/ENB | Kiara Worth
For photo reprint permissions, please follow instructions at our Attribution Regulations for Meeting Photo Usage Page
Community Protocols - Lessons Learned for ABS and Launching of the Biocultural Community Protocol Guidelines
Presented by Natural Justice, in collaboration with the Access and Benefit Sharing Capacity Development Initiative (ABS Initiative), the League for Pastoral People and Endogenous Livestock Development (LPP), and the Local Livestock for Empowerment (LIFE) Network
Participants during the event
This side event discussed experiences in developing community protocols as tools for access and benefit sharing (ABS) under the framework of the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization.
Presenters shared lessons learned and guidance on the facilitation of community protocols. Two publications were launched at the event:
Community Protocols for Pastoralists and Livestock Keepers
Community Protocols in Africa: Lessons Learned for ABS Implementation.
Barbara Lassen, Natural Justice, moderated the event. Eva Fenster, ABS Initiative, noted that Natural Justice has helped African communities develop community protocols. She highlighted the publication titled “Community Protocols in Africa: Lessons Learned for ABS Implementation,” launched at the event, which incorporates communities’ perspectives on traditional knowledge. She also stressed that community protocols legally empower communities and foster meaningful dialogue.
Jazzy Rasolojaona, Natural Justice, showcased a community protocol facilitated by Natural Justice and Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit GmbH (GIZ) in Madagascar. He reported that seven villages united to manage similar resources and environmental challenges. The resulting community protocol, he noted, aims to prepare Madagascar for future negotiations on issues regarding ABS and on empowering communities against illegal practices in their regions regarding biological resources.
Netzar Arreortua Martínez, Commissariat of Communal Goods, Capulalpam de Méndez, Mexico, showcased a community protocol in Mexico. He said that a committee was established after the approval of the protocol and highlighted that a participatory process involved drafting, designing and programming of activities, and validation. He noted that the final document, which has the approval from the community and the Mexican government, provides political security and the safeguarding of all natural resources.
Daniel Kobei, Ogiek Peoples’ Development Program, Kenya, presented the Ogiek Community Biocultural Development Process. He described the Ogiek as caretakers of fauna and flora in the Mau Forest where they live. Highlighting the challenges they have experienced, he cited forest encroachment and recent efforts to disenfranchise them from their ancestral land through evictions. He presented the community protocol development process, highlighting the participatory nature of the process. The Ogiek people, he reported, have become more aware of their rights over biological and genetic resources and become involved in forest rehabilitation. He said that, even though the government has not recognized the Ogiek’s claim to the Mau Forest, the community protocol would continue to play an important role in advocating for their rights.
Jacob Wanyama, LPP, discussed the development of the Samburu community protocol in Kenay, focusing on the red Maasai sheep. He showed the importance of the sheep to the cultural identity of the community through various stages of life, including: birth, circumcision, transition to manhood, marriage and death. The sheep, he reported, have a unique genetic capability to cope with parasitism. He underscored that the community protocol, in English and Samburu languages, describes the Samburu peoples’ rights over the genetic resources of the red sheep.
Geetha Nayak, GIZ India, highlighted the contents of the guide on “Community Protocols for Pastoralists and Livestock Keepers.” The guide, she noted, aims to provide communities with a legal instrument for their claims for livestock breeds and management systems. She highlighted the main parts of community protocol development, including definitions, institutions involved, management practices, and national and international laws.
Moderator Lassen said all protocols are different and adapted to different communities. She discussed lessons learned, including the need to: address issues from communities’ perspectives; identify main objectives to clarify expectations; and respond to real opportunities and challenges.
In the ensuing discussion, the panelists responded to questions on: the definition of biocommerce; possible safeguards protecting community protocols; migration of communities into an area with an existing protocol and their compliance with its contents; and difficulties of developing a community protocol. Lassen stressed that local communities need to base their protocol on local rules and noted ways for community ownership of protocols, such as using an audio format. She stressed that participatory processes involving most of the community members takes time and that there must be a balance between effective representation, and in-depth community consultation.
Panelists during the event
Eva Fenster, ABS Initiative
Jazzy Rasolojaona, Natural Justice
Daniel Kobei, Ogiek Peoples’ Development Program, Kenya
Netzar Arreortua Martínez, Commissariat of Communal Goods, Capulalpam de Méndez, Mexico
Moderator Barbara Lassen, Natural Justice
Jacob Wanyama, League for Pastoral People and Endogenous Livestock Development and the LIFE Network
Translation is provided during the event
Geetha Nayak, GIZ India
Participants during the event
Participants ask questions
Two publications were launched at the event: Community Protocols for Pastoralists and Livestock Keepers, and Community Protocols in Africa: Lessons Learned for ABS Implementation
CONTACT
Tobias Dierks | tobias@giz.de
MORE INFORMATION
www.abs-initiative.info/topics/integrating-iplc/
naturaljustice.org/community-protocols/
China’s Sixth National Report on the Implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity
Presented by the Nanjing Institute of Environmental Science (NIES) and the Ministry of Ecology and Environment (MEE), China
Chengshou Bai, Ministry of Ecology and Environment, China, presents China’s Sixth National Report to Cristiana Paşca Palmer, CBD Executive Secretary
This side event, moderated by Yulin Fu, MEE, China, launched China’s Sixth National Report to provide a snapshot of accomplishments, strategies for protecting China’s biodiversity, and efforts towards achieving the Aichi Biodiversity Targets.
Chengshou Bai, MEE, China, welcomed participants to the event, underscoring China’s efforts in promoting an “Ecological Civilization” integrated within every aspect of China’s social, political and economic development. He noted that since becoming a party to the CBD, China has increased its protected area coverage to 18% of its total land area and has implemented a series of important ecological projects, including: returning farmland to forest; returning grazing land to grassland; and establishing a national monitoring network for biodiversity. He also highlighted China’s enhanced conservation efforts in improving the status of rare and endangered species, including the giant panda, the Tibetan antelope, and the Père David’s deer.
Cristiana Paşca Palmer, CBD Executive Secretary, congratulated China for its leadership role in preserving biodiversity and for taking the presidency of the CBD in 2020 at a critical moment for the world. She stressed that, by 2030, the world must “bend the curve” of biodiversity loss or risk permanent and irreversible consequences. She highlighted China’s success in achieving the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, including on restoring degraded ecosystems, promoting carbon sequestration and implementing its National Report. She concluded by noting China’s leadership role in setting new conservation targets and in shaping the Post-2020 Biodiversity Framework.
Yulin Fu, MEE, China, discussed the process of preparing China’s Sixth National Report, explaining that the National Committee for Biodiversity Conservation led the process and described that the report was concluded in one year and four months, with the involvement of around 30 ministries, departments and research institutions. She also explained that the report follows CBD’s templates and is supported by a new process for national data gathering. She noted that an expert consultation reviewed the draft report, supported by technical workshops, and eventually approved and translated it into English in October 2018.
Dandan Yu, MEE, China, spoke on the indicator system of China’s Sixth National Report, focusing on the principles that informed them. She recalled that Article 26 of the CBD and COP Decision XIII/27 require an increase in capacity to produce a “high quality, gender-responsive, data-driven Sixth National Report.” She explained that the development of the Chinese national indicators should: cover all components of biodiversity; be objectively and timely in reflecting changes; be easy to understand and have wide acceptance; balance accuracy and low-cost; be sensitive to changes; and be internationally usable, while responsive to national circumstances. She shared that some indicators have uniquely Chinese characteristics, such as: timber standing stock; percentage of surface water bodies with good quality water; and the number of sites with original habitats for wild agricultural plants.
Haigen Xu, NIES and MEE, China, presented on China’s biodiversity conservation actions and achievements, progress towards the Aichi Targets, and experiences gained. He highlighted China’s megadiverse status, noting that the number of known species and sub-species is 92,302. He reported that, inter alia:
there are 3,767 species of threatened species in China's higher plants, accounting for 10.9% of the total number of species assessed;
the number of threatened species of vertebrates in China is 932, accounting for 21.4% of the total number of species assessed; and
there are 176 species of threatened amphibians, with a threat ratio of 43.1%, which is higher than the global percentage of threatened amphibians (30.6%).
He announced that since 2015, China has adopted a series of policies related to biodiversity conservation, which offer innovative efforts in overall arrangements towards the development of an “Ecological Civilization” through biodiversity conservation. These policies include: recommendations for accelerating “Ecological Civilization” development; recommendations on improving ecological compensation mechanisms; and proposals for mechanisms for wetland conservation and restoration. On further actions, he stated that policy measures for conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity require refinement, with priorities to be given to the conservation of vulnerable grassland and marine ecosystems.
In the wrap-up discussion, participants identified, inter alia: the potential to modify targets after 2020 based on national experiences; main challenges faced in developing the report; China’s plans to continue to increase the amounts of data available for future biodiversity reporting; clarifications on data referring to China’s increasing ecological footprint, yet improving biodiversity indicators; and specific indicators that were effective in attracting political support.
Chengshou Bai, Ministry of Ecology and Environment, China
Yulin Fu, Ministry of Ecology and Environment, China
Cristiana Paşca Palmer, CBD Executive Secretary
Dandan Yu, Ministry of Ecology and Environment, China
Haigen Xu, Ministry of Ecology and Environment, China
Participants ask questions during the event
Participants read the newly launched report
CONTACT
Xu Haigen | xhg@nies.org
MORE INFORMATION
www.nies.org
Around the Venue
Traditional Egyptian artefacts on display around the venue sharing stories of Egypt's history
A model of an environmental cultural center using sustainability elements
A photography display highlighting the work done by indigenous people around the world to protect biodiversity
ENBOTS selected side events coverage for 10 December 2016
UN Biodiversity Conference 2016 (Cancún)
The following event was covered by IISD Reporting Services on Saturday, 10 December 2016:
Signature and Launch of the Yucatan Peninsula Agreement on Sustainability for 2030 (ASPY)
Biodiversity-Related Development Finance: Towards Better Tracking
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.
Signature and Launch of the Yucatan Peninsula Agreement on Sustainability for 2030 (ASPY)
Presented by the Nature Conservancy (TNC), the Mexican REDD+ Programme, and the Latin American Conservation Council (LACC)
At this event, moderated by Antonio Godoy, State of Quintana Roo, the state governments of Campeche, Quintana Roo and Yucatán in Mexico, together with civil society organizations (CSOs) and over 50 companies committed to green growth and conservation of the Yucatán Peninsula by signing the ASPY.
Aurelio Ramos, Director, TNC Latin America, noted the need to increase food production by 2050 due to population increase, stressing that Latin America is central to addressing this challenge. He underscored the need for private-public partnerships to meet the joint challenges of development and conservation, lauding the partnerships represented within the ASPY. He highlighted that the ASPY aims to, inter alia: achieve zero deforestation by 2030; restore two million hectares of degraded lands; and promote Mayan biocultural landscapes on over five million hectares of land.
Rafael Alejandro Moreno Cárdenas, Governor of Campeche, said that the signing represented a step forward in the preservation of the YucatánPeninsula and in biodiversity mainstreaming. Calling the Agreement the “start of the green wave” of Mexico, he stressed that the ASPY will address not only forestry, but also marine and coastal, as well as terrestrial, biodiversity. He highlighted the region’s biocultural heritage, as well as the numerous protected areas, stating that Campeche has the largest mangrove area in the country.
Rolando Zapata Bello, Governor of Yucatán, underscored that the region’s natural wealth is a “treasure,” pointing to the threats posed by climate change. He highlighted that the ASPY is an important strategy for the region and will be essential in achieving zero deforestation, and addressing sustainable consumption and production. He drew attention to Mexico’s commitment to the Paris Agreement and the Cancún Declaration on Mainstreaming Biodiversity, stressing that the Yucatán Peninsula will be central to achieving both these agreements.
In a keynote address, Carlos Manuel Joaquín González, Governor of Quintana Roo, noted that the signing of the ASPY will drive green growth in the Yucatán Peninsula, and announced that this is the first regional agreement on conservation and sustainable growth in Mexico. He stressed that the ASPY is an opportunity to elaborate new green development strategies, and called for the coordination of efforts in order to meet the strategic goals set out in the Agreement, including on agriculture, forestry, fisheries, coastal zone management, ecosystem conservation, water, sustainable markets and sustainable tourism. He welcomed private sector partnerships to attain long-term sustainability represented in the ASPY, expressing confidence that other entrepreneurs and private sector actors will also join the Agreement.
The Governors then signed the ASPY, which consists of two interlinked agreements: the collaboration Agreement between the three states; and the Private Sector Declaration.
The dais during the event
Aurelio Ramos, Director, TNC Latin America, pointed to the ASPY as a tool to attract resources from the global community and the private sector in order to promote green growth in the Yucatán Peninsula.
Rafael Alejandro Moreno Cárdenas, Governor of Campeche, stressed that “we need to leave a better world for our children,” underlining the need for the youth to be involved in the green growth agenda.
Rolando Zapata Bello, Governor of Yucatan, welcomed the ASPY, highlighting that it will make the region attractive to new investments that promote sustainable growth.
Carlos Manuel Joaquín González, Governor of Quintana Roo, promised that he would “restore one coral for each vote,” and called for private investment in green development.
(L-R): Rolando Zapata Bello, Governor of Yucatan, Carlos Manuel Joaquín González, Governor of Quintana Roo, and Rafael Alejandro Moreno Cárdenas, Governor of Campeche, sign the ASPY.
Contact:
Nadia Peimbert (Coordinator)
| npeimbert@tnc.org
More Information:
http://www.nature.org/ggc
http://ccpy.gob.mx/agenda-regional/aspy2030.php
Biodiversity-Related Development Finance: Towards Better Tracking
Presented by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
This workshop, moderated by Gabriela Blatter, Federal Office of Environment, Switzerland, engaged participants in discussing current methods of tracking biodiversity-related financing.
Markus Lehmann, Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Secretariat, highlighted the challenges faced by parties in meeting the financial mobilization targets, noting that mainstreaming biodiversity into all sectors makes financial reporting difficult, and pointed to the additional challenge on reporting private assistance.
In the first session, on approaches to tracking biodiversity-related development finance, Galina Alova, OECD, presented the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) Creditor Reporting System (CRS) used to monitor development finance targeting the three Rio Conventions. She described the Rio Markers, which are used to capture data to track financing of Rio Conventions’-related activities and goals. She reported bilateral biodiversity-related official development assistance (ODA) of US$8.7 billion in 2014-2015, with the top five contributors being Germany, the US, Japan, France and the EU. In a brief discussion, participants noted difficulties in ensuring data consistency due to the qualitative nature of the Rio Marker.
Luis Antonio Sánchez Perales, Ministry of Environment, Peru, spoke about his country’s approach to tracking biodiversity-related expenditure, stressing that “we must know how much goes to salaries and how much goes to trees and birds.” He presented an online platform where data on both public and private expenditure for biodiversity-related finance can be tracked, noting that an average of US$500 million was spent between 2010 and 2014 on waste management, waste water treatment and in situ conservation of potato breeds.
Bart Missinne, European Commission (EC), highlighted that the EU’s strategy for “biodiversity-proof” development cooperation must ensure that biodiversity is considered in: strategic environmental assessments, to identify and prevent undesired side effects of development projects on biodiversity, and through mitigation measures from development projects; and sector-wide planning, such as for health and infrastructure projects. He demonstrated how the EU has doubled total biodiversity-related ODA to developing countries by 116% against a baseline of average spending from 2006-2010.
Ferdinand Mwapopi, Ministry of Environment and Tourism, Namibia, discussed his country’s experience in tracking national biodiversity expenditure. He cited the use of the UN Development Programme (UNDP) Biodiversity Finance Initiative (BIOFIN) approach for public-private expenditure reviews for biodiversity and costing biodiversity-related projects. He reported progress in disaggregating expenditure data based on sources and activities, noting that biodiversity expenditure was highest in 2010, receiving 2.4% of total government expenditure, and lauded the substantial increase in Germany’s contribution since 2015.
Blatter, on behalf of Eva Mayerhofer, European Investment Bank, spoke on the development of a joint methodology to track biodiversity-related multilateral development finance for multilateral development banks (MDBs). She reported reduced biodiversity-related funding and called on MDB member countries to channel more funding towards biodiversity. She noted that the OECD tracking methodology follows a process-related approach to assess the biodiversity relevance of funding, adding that tracking positive impacts of funding on ecosystem management is preferable to tracking financial flows.
In the second session on how the DAC CRS can be used to track biodiversity-related ODA, Guillaume Simon, OECD, presented a biodiversity-related development finance database of the OECD using three examples of project reporting to illustrate information on, inter alia, donor commitments, project descriptions, timelines and geographic specification. He noted the database uses the Rio Markers to specify whether principal objectives of the project are biodiversity-related. He also said the data could be exported and that a data visualization tool, which illustrates project details, can be accessed at: http://stats.oecd.org
Armida Andres, Biodiversity Management Bureau, the Philippines, discussed her country’s experience, noting concerns on the use of the Rio Markers since most projects do not fall directly in the categories proposed. She recommended feedback mechanisms between donor recipient countries and the CRS to refine these categories and to include differentiation of project implementation at national, subnational and local levels. She noted that tracking biodiversity expenditure is contributing to reporting to National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs). She underscored her country’s preference for its own public expenditure review processes, saying the EU markers were “oversimplified.”
Matthias Krause, Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), Germany, reported on a BMZ report ‘Committed to Biodiversity,’ which tracks Germany’s international cooperation in support of the CBD. He said bilateral funding is channeled through BMZ and the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB). He noted that the report focuses on international biodiversity finance, which promotes sustainable production and consumption patterns and ensures biodiversity and ecosystem services are taken into account in economic and political decision-making processes.
In a lively two-part discussion, participants discussed, inter alia: the complexities of reporting particularly against the backdrop of mainstreaming biodiversity; the need to ensure that ODA actually benefits biodiversity; the importance of sharing information to avoid overlaps and improve transparency; the role of BIOFIN in reporting; the need to use biodiversity-relevant coefficients to mainstream biodiversity at the national level; and the need to consider biodiversity finance related to private lands. They also spoke about, inter alia: how to account for the difference between what is reflected in project proposals and what is implemented on the ground; how to practically track financing in the achievement of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets; and the danger of basing the ability to achieve all the Targets on Aichi Biodiversity Target 20 (resource mobilization). They also highlighted: the extent of biodiversity-related projects on the database; the importance of assisting recipient countries in using the OECD reporting database; the potential to bridge the gap between the use of datasets in reporting biodiversity-related financing and transparently communicating how this reporting aligns with national commitments for the Rio Conventions; and the use of “commitments” versus “disbursements” in reporting national efforts for biodiversity conservation.
Moderator Gabriela Blatter, Federal Office of Environment, Switzerland
Markus Lehmann, CBD Secretariat, welcomed country perspectives on biodiversity-related financial reporting.
Galina Alova, OECD, said Africa accounted for the highest share of bilateral biodiversity-related ODA commitments in 2014-15, amounting to 31%.
Luis Antonio Sánchez Perales, Ministry of Environment, Peru, noted that “it is not how much we spend on biodiversity, but what we do with the funding.”
Bart Missinne, EC, described how the EU uses performance indicators to track and report on biodiversity investment.
Grégoire Dubois, EC, during ensuing discussions.
Matti Nummelin, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Finland
Ferdinand Mwapopi, Ministry of Environment and Tourism, Namibia, said Namibia has been tracking biodiversity-related funding since 2006.
Guillaume Simon, OECD Development Co-operation Directorate, described the content of an online database to track biodiversity-related development finance.
Matthias Krause, BMZ, said that since 2012, projects that include the Rio Markers are considered in a country’s biodiversity-related bilateral financing.
Contact:
Galina Alova (Coordinator)
| Galina.Alova@oecd.org
Nicolina Lamhauge (Coordinator)
| Nicolina.Lamhauge@oecd.org
More Information:
http://oe.cd/RioMarkers
Une année d'apprentissage pour les négociations environnementales
Négocier des accords mondiaux sur l'action climatique, la restauration de la biodiversité, le contrôle de la pollution plastique et d'autres crises environnementales n'est pas facile dans le meilleur des cas - et 2021 en était loin. Pourtant, il y a eu des gains alors que le monde naviguait sur des vagues changeantes de COVID-19 et un partage inégal des vaccins.
Notre rapport L'état des négociations environnementales mondiales 2021 explore les faits saillants et les points faibles de l'année écoulée. La lettre d'ouverture de la Dre Jennifer Allan met cette année tumultueuse en contexte tout en envisageant les jalons de négociation possibles en 2022.
Il y a de l'espoir en 2021
La pandémie COVID-19 a causé des ravages en 2020, y compris des plans visant à intensifier la coopération internationale sur l'action climatique, la restauration de la biodiversité, la réduction des inégalités et un certain nombre d'autres crises. Pourtant, Selwin Hart, Conseiller Spécial du Secrétaire-Général des Nations Unies sur l'action Climatique, ouvre notre rapport sur L'état de la gouvernance mondiale de l'environnement 2020 avec optimisme.
L'équipe du Earth Negotiations Bulletin vous invite à réfléchir à ses propos, puis à plonger dans notre analyse des leçons de 2020 en diplomatie environnementale et comment nous reconstruisons l'élan à l'ère du coronavirus.