Opinion by Daud Khan, Stephen Akester (rome / london)
Inter Press Service
ROME / LONDON, Jul 05 (IPS) – Over the last past several decades marine fish stocks worldwide have been under intense threat. There have been many high sounding declarations and agreements to reduce catch effort, to use more environmentally friendly fishing gear, to prevent illegal fishing and to impose “closed seasons” to allow stocks to recover.
However, these declarations have often been disregarded and ignored, particularly when it comes to the open oceans that are beyond national jurisdictions and are the common heritage of all mankind. And the main culprits have been the developed countries, with their large and sophisticated fishing fleets and super market consumers which instead of being cutback, continue to receive political support and public subsidies.
The story of the yellowfin tuna in the Indian Ocean well illustrates what has been happening.
Stephen Akester
The Yellowfin tuna is one of the most majestic fish in the oceans. It can grow to 1.8 meters in length and up to 150 kgs in weight living 10 to 14 years. It is a top predator and moves with a grace and elegance that is sheer poetry in movement.
As juveniles, Yellowfin normally hunt in surface waters in packs although, when they mature, they change their habits and tend to be solitary. They live in tropical and sub-tropical waters and there used to be large stocks in the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Oceans. But that was before Europeans, Asians and Americans discovered tinned tuna was cheap, and before the Japanese developed technology to very rapidly freeze freshly caught tuna for the Sashimi market in Japan where prize cuts can go for up to hundreds, if not thousands, of US$ per kilo.
During the 1970s and 80s the Europeans, Americans and the Japanese overfished the Atlantic tuna stocks. Their fishing fleets, mainly Spanish and French with several vessels flying “flags of convenience” – then moved to the Indian Ocean. These boats are floating factories with modern radar, sophisticated fishing gear and huge freezing capacity. Over time, more aggressive techniques are being introduced such as drifting Fish Attracting Devises (FADs) -small floating rafts that facilitate the growth of algae and seaweed and which in turn attract surface swimming tunas, skipjack and juvenile yellowfin. FADs, make it easier to increase catches and reduce costs but also are highly destructive as not only facilitate the catching of skipjack, the target species, but also young yellowfin tuna.
The overfishing of yellowfin tuna has triggered various attempts to reduce effort and introduce better management. Spearheading this effort in the Indian Ocean is the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC), set up by FAO in 1996 to ensure, the conservation and optimum utilization of tuna stocks in the Indian Ocean. However, the IOTC is not well designed for handling the complexities and political pressures that stand in the way of equitable and sustainable fishing effort in the Indian Ocean. In particular, key aspects such as its membership and distribution of catch entitlement among countries, are deeply flawed.
Daud Khan
The Commission is “open to any state that has coasts within the Indian Ocean region” – this is fine and as it should be. But it is also open to states that have coasts on “adjacent seas”, “as well as any state that fishes for tuna in the Indian Ocean region.” This wording has allowed membership of the IOTC of non-coastal countries such as South Korea, China, Japan, Spain, France and the UK, as well as the EU.
Moreover, the division of allowable catch is based on how much each country fished in the past. This results in the poorer coastal states getting a small proportion of the allowable catch as compared to the richer countries that have been operating large, modern vessels capable of overfishing in the Indian Ocean since the mid-1980s. The outcome of this highly inequitable strategy is that 45% of the allowable catch of yellowfin tuna in the Indian Ocean is allocated to the EU. And the developing coastal countries have not only seen their national fisheries impacted by competition from the developed countries, they are not even entitled to any license or royalty fees from oceanic fisheries adjacent to their Exclusive Economic Zones.
Furthermore, the IOTC has been given a hamstrung decisions making process. Decisions are by consensus which prevents fundamental reforms such as limits on purse seiners or on drifting FADs. And when coastal state attempt is made to push matters to the vote, such as was the case for a proposal to ban drifting FADs, procedural issues prevent them for being adopted.
And so it goes on. Rich countries take the lion’s share of the allowable catch of yellowfin tuna, depriving the coastal states and their artisanal fishing communities of all but crumbs. They also systematically sabotage attempts to place restrictions on fishing and introduce more eco-friendly fishing practices.
As in many other areas, from climate change to the use of coal and the transition to green energy, there is much rhetoric from developed countries but efforts to change the system are not yet working.
Stephen Akester is an independent fisheries specialist working in Indian Ocean coastal countries for past 40 years…
Daud Khan works as consultant and advisor for various Governments and international agencies. He has degrees in Economics from the LSE and Oxford – where he was a Rhodes Scholar; and a degree in Environmental Management from the Imperial College of Science and Technology. He lives partly in Italy and partly in Pakistan.
Shaban Mwinji, a community scout ranger, in Ukunda, Kenya. Standing in a restored Mangrove Forest by Mikoko Pamoja. Mikoko Pamoja is a community-led mangrove conservation and restoration project based in southern Kenya and the world’s first blue carbon project. It aims to provide long-term incentives for mangrove protection and restoration through community involvement and benefit.
by Juliet Morrison (toronto)
Inter Press Service
Toronto, Jul 04 (IPS) – Africa’s unique natural capital assets were the center of conversation at the 2022 Africa Green Economy Conference. Held in a hybrid format from June 27 to 30, participants gathered to discuss the value of nature in Africa’s economy and call for more nature-positive ventures in development.
Hosted by the Green Growth Knowledge Partnership (GGKP), Capitals Coalition, Green Economy Coalition (GEC), and World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), the conference featured virtual opening and closing plenary sessions and themed in-person national conversations around the continent. These sessions took place in South Africa, Uganda, Gabon, and Mozambique.
Participants stressed that the conference was coming at a unique moment in the face of several global economic shocks affecting Africa: climate change, biodiversity loss, and geopolitical challenges.
Moderator Kevin Urama, Acting Chief Economist and Vice President for Economic Governance and Knowledge Management, African Development Bank addresses the 2022 Africa Green Economy Conference. Credit: Juliet Morrison/IPS
“The failure of the current system’s existing global cooperation mechanism to meet these challenges equitably and sustainably is leading to the current calls for the review of the global system,” moderator Kevin Urama, Acting Chief Economist and Vice President for Economic Governance and Knowledge Management, African Development Bank said.
Oliver Greenfield, Convenor, Green Economy Coalition, argued that the limited progress on environmental action resulted from policymakers’ continual emphasis on economic gains above all else.
“We accept that development is the priority and environment is the trade-off. That’s largely what’s happened for 50 years Avoidance of crisis is not the best investment model for most finance ministers, we know that,” he said.
Greenfield suggested policymakers consider investments that contribute to the best outcome in multiple areas—environmental, social, and economic.
Considering the environment alongside the economy would be very beneficial for Africa, stressed Dr Mao Amis, Co-founder and Executive Director of the African Center for Green Economy.
He added that in most African countries, natural capital accounts for 30-50 percent of their total wealth. In Sub-Saharan Africa, over 70 percent of people depend on forests and woodlands for their livelihoods.
“The value of nature in the economy is undisputed. We are so intricately linked to nature that we cannot disassociate our relationship with nature, and the more we recognize that, the more we can make strides in achieving the role of nature in the economy,” he said.
Tapping into nature—and pursuing nature-positive investments—is seen as an avenue for wealth creation by policymakers.
Ligia Noronha, UN Assistant Secretary-General and Head of UNEP, New York Office, views nature-positive investments as a great risk mitigation instrument and a key investment strategy for the continent.
“This is absolutely obvious, but it has perhaps not been invested in sufficiently. Africa has a tremendous amount of natural capital stocks both in minerals and biodiversity, and this can be a tremendous asset for the growth of Africa,” she said.
She added that natural capital could also create many green jobs for Africa’s population.
Multi-stakeholder engagement, however, is needed to center nature’s place in national economic development.
Dr Gabi Teren, Programme Manager, Endangered Wildlife Trust, highlighted that greater skills and communication across sectors are needed to drive action on environmental targets.
“Ultimately, without the companies being involved at all levels, there aren’t enough experts necessarily to have the skills to apply these tools. To really have a truly green economy, we have to have far better communication between the private sector, between , between environmental practitioners, and between policymakers,” she said.
The involvement of the finance sector, in particular, is crucial.
According to a presentation by the World Resources Institute, access to financing and the limited participation of the private sector are two of the biggest challenges to implementing nature-based solutions (NBS) in Africa.
Nature-based solutions are initiatives involving nature that solve societal challenges while building up natural ecosystems and biodiversity. For example, conserving mangrove forests can protect homes from the impacts of storms and provide nurseries for fish.
NBS can help fulfill critical infrastructure needs, explained Lizzie Marsters, Environmental Finance Manager, World Resources Institute. According to her, NBS can meet 12 percent of Africa’s 90 trillion US dollar infrastructure needs by 2035.
Marsters situated NBS as pivotal to incorporating sustainability and resilience into infrastructure investments.
“When we think about NBS, we think that there’s tremendous opportunity here to re-evaluate how we think about public budgets, how they are spent, and increased private sector participation,” Marsters said.
Closing the conference, moderator Kevin Urama emphasized Africa’s integral relationship with nature.
“Africa can and should take the lead on this … Africa’s culture has always been nature sensitive,” he said.
Natural capital ought to be intertwined in most development planning, he added.
“Let’s work on natural capital, how to invest in natural capital, how to value natural capital and factor it into our decision making, into our national development planning,” he said.
The municipality of Puchuncaví in central Chile turns greens after days of rain, but next to it are the smokestacks of the industries located in this development pole that turned this town and the neighboring town of Quintero into “sacrifice zones”, with the emission of pollutants that damaged the environment and the health of local residents, which will finally begin to be dismantled. CREDIT: Orlando Milesi / IPS
by Orlando Milesi (quintero, chile)
Inter Press Service
QUINTERO, Chile, Jul 04 (IPS) – A health crisis that in 20 days left 500 children poisoned in the adjacent municipalities of Quintero and Puchuncaví triggered the decision to close the Ventanas Smelter, in a first concrete step towards putting an end to a so-called “sacrifice zone” in Chile.
The measure was supported by President Gabriel Boric who reiterated his determination to move towards a green government.
The decision by the state-owned National Copper Corporation (Codelco), the world’s leading copper producer, was announced on Jun. 17, following a temporary stoppage of the plant eight days earlier, and was opposed only by the powerful Federation of Copper Workers.
The union reacted by calling a strike, which ended after two days, when the leaders agreed to discuss an organized closure of the smelter, which will take place within a maximum of five years. The smelting and refining facility will be replaced by another modern plant at a site yet to be determined.
The smelter is an outdated facility that has suffered repeated episodes of sulfur dioxide pollution, one of the chemicals causing the deteriorating health of the inhabitants of Quintero, a city of 26,000, and Puchuncaví, population 19,000.
In the last three years Codelco invested 152 million dollars to modernize the smelter but without success, admitted Codelco’s president, Máximo Pacheco.
Pacheco argued that the closure was due to “the climate of uncertainty that has existed for decades, which is very bad for the workers, their families and the community.”
Sara Larraín, executive director of the non-governmental organization Sustainable Chile, said the definitive closure of the plant does justice.
“It is the first step for Quintero and Puchuncaví to get out of the category of damage that is called a ‘sacrifice zone’ where for decades the emission standards have been exceeded,” she told IPS.
“Sacrifice zones” are areas that have suffered excessive environmental damage due to industrial pollution. Residents of poor communities in these areas bear a disproportionate burden of pollution, toxic waste and heavy industry.
The back of the Ventanas Smelter reveals the poor operating conditions of the copper processing facility in Chile, which will be replaced by a new one within a maximum of five years at an as yet undefined site. CREDIT: Orlando Milesi / IPS
The two adjacent municipalities, 156 kilometers west of Santiago, qualify as a sacrifice zone, as do Mejillones, Huasco and Tocopilla, in the north, and Coronel in southern Chile, because the right to live in a pollution-free environment is violated in these areas.
In Quintero and Puchuncaví the main source of sulfur dioxide is the Ventanas Smelter, responsible for 61.8 percent of emissions of this element, causing widespread health problems.
Fisherman-diver forced to move away returns to Quintero
Carlos Vega, a fishermen’s union leader in Quintero, is the third generation of divers in his family.
“My grandfather, a fisherman, taught me how to make fishing nets. He had a restaurant on the coast,” he told IPS, visibly moved, adding that his two brothers are also fishermen and divers, who catch shellfish among the rocks along the coast.
“Fishing was profitable here. We were doing well and making money,” he said.
He added that people are well-organized in the area. “At one time we were the largest producer” of seafood and fish for central Chile, “because we had management and harvesting areas. But they had to close because of the pollution,” he said, describing the poverty that befell the local fishers in the late 1980s.
Then the health authorities found copper, cadmium and arsenic in the local seafood and banned its harvest. As a result, the small fishermen’s bay where they keep their boats and sell part of their catch lost their customers.
The crisis forced him to move to the south where he worked for 15 years as a professional diver in a salmon company.
Carlos Vega, a fisherman, diver and trade union leader, and Kata Alonso, spokeswoman for Women of Sacrifice Zones in Resistance, pose for a photo in the bay of Quintero, during the celebrations in that town and in neighboring Puchuncaví for the announcement of the definitive closure of the Ventanas Smelter of the state-owned Codelco copper company, whose polluting emissions have damaged the local environment and made local residents sick for decades. CREDIT: Orlando Milesi / IPS
Today, back in Quintero, with two sons who are engineers and a daughter who is a teacher, he continues to dive, albeit sporadically. He participates along with 27 fishermen in the management area granted to the north of the sacrifice zone, where they extract shellfish quotas two or three times a year.
“The social fabric was broken down here, that is the hardest thing that has happened to us,” said Vega.
Codelco is not the only polluter
Codelco is the main exporter in Chile, a long narrow country of 19.1 million people sandwiched between the Pacific Ocean and the Andes Mountains where the big mines are located. In 2021 it produced 1.7 million tons of copper and its pre-tax income totaled nearly 7.4 billion dollars.
“Chile is the leading global copper producer and the world is going to become more electric every day,” said Pacheco. “And copper is the conductor par excellence, there is no substitute. We have to be ready for copper to be increasingly in demand in this energy transition.”
The president of Codelco emphasized that the wealth does not lie in exporting concentrate, which has 26 percent copper, but anodes with 99 percent purity, “and for that we need a smelter and a refinery.”
Young residents of Quintero and Puchuncaví came out in a drum line to celebrate the closure of the Ventanas Smelter and participate in a Festival for Life which lasted eight hours and was joined by a hundred local and national artists. Thousands of people gathered in the square which is on the edge of Quintero on Saturday, Jun. 25. CREDIT: Orlando Milesi / IPS
But the smelter, he explained, must be modern and not like Ventanas, which only captures 95 percent of the gases released. In the last three years, Codelco has lost 50 million dollars in the Ventanas smelter, which has a production scale of 420,000 tons. A modern Flash furnace produces 1.5 million tons and captures 99.8 percent of the gases.
The Ventanas Smelter employs 348 people and another 400 in associated companies. Half of them do not live in the area but in Viña del Mar, Villa Alemana or Quilpué, towns that are also in the region of Valparaíso, but are located far from the pollution.
The smelter is part of an industrial cluster that includes 16 companies.
After the latest health crisis, the authorities decreed contingency plans in plants and maritime terminals of six companies for emitting volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and applied an Atmospheric Prevention and Decontamination Plan.
Four coal-fired thermoelectric plants also pollute the area, one of which was definitively closed in December 2020 and another that was to be closed last May, although the measure was postponed.
According to environmentalist Larraín, when the smelter and the four thermoelectric plants are closed “better standards can be achieved, at least with respect to sulfur dioxide and heavy metals,” in Quintero and Puchuncaví.
View from the road of the Ventanas Smelter, in central Chile, which has been temporarily shut down since Jun. 9 and whose antiquated facilities will be permanently closed in a maximum of five years. They are adjacent to populated areas that have been turned into so-called “sacrifice zones” where local residents periodically suffer environmental and health emergencies due to sulfur dioxide fumes. CREDIT: Orlando Milesi / IPS
Kata Alonso, spokeswoman for the Mujeres en Zona de Sacrificio en Resistencia (Women in Sacrifice Zone in Resistance) collective, told IPS that “the prevention plan is good so that people don’t continue to be poisoned, so that they can breathe better, and so that the companies that pollute can close their doors, instead of the schools.
“There are companies that were built before the environmental law was passed that have not taken health measures. So what we are asking is for each company to be evaluated, and those that do not comply with the regulations must leave,” she said.
The repeated crises occur despite the fact that Chile’s environmental standards are below those of the World Health Organization (WHO).
For level 10 particulate matter, the mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets in the air, the ceiling in Chile is 150 milligrams per cubic meter (m3) and the WHO ceiling is 50.
For particulate matter 2.5 (fine inhalable particles), in Chile the limit is 50 milligrams per m3, while the WHO guideline is 25. And the Chilean ceiling for sulfur dioxide is 250 milligrams per m3 compared to the WHO’s limit of 20.
Three years ago, the Chilean Pediatric Society and the Chilean Medical Association requested that Chile raise its emission standards to WHO levels.
Part of the audience at the Festival for Life, which celebrated the closure of a copper smelter, that along with 15 other industrial plants turned the municipalities of Quintero and Puchuncaví into “sacrifice zones” in central Chile. Performances by musicians and other artists from around the country were interspersed with messages calling for a life free of pollution in the area. CREDIT: Orlando Milesi / IPS
Alonso the activist said that “my two neighbors died of cancer, whoever you ask in Puchuncaví has relatives who died of cancer. Today people are dying younger, breast and uterine cancer have increased in young women, and there are so many miscarriages.
“The statistic we have is that one in four children in Puchuncaví are born with severe neurological problems, down syndrome, autism. Here in Quintero there are two special education schools and many children with learning disabilities,” she said.
Larraín called for “government support for those who have been affected by irreversible diseases, asthma, lung cancer and others that have been proven to be caused by coal combustion and heavy metals.”
The Catholic University conducted a study using data on hospitalizations and mortality in Tocopilla, Mejillones, Huasco, Quintero and Puchuncaví.
“The rates for cardiovascular disease associated with industrial processes are clear. In some cases they are 900 percent higher. Calling them sacrifice zones is real, it refers to impacts that are occurring today,” said Larraín.
The environmentalist said it would be difficult to revive Quintero Bay “because it has a gigantic layer of coal at the bottom, dead phyto and zooplankton because water is used for cooling in industrial processes and is dumped back out with antialgaecides that kill marine life.”
She believes, however, that “over the years, the capacity for regeneration is possible, even in agriculture that has been lost due to sulfur dioxide emissions. There may also be a recovery in fishing and tourism.”
But Larraín demanded “a just transition that restores healthy levels and regenerates ecosystems so that local communities can sustain their economy in a healthy and ecologically balanced environment.”
An indigenous forest dweller in India’s Andhra Pradesh, inside a protected area, sells cashew nut seeds to visitors. Indigenous communities’ knowledge of biodiversity contributes to the work of IPBES, alongside science, says IPBES’ Executive Secretary. Credit: Manipadma Jena/IPS
by Manipadma Jena (new delhi)
Inter Press Service
New Delhi, Jul 03 (IPS) – IPS interviews Dr Anne Larigauderie, the Executive Secretary of IPBESSpeaking to IPS about the importance of biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people, Dr Anne Larigauderie, Executive Secretary of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), stressed the importance of moving from knowledge and policy silos to a more integrated approach to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), especially those related to food, water, health, climate change, and energy, which can only be achieved together with the two goals related to biodiversity.
Larigauderie said it was crucial to provide resources and build capacity in under-resourced developing countries where much of the remaining biodiversity is located. Financial resources were particularly needed, she said, to fund global biodiversity observing systems in order to monitor biodiversity in order to follow progress according to internationally agreed indicators and targets. She was speaking to IPS ahead of the ninth session of the IPBES Plenary (#IPBES9) in Bonn, Germany.
IPBES harnesses the best expertise from across a wide range of scientific disciplines and knowledge communities to provide policy-relevant evidence and knowledge, thus helping to catalyse the implementation of knowledge-based policies at all levels of government, the private sector and civil society.
In the face of the worsening climate crisis and rapid biodiversity loss, IPBES’ role has been growing in importance since it was established in 2012.
IPBES’ first thematic assessment, on Pollinators, Pollination and Food Production (2016) brought a global focus to issues relating to the protection and importance of all pollinators, and has since resulted in a number of strong policy changes and actions globally, nationally and locally.
At #IPBES9, 139 member governments are expected to approve two crucial new scientific assessment reports, one regarding the sustainable use of wild species and the other regarding nature’s diverse values and valuation.
Four years in development, the ‘Sustainable Use Assessment’ has been written by 85 leading experts, drawing on more than 6,200 references, while the ‘Values Assessment’ has 82 top expert authors, drawing on more than 13,000 references.
An indigenous forest dweller in India’s Andhra Pradesh, inside a protected area, sells cashew nut seeds to visitors. Indigenous communities’ knowledge of biodiversity contributes to the work of IPBES, alongside science, says IPBES’ Executive Secretary. Credit: Manipadma Jena/IPS
Excerpts of the interview follow:
Inter Press Service (IPS): IPBES provides policy-relevant knowledge to catalyse the implementation of policies at all levels, including awareness-raising among the public. What outcome do you expect from #IPBES9?
Anne Larigauderie (AL): We expect to have three major outcomes. Two new reports will be submitted for approval and are planned for release from #IPBES9. One is on the values and valuation of nature and the other is on the sustainable use of wild species. A third major outcome of the meeting is expected to be a decision about starting a new report on business and biodiversity, which would be produced in a couple of years.
IPS: How significant are these new reports’ findings for biodiversity conservation in particular, and more broadly for achieving a range of biodiversity-related SDGs, including food security and climate change? You have mentioned elsewhere that climate science may be working in a silo and not, ideally, together with biodiversity goals. How are IPBES scientific data-based reports helping bring working synergy to these critically interlinked SDGs?
AL: You really put your finger on a very major issue and message that IPBES has been trying to advance.
One of the key conclusions of the IPBES Global Assessment on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services was that with the current loss of biodiversity and degradation of nature, we are not going to achieve the two most directly biodiversity-related SDGs: 14 and 15. We will also miss a number of the other goals related to the production of food, water quality, health and climate change.
With the ongoing overuse of pesticides, loss in soil biodiversity and in pollinators, among others, we will for example not be able to reach SDG-2 on zero hunger.
With current high rates of deforestation, land degradation, and the overuse of fertilisers, we also cannot reach SDG-13 – to take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts – because all of the actions that I just described, are either contributing to greenhouse gas emissions or reducing the capacity of natural ecosystems to mitigate against climate change.
Deforestation also threatens SDG-3 related to good health. So, protecting biodiversity is not only necessary for conserving nature, but it also really is about reaching all of those other key SDGs and protecting all of nature’s other contributions to people as well.
IPS: How can IPBES ensure wild species, hugely important but still largely under-appreciated, are sustainably used?
AL: Based on the latest scientific data, IPBES assessments inform decision-making. Then it is up to governments and a diverse set of actors to act.
IPBES’ 2016 report on the status of pollinators and the impact on food security has informed quite a lot of new legislation around the world. It triggered a new UN Food and Agriculture (FAO) international initiative on pollinators, for instance. All this contributes to reducing the loss of pollinators. We hope for a similar level of impact from the report on the sustainable use of wild species once it has been released.
IPS: How effectively and urgently are countries implementing the IPBES-informed policies that would result in much-needed transformative changes for reaching biodiversity targets?
AL: Clearly, not enough. The IPBES Global Assessment of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services concluded in 2019, that good progress had been achieved towards components of only four out of the 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) to be achieved by 2020. Because of the pandemic, the 15th session of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP15), initially scheduled for 2020 has been rescheduled for December 2022. This is of course having an impact on many policies, which are related to the global agenda, including at the national level.
IPS: What kinds of things would the IPBES scientific community think are still needed globally to enable much greater information flow, robust databases and wider involvement of the scientific community?
AL: What we do not have currently for biodiversity is a global biodiversity observing system. The climate change community has had a Global Climate Observing System ever since the Climate Change Convention started.
As part of this system, governments have agreed on a set of essential climate variables (for example, water temperature or salinity) which are measured by all governments thanks to in-situ and remotely sensed capacity, and shared in common databases, thus enabling scientists to project future trends in climate change, among others.
For biodiversity, there is no such global observing system agreed upon and funded by governments, with the proper capacity to monitor changes in biodiversity and thus know if policy implementation has succeeded or failed.
Currently, biodiversity data are collected according to different protocols, stored in separate databases, with many gaps (for example, taxa, geographic, temporal) and no operational capacity, such as dedicated agencies, to ensure the long-term collection and proper storage of data. These gaps are particularly important in developing countries, where much biodiversity lies.
We can formulate the hope that COP15 will emphasise the need for a proper intergovernmental global biodiversity observing system and pave the way for a mechanism to properly resource such a system.
IPS: Is data collection focusing more on flagship species and not enough on other species which may not be as ‘glamorous’ but are critical for healthy ecosystems?
AL: There is definitely a general bias in data collection. Over the years, particularly in the past, people have focused their efforts on the animals they saw, liked, found attractive or interesting – think about birds, which are the most observed animals in the world because they have always fascinated people. That bias is changing, however, as new technologies provide access to environments which were too small or too difficult to reach. Studying soil microflora and microfauna or deep ocean biodiversity is becoming possible, but many of these techniques remain expensive and thus require funds and capacity building.
IPS: Are countries doing enough to preserve and promote indigenous knowledge of biodiversity?
AL: IPBES has placed a major emphasis on indigenous knowledge in its work. It was one of our guiding principles right when IPBES started. The choice was made by governments to not only rely on scientific knowledge in our reports but also on knowledge from indigenous peoples and local communities. Over the years, IPBES has invested quite a lot in developing an inclusive approach and engaging more closely with indigenous communities.
This has made the IPBES reports richer, more diverse, and more relevant to everyone, including indigenous people, who have often managed to keep their environment in better shape than others – even though their territories are threatened by climate change and other issues for which they are often not responsible.
So yes, this is an area that IPBES strongly supports and values. IPBES has actually played quite an innovative role, and inspired others with its unique approach, including the climate change community.
IPS: Can you share with our readers some clues about future IPBES assessments?
AL: We are finishing a report on invasive alien species and their control, that is planned for launch next year and then we have two new reports that are already in progress. One is on the nexus between biodiversity, water, food and health. Here IPBES is looking at how to simultaneously achieve the Sustainable Development Goals related to food, water, and health and also touching upon climate and energy together with biodiversity and ecosystems. We want to really get out of the silo approach and inform people about the options that are available to reach these goals simultaneously and not one at the expense of the other.
The other assessment is on transformative change– where IPBES is exploring the type of values and behaviours which are the origin of the indirect and direct drivers of biodiversity loss, and how they could be transformed. These underlying causes of biodiversity loss are difficult to study and often neglected but they are the root causes of all the issues and need to be better understood to be properly addressed.
River and mountain in the interior of Dominica. IPBES’ collaboration with the private sector funds research and evidence that helps businesses make better-informed decisions to protect biodiversity. Credit: JAK/IPS
by Alison Kentish (dominica)
Inter Press Service
DOMINICA, Jul 01 (IPS) – With the world facing a biodiversity crisis, the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) is ramping up collaboration with private sector agencies and philanthropic foundations to support science-based, sustainable decision-making research.In the twin crises of climate change and biodiversity loss, the changing climate often eclipses the loss of ecosystems and species in funding and awareness.
IPBES is also now making headway in its goal of ensuring that biodiversity issues receive a similar level of priority and awareness to that of the climate crisis – as well as increased funding. An important part of this involves diversifying its funding sources to include the private sector and philanthropic organisations.
Funded primarily by voluntary contributions from its member governments, IPBES recently announced landmark collaborations with the luxury industry’s Kering Group, global fashion retailer H&M, the BNP Paribas Foundation, AXA Research Fund and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
“There is a dual purpose in the way we have engaged with the private sector over the last few years, both to find opportunities for their support and to engage them more closely with our work and its outcomes, so that they can use those in their own activities as well,” IPBES Head of Communications Rob Spaull told IPS.
To protect the objectivity and credibility of the Platform’s scientific research, formal collaboration with private sector companies follows a rigorous due diligence process that can take up to one year and is spearheaded by a legal team from the United Nations Environment Programme, which hosts the IPBES secretariat.
“We ensure that any kind of contribution that might be received from the private sector has no influence on the science that IPBES publishes. It was really important for our member States that we implement a model that protects the independence of the Platform,” Spaull said. “We accept contributions, but those contributions go into the IPBES Trust Fund.”
IPBES says the science is clear – businesses can be a vital part of the solution to the biodiversity crisis.
“We want to help the private sector move forward, and we want them on board with us. Our vision is that through their commitment to the work of IPBES, we also help the private sector to better understand and decrease its impact on biodiversity,” said Sonia Gueorguiev, IPBES Head of Development.
“More and more businesses are understanding how biodiversity is strongly interlinked with their core business, as companies rely on nature for resources, and they are recognising how important it is for them, both for ethical and economic reasons, to progressively incorporate biodiversity into their strategies and business models.”
IPBES has produced some of the world’s leading and most cited scientific reports, including the 2019 Global Assessment Report, which concluded that one million species of plants and animals face extinction, while human activity has significantly altered 75 percent of the earth’s land surface and over 60 percent of the ocean area.
For Spaull, IPBES’ budget pales in comparison to the Platform’s value, which includes the many years of voluntary expert contributions to every IPBES report.
“For example, on the Global Assessment Report, we did a bit of a back-of-the-envelope calculation and added up the different person-hours that were contributed free of charge by the experts over the three years that they worked on the report. It added up to more than 17 years of work, which was essentially a voluntary expert contribution to the Platform. The operating budget doesn’t actually reflect the immense value that is created by the Platform.”
These recent private sector collaborations are a solid foundation for IPBES’ funding diversification but represent a small fraction of what is needed for greater financial stability.
“They are a good start, but they are still a start. That is one of the reasons why we are looking forward to the future where hopefully, we will be able to expand into new sectors with other kinds of private sector and philanthropic organisations in a similar way,” said Spaull.
IPBES is already working on a number of new reports. Two highly anticipated assessments will be released in July, after four years of work, one on the Sustainable Use of Wild Species, and one on the Diverse Values and Valuation of Nature.
IPBES will publish another report next year on invasive alien species and their control and is already working on one about reaching simultaneously sustainable development goals related to biodiversity, water, food and health, as well as one on transformative change. A new business and biodiversity assessment is also planned that will assist businesses with assessing their impacts and dependence on biodiversity.
“The IPBES assessments enjoy strong global recognition and visibility,” Gueorguiev said. “As populations of plants and animals are shrinking and nature’s contributions to people diminish, individuals and providers of funds will make consumption and investment choices that will exclude those companies whose activities contribute to the decline of biodiversity. Public-private partnerships and collaborations are one of the solutions to both the biodiversity crisis and the climate crisis,” said Gueorguiev.
“Biodiversity is set to become a social issue as unavoidable as climate change, and we are working with companies with strong sustainability leadership in their industries, which can enable them to set sustainability standards,” she said.
Kaddu Sebunya, CEO of the African Wildlife Foundation (AWF), in the Serengeti. His current role entails spearheading the vision of a modern Africa where human development includes thriving wildlife and wildlands as a cultural and economic asset for Africa’s future generations. Credit: AWF
by Guy Dinmore (st davids, wales)
Inter Press Service
St Davids, Wales, Jun 30 (IPS) – The CEO of the Nairobi-based African Wildlife Foundation, Kaddu Sebunya – in London to mark AWF’s 60th anniversary while fundraising and lobbying – shares his thoughts with IPS on the climate and food crises, how Africans have their voice, why western countries need a ‘reset’ with Africa, what Prince Charles should say to the Commonwealth, how China is eating western ‘cake’, and what worries him more than anything else.
(IPS) How are the crises of climate and food security impacting AWF across Africa?
“It has a huge impact because everything is interconnected. In Kenya, we lost about 78 elephants to drought in Tsavo National Park . That’s more than any poaching, higher than any cause of death of elephants in the last 15 years. Elephants are a key species – when they suffer, we know what’s going to happen to the plants, the frogs, the butterflies, the trees. They are a key we use to measure the health of the ecosystem. The elephant can tell you a lot about what is going to happen to all other species, including humans.
An African elephant in the wilderness. Kenya lost 78 elephants to drought in Tsavo National Park. Kaddu Sebunya expresses concern that governments don’t prioritise conservation and education in times of natural disasters. Credit: AWF
Drought and food shortages: people are going to make different choices. They are going to change the way they live. In many cases, the resources suffer. Smaller choices mean a different diet, so they use more firewood, they are going to cut more trees. When there is food scarcity and drought they are going to rely on hunting for protein… For many Africans, 70 per cent plus are in agriculture – that’s their livelihood. If there is drought they are going to pick other options. If the Maasai have lost 40 percent of their livestock in northern Kenya they are going to look for alternatives… The nearest resource is going to be wildlife.
Governments are sourcing from the same budgets. If there is drought they will change priorities. Always environment and conservation are going to be the last choice. Education is going to suffer. All these other sectors suffer because the budgets are being reprioritised to drought and health.
And at the global level, you see in central and west Africa the impact on migration. We see rural areas emptying and young people moving to urban areas with no skills. Especially women and young girls suffer more. The young boys are recruited into terrorist groups or trafficked to Europe. So the repercussions of this are not just natural resources… it distorts the whole set-up, entire cultural systems, the entire social network and safety nets, and breaks down government systems… It’s larger than just food… Societies are broken down. Bringing food in risks destroying local agriculture. This is why Ukraine is so important, raising the question of dependency on imported food.”
What is AWF’s response?
“Our work is to represent the voice of wildlife. Animals don’t speak. Someone has to do that for them. We take that responsibility very seriously, in all these changes for us to be at the table, whether a board room, in corridors of parliament or community meetings, to be that voice for wildlife… The only long-term solution for drought is how we can manage nature better. But in most cases that is not factored in when we are talking about addressing the symptoms, when addressing famine so bring in biscuits from Europe and elsewhere, high energy food… That’s not a solution, that’s a band-aid … I was talking to someone from Ethiopia, he said the problem we have is all these NGOs and INGOs are bringing plastic into villages in Ethiopia and it doesn’t come with the education of how you are going to dispose of all this plastic.
Historically it has been easier for international communities to talk to international NGOs who have been working on the continent or to talk government to government. It hasn’t given us good solutions to our problems historically. And that’s what we are asking that needs to be changed. It’s going to take Africans to take ownership and responsibility and leadership, to permanently solve the problems Africa has. We don’t have very good results where things have happened without African leadership. There are very few cases. Where that has been successful it has been very expensive, especially in our sector… They are either training thousands of rangers, they are bringing guns, they are buying and fuelling vehicles, and carrying on training to protect 1500 elephants. What we are doing, it is actually cheaper if you are supporting Africans who don’t need guns to protect wildlife, they use a relationship with wildlife, who can be supported in developing their wildlife economies…
Sometimes we think our work is to make it cheaper and sustainable. Models that have been used are not sustainable. Governments cannot sustain areas that require thousands of rangers and vehicles, I mean Serengeti is the size of a country in Europe… Everything I am telling you is coming from our experiences, what works and doesn’t work. The challenge we have now over the next 10 years is how do we scale it up. A project we have been running in northern Rwanda for 30 years, the conservation of mountain gorillas, and how we have mobilised communities for them to have a stake in the tourism. Thirty years ago eco-tourism was an investor coming to the area, gets a concession, builds a wonderful lodge and he just had to hire local Africans and get a group of local women to dance for tourists, get a few households to sell crafts at the lodge and that model still exists… We said it’s not enough. We raised the bar. Now we are talking about equity – communities must have equity in the tourism business and so in the lodges we build, like in Rwanda, Kenya, Namibia, Botswana, the communities own the lodge. The private investor is a management firm.
Kaddu Sebunya believes new models, where the community is involved in the business, are successful and need replication across the continent. Credit: AWF
The hard work in that formula is how to mobilise communities in that business unit. What works for that is our relationships with government. You can’t do that in isolation to policies and laws… the conservation approach is political, economic and social. It’s not about the science of conservation. It’s not about the behaviour of elephants and rhinos. You have to get involved in the political discussion, the social discussion, the economic discussion and that’s how you start moving… We flipped the investment model. It takes a lot of time but it’s extremely successful.
How is China’s growing role in Africa affecting conservation work?
We work in China. Pre-COVID I was spending a lot of time in Beijing talking to policy and Communist Party officials. It’s good. We have seen results. We are part of the groups that helped China ban the ivory trade about six years ago… I was in Beijing. The day that China announced it, the price of ivory fell by 70 percent. Demand fell 65 percent for our African ivory… it was huge. We are working with China on mainly three fronts: it’s the Chinese footprint on our continent: the infrastructure they are building, farming, the industries they are setting up in Africa. We are asking them to be responsible in doing that. We are not stopping it… Initially, they were telling us it was not their responsibility, that’s African governments’ responsibility, it’s the contracts they signed with the African governments and African governments need to tell them what they want and African governments are not telling us we care about the environment so we are not going to care about it. We talked to them, we called them out. It was so important, they told me after huge arguments that went on for a year, to hear from an African NGO directly. So we are succeeding in that. The other approach we used is that making sure that African governments are making these conditions so we spend a lot of time with African ambassadors in Beijing… The last thing that China wants to hear is Europe asking them to do better in Africa or US asking them to do better in Africa… Right now we have a technical advisory role to the African delegation on the Convention on Bio-diversity .
Our third thing is people to people, especially the youth. If anything good comes out of this COVID it is Zoom, so we have created platforms where African youth interact with Chinese youth and they are having very very interesting conversations about Africa, about wildlife, educating each other. That’s where the future is… Culturally we are very connected, family and extended families, cousins and aunts and uncles, it’s so common between Chinese and Africans. The connection culturally is just so real. To the young people this is a globalised world… Culturally it is changing, we have seen that with consumption of African wildlife. We talk to older Chinese and they still think that owning ivory is a big deal, an investment. The young people want a Polo shirt and an Apple watch for their status, and so do the young Africans. They want to drive a Porsche, not have tonnes of ivory in their homes like their grandparents.
We have a very good relationship with Beijing zoo and Shanghai zoo where every year we have an exhibit for three months. One in Beijing, before COVID, 300,000 people were going in a day. The numbers in China are mind-blowing. They go with their families, they learn about the species and the habitat, they watch the videos. These are young middle-class families, they start questioning things. We have seen change in China.
How can the UK/EU change Africa policies and deal with China’s growing presence?
example is the Commonwealth. I think the UK has the opportunity to reset… I think the UK has an opportunity to change their role from big brother to maybe an uncle who sometimes is invited to a dinner and is sometimes left out of a wedding. But it’s a huge opportunity for UK, and I don’t see that happening as quickly as it should.
I told the European Union parliament and some folks here in the UK in the discussion about China that it’s tiring when you hear UK officials or EU officials complaining about China. For an African it’s really tiring. And I have been telling them: look China is not eating Africa’s cake, China is eating UK, French and German and Italian cake in Africa… because for the UK to whine about China in Africa when half of Africa speaks your language, half of Africa believes in you and have common values. Seventy percent of African leaderships attended Oxford, Yale, Harvard, London University and you sit in London and complain about China? A huge population of Africans are British. I’m yet to find a Chinese African or a community of Africans who speak Chinese.
The western world has to think deeper to understand the options China has given Africans. And look in the mirror and ask why, and counter offer and have a serious conversation. The Germans are doing that by the way – they are rethinking their engagement and I hope that actually with the war in Ukraine is going to change the relationship between Africa and Europe. You have a continent that has the richest minerals and richest industrial resources on the planet and you rely on Russia and for food? It’s mind boggling. You rely on a country you define as enemy. It’s total neglect of a continent that is so rich, because it’s easier for Africa just to be exploited and do it that way and do the trade with Russia who is the enemy. But ‘we’ don’t want to trade with Africa, we just want to continue exploiting. And see what’s happening now. It’s that reset. It can be led by the UK, especially now as it has exited the EU. But I don’t see that thinking here. If I was to address the Commons that is what I would tell them. I don’t see them taking on that opportunity the UK has through the Commonwealth which is coming up. I don’t know what Prince Charles’ address is going to be but that’s what it should be.
‘Africa’s resources are above, not below, the ground’
A lone black rhino in the Nairobi National Park savannah, Kenya, with the Nairobi skyline and Mombasa railroad bridge in the background. Kaddu Sebunya says it’s important to change perceptions. Africans need to be reminded that the continent’s wealth is above the ground – in nature and conservation and not below the ground as popularly believed. Credit: AWF
Our work is to tell Africans that our wealth is above the ground. It’s not underground as UK, France and others have told Africans. It’s only when I come to Europe and North America where I hear Americans and Europeans say Africa is mineral-rich. Out of 54 countries, there are less than 10 countries that are mineral-rich, so where is this idea that Africa is mineral-rich? And somehow Africans bought into that because Europe and North America only want the minerals in Africa. But the wealth of the continent is above the ground. We can feed Europe with organic food… you can achieve two objectives with one approach: you can get organic food out of Africa, stop the famine going on, but also you can offer Africa a better model of development, because if you don’t, what happens in Africa won’t stop in Africa, it will reach London and then the streets, whether in terms of refugees or in terms of flooding because of climate change, or just loss of biodiversity… It is so important that we start treating Africa as the last frontier for global solutions, whether it’s health – the next virus is going to come out of Africa, no doubt. Africa is the last frontier of animals. It is in all our interests that the virus stays in the wild lands and the wildlife and that‘s the work of conservationists…
You want to solve climate change, you need to do something in a country that absorbs carbon… The source of energy for Congolese should be the most important solution for UK climate change policy. Because the Congolese population is growing – you know the largest French-speaking city is Kinshasa, it’s not Paris. If those folks continue to rely on firewood as their energy source, you will have more carbon in the air and temperatures rising.
I sound cynical but you don’t have to change your way of life drastically, but if you help Africa to leapfrog that change shouldn’t be so drastic but the more you don’t help Africa leapfrog, the harder it will be for everyone… So the choices Africans are making to their prosperity is so crucial to the rest of the world… guess what, Africa is chasing the western world… they want London in Kenya just as it is. They want to drive big cars, they want to own a village house and a summer house, planes.
‘What worries me more than anything else…’
People need to know what Africans think. We don’t have to be right but what is our opinion… More importantly, Africans need to hear from Africans. There is a growing movement in Africa that actually worries me now more than anything else among the young people who think that it’s just ‘the western world doesn’t like us, that we just have to forget the rest of the world, that conservation is a lie, it is really about westerners wanting to grab our land, it’s a quirky way of taking land out of production so Africa’s doesn’t develop.’ That movement has been within my generation but a little bit silent. The young people are picking that up and they are saying you know these are our resources, we can do whatever we want… I can’t see my children or their children coming to Brussels to negotiate with Europe, going to the US and saying how can you help me to deal with the trees or listening to you… Our grandchildren they will cut down those forests, they will drain all the water, they will do whatever they want because already they are not listening to us… they are so independent they do what they want. Now when they get in power – in 20 years the 14-year-olds will be the ministers – they are not going to come and attend the Commonwealth, no! Not unless the Commonwealth changes. They are stubborn and angry with the rest of the world. They want to figure out their own ways, they are independent. They are like any teenager in London, so the rest of the world has 10 years to figure this out before that generation takes over. My generation we are more diplomatic, we are more forgiving. That group is not. It’s going to be tough. Anything now that Europe wants from us and I focus on Europe, what you want in 10 years you won’t get it, you won’t get a better deal, or you use force, which you have to get what you want. Yes, because it’s going to be tougher. So this is the time to make a deal.
Kaddu Sebunya was talking to Guy Dinmore, a freelance journalist based in Wales
Relief workers bring supplies to stranded communities following devastating floods in Bangladesh. Credit: Rafiqul Islam/IPS
by Rafiqul Islam (dhaka)
Inter Press Service
DHAKA, Jun 28 (IPS) – After losing everything in the recent devastating flood that swept the northeastern districts in Bangladesh, pregnant mother Joynaba Akter, her three children and her husband took refuge in a shelter centre at Gowainghat in Sylhet.
“As the flood damaged all our belongings, my husband took us to Dasgaon Naogaon School shelter centre to escape,” Joynaba said. “I was in the final stages of my pregnancy, and that is why I had no alternative to going to the shelter centre amid this disaster. I was scared, and my husband took me here by boat.”
Joynaba gave birth to a baby girl at the centre last Friday, and she was happy to welcome the new family member, but she did not know how they would survive.
After giving birth to her child, she has been feeling ill but hasn’t any money for treatment, resulting in her newborn child not getting enough breast milk.
When the flooding stopped in the Gowainghat area, she returned to her homestead but found nothing remained as the flood washed away all their belongings.
“My husband had an auto-rickshaw. The flood washed it away too,” Joynaba said.
They built a makeshift shelter with tin sheets and installed a temporary cooking stove at their homestead. But they don’t have enough grain to cook.
“We have only four kilograms of rice and 250 grams of pulses, and one kilogram of potato that we got as relief at the cyclone centre. Once those are finished, we all have to be starving,” she said.
Seventy-year-old farmer, Suruj Ali’s house, was also flooded, and he, with his family members, took shelter at a building which is under construction located nearby his village. He also shifted his domestic cattle.
Eight days after they took shelter, Suruj Ali returned home on Friday. While the floodwater has receded from his house, the homestead’s yard is still under water.
“In front of my eyes, the flood washed away all the rice stored, and cattle feeds (like straw). I could do nothing. I was only able to save my cattle,” said Suruj Ali, a resident of Kaskalika Balaura village at Sylhet Sadar upazila.
The floodwaters have made him destitute, he said. All the rice stored in the house, utensils and even his mattress were washed away.
“I know a dark time (crisis) is waiting for my family and me. We are yet to get any aid,” Suruj Ali said.
Reports from the region say 2,500 millimetres of rainfall in the upstream Assam and Meghalaya of India over three days in the middle of June this year, resulting in floods in Bangladesh’s northeastern region. Many blame climate change for the floods affecting several million across the country.
In Netrakona district, over 554000 families have been affected by the floods in 10 upazilas (administrative regions). Some families have already returned home from shelters as floodwater recedes. But there are still about 112000 people in 353 shelters.
Mozammel Haque, chairman of Pogla Union Parishad (UP), Netrakona, said the official relief provided by the government was inadequate, while over half a million families were affected in the upazila.
The flood situation is improving in Sunamganj and Sylhet, but many homesteads are still under water.
“The water is still waist level in my home, so there was no way to return. All the goods in the house were destroyed,” said Idris Ali, who is staying at the Ikarachai Primary School shelter centre in Sunamganj.
Boats Rushing In Relief
Although the flood has started improving in the northeastern region, many families stuck in the remote haor (wetland) areas are still experiencing a food and drinking water crisis.
“In the remote bordering area in Sunamganj, many were calling for relief. We were taking boats with relief goods for them, but that was not adequate,” said AR Tareq, a volunteer group member involved in relief distribution in Sunamganj.
Bashir Miah, a resident of Darampasha in Sumamganj, said those on the main road received assistance, but few volunteers want to go to remote areas, which is why they are not accessing the relief.
Rajesh Chandro Ghosh, the coordinator of Low Cost Tour Bangladesh, another volunteer group that distributed relief in Sylhet, said: “We have distributed some relief goods under a private arrangement and saw how hopeless the flood victims’ situation is. They need more relief, particularly for those who are living in remote areas.”
But Sylhet Deputy Commissioner Mujibur Rahman told reporters there was no relief crisis.
“Flood situation is getting back normal in Sunamganj gradually. And we are carrying out relief distribution programme too,” Sunamganj Deputy Commissioner Jahangir Alam said.
However, Nurul Haque, convener of Jagannathpur Upazila Citizens Forum, said the pace of relief distribution was slow despite the government allocations, while a lack of coordination meant many were not receiving help.
The government has already allocated over Taka 7.11 crore (about 765 000 US dollars) as humanitarian assistance for the flood victims in 14 flood-hit districts, said Md Selim Hossain, Deputy Chief Information Officer at Disaster Management and Relief Ministry.
Besides, he said 5,820 metric tonnes of rice, 1.23 food packets and baby food. Cattle feed was also allocated across the country.
Waterborne Diseases on the Rise
Bangladesh’s death toll from the flood was estimated at least 84, according to the Health Emergency and Control Room of the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS).
Most died in floods from May 17 to June 26 in Sylhet, Mymensingh and Rangpur divisions. The most casualties occurred in the Sylhet division, with 52 deaths, while 28 people died in Mymensingh and four in Rangpur.
Diarrhoea outbreak has been reported in these flood-hit districts. Around 6,000 people have been diagnosed with waterborne diseases across the country, according to the DGHS data.
Opinion by Jomo Kwame Sundaram, Anis Chowdhury (sydney and kuala lumpur)
Inter Press Service
SYDNEY and KUALA LUMPUR, Jun 28 (IPS) – Rich country governments claim the high moral ground on climate action. But many deny their far greater responsibility for both historic and contemporary greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, once acknowledged by the Kyoto Protocol.
Climate injustice
Worse, responsibility has not been matched by commensurate efforts, especially by the largest rich economies in the G7, which dominates the G20. Its continued control of international economic resources and policymaking blocks progress on climate justice.
Anis Chowdhury“That is the greatest injustice of climate change: that those who bear the least responsibility for climate change are the ones who will suffer the most”, says Mary Robinson, former Eire President and UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.
On a per capita basis, the US and close allies – Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Australia and Canada – produce more than a hundred times the planet-warming greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of some African countries.
The African population produced about 1.1 metric tonnes of carbon (dioxide equivalent) emissions per person in 2019, under a quarter of the 4.7 tonnes global average. The US emitted 16.1 tonnes – nearly four times the global average.
Wealth inequalities worsen climate injustice. The world’s richest 5% were responsible for 37% of GHG emissions growth during 1990-2015, while the bottom half of the world’s population accounted for 7%!
Poor regions and people take the brunt of global warming. The tropical zone is much more vulnerable to rapid climate change. Most of these countries and communities bear little responsibility for the GHG emissions worsening global warming, but also have the least means to cope and protect themselves.
Thus, climate justice demands wealthy nations – most responsible for cumulative and current GHG emissions – not only reduce the harm they cause, but also help those with less means to cope.
Jomo Kwame SundaramRich hypocrisy
Wealthy countries have done little to keep their 2009 promises to provide US$100 billion annually to help developing countries. Most climate finance has been earmarked for mitigation. But this ignores their needs and priorities, as developing countries need help to adapt to climate change and to cope with losses and damages due to global warming.
The OECD club of rich countries has been criticized for exaggerating climate finance, but acknowledges, “Australia, Japan and the United States consider financing for high-efficiency coal plants as a form of climate finance.”
It reports climate finance of US$79.6bn in 2019, but these figures are hotly contested. However, ‘commercial credit’ is typically not concessional. But when it is, it implies official subsidies for “bankable”, “for profit” projects.
Many also doubt much of this funding is truly additional, and not just diverted (‘repurposed’) from other ends. Private finance also rarely goes where it is most needed while increasing debt burdens for borrowers.
Leading from behind
At the COP26 Climate Summit in Glasgow in November 2021, US President Joe Biden described climate change as “an existential threat to human existence” and pledged to cut US emissions by up to 51% by 2030.
Biden had claimed his ‘Build Back Better’ (BBB) package of proposed social and climate spending would be a cornerstone of restoring international trust in the US commitment to stem global warming.
At the G7 Summit in June 2021, Biden announced his vision of a “Build Back Better World” (B3W) would define the G7 alternative to China’s multitrillion USD Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).
All this was premised on US ability to lead from the front, with momentum growing once BBB became law. But his legislative package has stalled. Unable to attract the needed votes in the Senate, BBB is ‘dead in the water’.
Putting on a brave face, US Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer promises to bring the legislation to a vote early next year. But with their party’s declining political fortunes, likely ‘horse-trading’ to pass the bill will almost certainly further undermine Biden’s promises.
Meanwhile, breaking his 2020 campaign promise, Biden approved nearly 900 more permits to drill on public land in 2021, more than President Trump in 2017. While exhorting others to cut fossil fuel reliance, his administration is now urging US companies and allies to produce more, invoking Ukraine war sanctions.
Aid laggard
At COP26, Biden promised to help developing nations reduce carbon emissions, pledging to double US climate change aid. But even this is still well short of its proportionate share of the grossly inadequate US$100bn yearly rich nations had pledged in 2009 in concessional climate finance for developing countries.
Considering its national income and cumulative emissions, the US should provide at least US$43–50bn in climate finance annually. Others insist the US owes the developing world much more, considering their needs and damages due to US emissions, e.g., suggesting US$800bn over the decade to 2030.
President Obama pledged US$3bn to the Green Climate Fund (GCF) – the UN’s flagship climate finance initiative – but delivered only US$1bn. Trump totally repudiated this modest pledge.
At the April 2021 Earth Day leaders’ summit, Biden vowed to nearly double Obama’s pledge to US$5.7bn, with US$1.5bn for adaptation. But even this amount is far short of what the US should contribute, given its means and total emissions.
After the European Commission president highlighted this in September 2021, Biden vowed to again double the US contribution to US$11.4bn yearly by 2024, boasting this would “make the US a leader in international climate finance”.
At COP26, the US cited this increased GCF promise to block developing countries’ call for a share of revenue from voluntary bilateral carbon trading. The US has also opposed developing countries’ call for a funding facility to help vulnerable nations cope with loss and damage due to global warming.
Mrinalini Rai, head of Women4Biodiversity and leader of the Women’s Caucus at the UN Biodiversity Convention and Cristina Eghenter of World Wildlife Fund for Nature, at a media roundtable at the ongoing UN CBD Working Group 4 meeting in Nairobi. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS
by Stella Paul (nairobi)
Inter Press Service
Nairobi, Jun 24 (IPS) – “I often hear, ‘What do women have to do with biodiversity?’ And I want to ask them back, ‘What do men have to do (with biodiversity)?’,” says Mrinalini Rai, a prominent gender equality rights advocate at the 4th Meeting of the Open-Ended Working Group of the UN Biodiversity Convention, which started this week in Nairobi.
Her comment appears to reflect the frustration women activists feel as their demand for a specific target on gender equality – known as Target 22 – shows few signs of progress.
Target 22 was first submitted last September at the 3rd meeting of the Open-ended Working Group (OEWG) of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework (GBF) in Geneva. The target, when summarized, proposes to “ensure women and girls’ equitable access and benefits from conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, as well as their informed and effective participation at all levels of policy and decision making related to biodiversity.”
The target was proposed officially by Costa Rica, with the support of GLURAC – a group comprising 11 countries from Latin America and West Africa which has been since accepted as a point of discussion by the CBD. The GRULAC members are Guatemala, Argentina, Dominican Republic, Mexico, Chile, Cote d’Ivoire, Ecuador, Togo, Benin, Cameroon, and Tanzania.
However, this week in Nairobi, when asked by IPS for their comments on Target 22, the co-chairs of the CBD appeared largely dismissive. “We already have a Gender Action Plan,” said Basile Van Havre – one of the two co-chairs, implying little importance or need for a standalone target.
Unsurprisingly, the draft remains a barely-discussed target on Friday – two days before the current meeting ends.
Gender in Biodiversity and Drafting of Target 22
Ratified by 200 nations, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is the first legally binding global treaty. It has three main goals: conserve biological diversity, promote sustainable use of its components, and attain fair and equitable sharing of the benefits derived from the utilization of genetic resources.
The convention’s 14th Conference of the Parties, held in Sharm-el-Sheikh, Egypt, in 2018, adopted a decision to develop a new biodiversity framework that builds on the CBD’s 2011-2020 strategic plan known as “Aichi Biodiversity Targets”. The decision also includes “a gender-responsive and gender-balanced process for the development of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework”.
However, while a lot of progress has been made since 2018 on crafting and shaping the targets for the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), the Convention has yet to truly center gender issues. Of the 21 targets within the draft Framework, only one target mentions women, and no single target refers to gender. Some parties have stated that since the Gender Plan of Action (GPA) will complement the Framework, there is no need for a standalone target on gender. Feminists and gender equality advocates, however, believe it is critical to have strong integration of gender within the Framework itself to anchor and give life to the Gender Plan of Action.
“What we are saying is that this target is not supposed to be seen as something separate from everything in the GBF. When you adopt a standalone target on gender equality, it will guide all the work being done under the framework and to operationalize the framework including the communications, knowledge management, capacity building and financing of the new mechanism”, says Rai.
Cristina Eghenter, Global Governance Policy Coordinator at World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF) links the currently lacking gender-segregated data and how the adoption of Target 22 could help plug the gaps.
“Women’s contribution to biodiversity is often questioned because this contribution is underreported and therefore, undervalued. A standalone target on gender equality would lead to the setting of clear indicators and a monitoring system which would then contribute to the production of gender-segregated data,” Eghenter points out.
Gaining support from other advocacy rights and equity groups
UNCBD Working Group 4 meeting in Nairobi in session. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS
Jennifer Corpuz leads the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity (IPFB) – a collection of representatives from indigenous governments, indigenous non-governmental organizations, and indigenous scholars and activists that organize around the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).
On being asked her stance on a standalone, specific target on gender equality, Corpuz says that she wholeheartedly supports this. “When the GBF has included target 21, it is a natural progression that there should be a target 22”. Corpuz also explains that Target 21 – the only target to mention women in the GFB, emphasizes indigenous communities and therefore, it will be more helpful to have a standalone target on gender equality that goes beyond women and is inclusive of all genders.
“We, therefore, strongly support Target 22 and hope it will be taken up for adoption at COP15,” she says.
Besides, IIFB and WWF, several other rights and equity advocacy groups are supporting the proposed new target. The Global Youth Biodiversity Network – an advocacy group that is demanding greater focus on youths in the GBF, also has voiced its support for a target on gender equality. Other groups lending their support are the UN Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights (OHCHR), the Convention on Biological Diversity Alliance (CBDA), and the Women Caucus at the UNCBD.
Expectation VS Reality
As the Nairobi meeting nears its end – the conference will close on Sunday – there are more meetings of the contacts groups which oversee discussing and finalizing the text of the draft GBF with the negotiation in each meeting turning more intense. However, when it comes to Target 22 – the contact group 4, responsible for discussing and cleaning up the text of both targets related to gender, has had only one reading of the Target 22.
According to Benjamin Schachter, Human Rights Officer on Climate Change and Environment at ORCHR, the text of the target 22 is right now ‘full of brackets’ which indicates there is hardly any agreement among the contact group members discussing the target on its content.
As the GBF is expected to have at least 80% of ‘clean text’ before it is presented by CBD to the parties for discussion and adoption, the question that most people are wondering is if the draft GBF at COP15 includes a target for gender equality at all? Some are even asking if the draft in its current form (full of brackets) can be rejected by the parties altogether if they feel the task to clean it up is too arduous?
Total exclusion is ‘extremely unlikely,’ explains Schafter, explaining the technical process: since the target has been officially proposed by a group of parties and discussed at the contact group, the parties must work harder and get the draft to a shape where it can be considered for consensus building and eventual adoption.
A long way to Montreal
The onus, then, lies equally on parties as well as on groups such as Women4Biodiversity to lobby more parties and gain their support. Already, in the Nairobi meeting, a few more countries including Maldives, Norway, and the EU have expressed their support, taking the total number of supporting parties to 22.
Norway has, in fact, also proposed an alternative text for the Target which reads “Ensure gender equality in the implementation of the global biodiversity framework and the achievement of the 3 objectives of the convention including by recognizing equal rights and access to land and natural resources of women and girls and their meaningful and informed participation in policy and decision-making”
“This language is both cleaner and stronger”, says Schachter.
Mrinalini Rai of Women4Biodiversity agrees: “Norway proposed and supported by American countries a new way to address the rights of gender equality and rights of women to lands and natural resources which is a fantastic improvement and if this new text comes in, it would be monumental step forward for CBD,” she says.
But can the advocates and supporters get 108 remaining countries to read, give input and prepare themselves for an informed discussion in the next five months? Undoubtedly, that remains an arduous task for the nations, requiring manpower, time, and resources.
The Target 22 advocates appear well aware of the challenge ahead: “It is going to be a long road to Montreal,” says Ana di Pangracio of the Convention of Biodiversity Alliance (CBDA).
IPS UN Bureau Report
The recent eviction debacle involving the Maasai community in the Loliondo division in Tanzania’s northern Ngorongoro District has elevated indigenous people’s concerns about losing their ancestral lands under the ‘30by30’ plan in the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF). Bradford Zak/Unsplash
by Busani Bafana (bulawayo, zimbabwe)
Inter Press Service
BULAWAYO, Zimbabwe, Jun 23 (IPS) – In early June 2022, more than 30 people from the Maasai community in the Loliondo division in Tanzania’s northern Ngorongoro District were reportedly injured, and one person died following clashes with security forces over the demarcation of their ancestral lands for a new game reserve.
According to human rights organisations, the Maasai community was blocking eviction from its grazing sites at Lolionda over the demarcation of 1 500km of the Maasai ancestral land, which the government of Tanzania has leased as a hunting block to a United Arab Emirates company.
The eviction of the Maasai is a realisation of fears indigenous communities have about the loss of their ancestral lands under the ‘30by30’ plan proposed in the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF). The plan calls for conserving 30 percent of the earth’s land and sea areas. Close to 100 countries have endorsed the science-backed proposal to protect 30 percent of the planet by 2030, which is target 3 of the 21 targets in the GBF.
Indigenous communities worry that the current plan does not protect their rights and control over ancestral lands and will trigger mass evictions of communities by creating protected areas meant to save biodiversity.
The fourth meeting of the Open-Ended Working Group on the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework opened in Nairobi, Kenya, this week (June 21-26), hosted by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). The meeting is expected to negotiate the final new pact for adoption at the United Nations Biodiversity Conference, which includes the 15th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP 15) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) to be held in Montreal, Canada in December 2022.
Human rights in the deal for nature
Indigenous groups are calling for a human-rights approach to conservation and strengthening of community land tenure. They emphasise that the international pact to stop and reverse biodiversity loss should include indigenous communities like the Maasai.
Jennifer Corpuz, Indigenous lawyer and global policy expert.
“We are highlighting the situation with the Maasai in Tanzania as an example of what should not be happening anymore, and the best way to avoid this is to ensure that there is a human rights language in the post-2020 framework,” Indigenous lawyer and global policy expert Jennifer Corpuz, a Kankana-ey Igorot from the Philippines and a member of the International Indigenous Forum for Biodiversity (IIFB) told IPS in a telephone interview.
“In particular, we identify target 3 of the framework, which is area-based conservation and the proposal to expand the coverage of the areas of land and sea that are protected. It is important to have the rights of indigenous people and local communities recognised,” Corpuz noted.
Corpuz said there is growing recognition among scientists about the importance of traditional knowledge and how it can guide decision-making on climate change and biodiversity, as well as the participation of indigenous people in biodiversity monitoring, which are the focus of targets 20 and 21 of the framework.
The CBD COP15 is expected to take stock of progress towards achieving the CBD’s Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020, as well as decide on a new global biodiversity framework negotiated every ten years. The CBD is an international treaty on natural and biological resources ratified by 196 countries to protect biodiversity, use biodiversity without destroying it, and equally share any benefits from genetic diversity.
Indigenous leaders say the evidence is clear about the role of indigenous communities in biodiversity protection following recent reports produced by the Nairobi-based UNEP and other conservation organisations like the World Wildlife Fund (WWF).
“Achieving the ambitious goals and targets in the post-2020 global biodiversity framework will not be possible without the lands and territories recognised, sustained, protected, and restored by ,” the report noted.
Under siege worldwide, from the rainforests of the Amazon and the Congo to the savannahs of East Africa, indigenous communities could continue to play a protective role, according to their leaders and scientists whose work supports the quest of indigenous peoples to control what happens on their territories.
Biodiversity in extinction
A landmark report from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), has warned that around 1 million animal and plant species are now threatened with extinction, many within decades. The assessment report noted that at least a quarter of the global land area is traditionally owned, managed, and used by indigenous peoples.
“Nature managed by Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities is under increasing pressure but is generally declining less rapidly than in other lands – although 72% of local indicators developed and used by Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities show the deterioration of nature that underpins local livelihoods,” the report noted. It highlighted the areas of the world projected to experience significant adverse effects from climate change, ecosystem functions and nature’s contributions to people are also areas in which large concentrations of Indigenous Peoples and many of the world’s poorest communities live.
Experts have warned that the success of the post-2020 GBF depends on adequate financing to achieve the targets and goals in the framework.
The finance component needs more attention, political priority and progress, Brian O’Donnell, Director, Campaign for Nature, told a media briefing alluding to the last framework that failed to reverse biodiversity loss because of a lack of financial commitment.
“This is no time for half measures. This is the time for bold ambition by governments around the world… We think a global commitment of at least one percent of GDP is needed annually to address the biodiversity crisis, that is the level of crisis finance that we need to materialise, and parties need to commit to that level by 2030,” O’Donnell said. “We feel wealthy countries need to increase the support for developing countries in terms of investing at least 60 billion annually into biodiversity conservation in the developing world.”
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
Cookie
Duration
Description
cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional
11 months
The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-others
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy
11 months
The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
