Tag: Stella Paul

Time to Convert Climate Change Rhetoric into Action, Says WFP’s Gernot Laganda — Global Issues

Gernot Laganda, Director / Climate and Disaster Risk Reduction at United Nations World Food Programme (WFP)
  • by Stella Paul (hyderabad, india)
  • Inter Press Service

HYDERABAD, INDIA, Nov 14 (IPS) – ‘If you ask what climate justice is, then the litmus test for climate justice is at the local level. So, climate justice needs to be judged by how many people are protected from climate-vulnerable conditions that they have no hand in creating.’ – Gernot Laganda, Director of Climate Change Adaptation and Disaster Risk Reduction at the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP)
 It is crucial to narrow the gaps and ensure that climate finance goes to where people are most vulnerable, says Gernot Laganda, Director of Climate Change Adaptation and Disaster Risk Reduction at the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP)—especially as the most fragile states only receive USD 2.1 per capita while non-fragile states receive USD 161.

Laganda leads WFP country offices to support governments dealing with the effects of climate change on food systems, prioritize concrete actions to avoid, reduce, or transfer growing climate risks in-country programs, and work with new and emerging climate finance mechanisms to implement adaptation solutions for the most vulnerable and food-insecure communities.

In this exclusive interview with IPS, Laganda speaks about a wide range of issues, including the climate disasters that WFP has responded to this year—and the impact of the humanitarian aid the programme has provided across the world, among the most vulnerable people who climate-induced disasters have directly impacted. As the world zooms towards 1.5 degrees of global warming, the number of climate disasters is rapidly increasing, and so is the requirement for more humanitarian aid. However, the current aid financing methods are not able to meet this unprecedented need, and there is always a gap between the requirement and the actual funding received.

As the 28th Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP28) draws near, Laganda speaks of the funding challenges humanitarian aid agencies are facing—an issue that requires urgent attention from the governments and investors gathering at the COP. He also speaks of his expectations from the negotiations, the actions, and the decisions that will determine the success of the conference.

Gernot Laganda, Director / Climate and Disaster Risk Reduction at United Nations World Food Programme (WFP)

Here are excerpts from the interview:

IPS: Which climate disasters did WFP respond to this year, and what kind of assistance did you provide?

Laganda: This year, of course, is a very peculiar year because it is really on track to become the warmest year on record. We have an El Niño phenomenon that overlays with global warming. Last month, on the 2nd of October, we had 86 days above the 1.5-degree threshold, so this year was out of the ordinary. This year, in March, we had tropical cyclone Freddie, which hit Madagascar, Mozambique, and Malawi. This was the longest-lasting tropical cyclone on record for Africa. It killed 860 people with floods and landslides. But it had a peculiar behavior. Typically, cyclones are fed by heated energy from the oceans, so they lose intensity when they touch land. But Freddie developed in February on the west coast of Australia, across the Indian Ocean, made landfall in Madagascar, then to Mozambique before returning to the ocean. But then it gained more energy and hit land again in Malawi. So, it’s a very uncommon behavior.

The response related to humanitarian assistance, of course, is related to supporting the governments with relief operations. For example, in Malawi, which was badly hit by cyclone Freddie, we helped distribute two months of food basket items targeting the most affected districts. We used schools as entry points to provide emergency rations. And, in the case of farmers from whom we buy food for local school meal programs, we substituted these with a feeding (scheme) to allow farmers to recover from the loss. So, there’s the typical humanitarian response machine that kicks into gear. These climate extremes are now happening more frequently; they hit more strongly, and this humanitarian response needs more finances, which is currently not there in the system.

To give you some numbers, in the Horn of Africa, we had an unprecedented sequence of drought in three countries – Somalia, Ethiopia, and Kenya; 47,000 people died in Somalia during the drought in 2022 (and) WFP distributed food assistance to a record 4.7 million people.

IPS: What kind of loss and damage did these disasters cause?

Laganda: First, there’s a national picture, and then after the disaster, you have the loss and damage figures, and the context is very different in different parts of a country, especially in countries like Somalia, where there is also an overlay of climate effects on conflict, on inflation and economic shock. However, the biggest impact is on housing and natural capital.

IPS: Can you elaborate further?

Laganda: Okay. For example, when you are a farmer in a developing country, you have several assets or capitals, including natural capital. This natural capital includes your natural resources like forest and fiber products, cattle, land, and soil. Then, there are disaster preparedness elements like insurance coverage, access to savings, and access to insurance protection. If these capitals are strong and intact, you can recover from disaster shocks and overcome the disaster impact shocks. You can also recover if you have soil restoration, insurance coverage, and access to savings.

But when many of these natural capital areas are degraded or hit (as happened in these above-mentioned disasters), you have no protective shields.

IPS: Three years ago, at COP25, you had said that only 60 percent of the climate finance that’s needed in the aftermath of a disaster is funded, while 40 percent is not funded. Has this ratio changed since then? How?

Laganda: Unfortunately, humanitarian aid after disasters remains chronically underfunded. Also, over the period of five years, UN humanitarian appeals after climate disasters were only funded 54 percent on average. At the same time, we see that these disasters increase, and our requirements are now eight times higher than they were 20 years ago. So, we are really in a time when humanitarian needs are increasing very sharply, especially when it comes to people suffering from acute hunger, but there is not enough financing to meet all these needs after climate disasters.

It’s the same with climate finance. As the recently published Adaptation Gap Report shows, there is a massive gap in investment in adaptation. Also, from 2014 to 2021, the climate finance available per capita in non-fragile states was USD 161, while it was only USD 2.1 in extremely fragile states. So, there is a huge disparity between where that money goes and where people are most vulnerable. This means two things: we need to make sure there is more funding in the system for the humanitarian needs after climate disasters, but it also means we need to invest much more strategically and faster because we are already in the state where we are reaching the 1.5-degree threshold as mentioned in the Paris Agreement. So, we need more targeted efforts in climate projection and protection in the most vulnerable context.

IPS: What is the main reason behind this continued funding gap? Is there some sort of fatigue among funders, or is this just a case of reduced priority?

Laganda: Many disasters are now compound and protracted. That means there are many countries and sectors where humanitarian aid needs to stay for decades. So, it’s not like there is one disaster, then there is humanitarian relief, and then it’s over. You have decades of humanitarian needs that never stop, right? So, it’s really hard to sustain that financing commitment in an ever-growing number of countries where people have this acute humanitarian need. For example, the number of people facing acute hunger has doubled only in a span of three years. We have been seeing a situation where people are caught between these different risk drivers: conflict, economic shocks, and climate change. And so, the old models of humanitarian aid that we have just don’t work anymore.

IPS: Currently, all eyes are on the Loss and Damage Fund. Civil society is already alleging that the fund is compromised and that it lacks the commitment to human rights. What are your thoughts?

Laganda: The Loss and Damage Fund was a very difficult negotiation, and I think it’s understandable that the fund should be guided by human rights. If you ask what climate justice is, then the litmus test for climate justice is at the local level. So, climate justice needs to be judged by how many people are protected from climate-vulnerable conditions that they have no hand in creating. That’s ultimately what we all want to do. But the mechanism that we have available for loss and damage—this has been a very polarized conversation. I understand that there was some disappointment with the way the reference to human rights was being discussed, but I am sure that when this conversation happens again at COP28 in Dubai, there will be a great push to put this language back into the agreement.

At this point, there is a provisional way forward, and I do not think this will be a smooth process, but I do hope that at the end of COP28, there will be a functioning operational modality for a loss and damage facility because this is really a very important aspect to the entire climate change policy landscape.

A decade ago, we were excited about climate change mitigation and adaptation. But now we are failing at mitigation, and adaptation is too little too late. We need an expansion of this conversation from climate mitigation and adaptation to loss and damage, and I think at COP28, this will take center stage. I think it’s important to have that agreement because nobody wants to have a COP28 that is not successful, and that would be an important part of the success.

IPS: And what are your expectations from the COP28? What actions should be prioritized to combat climate-induced hunger?

Laganda: It’s a good question. When we stay on these three headlines – climate change mitigation, climate change adaptation, loss, and damage, it’s clear that on the mitigation side, we would like to see greater ambition, and where governments are making investments, the actions are compatible with the rhetoric because at the moment there is a gap between the rhetoric and the reality.

The Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) need to be more ambitious. We need to bend the temperature curve – there is no question about it. We cannot adapt our way out of the problem. The Adaptation Gap report says there is only USD 21 billion in public financing per year. We need at least USD 40 billion, which is also the goal that the UN secretary-general has. Also, adaptation investment needs to happen much faster and in a less bureaucratic manner, so more funding and more efficient deployment of that financing. And, in loss and damage, we would like to see a successful conclusion to the negotiations so that a Loss and Damage Fund is established with operational criteria that live up to the needs. We have to protect vulnerable people on the frontline of the climate crisis. So, this loss and damage fund makes sure that vulnerable people are protected immediately and not five years from now because 2024 and 2025 are critical years as we are already crossing the 1.5-degree threshold of the Paris Agreement.

These are the expectations I have for COP28, and this is how we will judge its success by the end of the day.

IPS: Finally, do you think the ongoing conflict in Gaza and the conflict-effected humanitarian aid needs will overshadow the discussions of climate-induced humanitarian aid requirements in Dubai?

Laganda: COP28 is the first COP that dedicates an entire day to peace and fragility. There is, for the first time, a recognition that there is a link between climate and fragility and that there needs to be more investment in climate action in a fragile context and in a conflict-inflicted context. There really is a bridge between the climate theme and conflict theme, which will make us think about how we can place investments in places like Yemen, Syria, and Somalia. So, I don’t think this (political conflict) will overshadow it, but how climate risks and conflict risks intersect will be prominent.

IPS UN Bureau Report


Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

© Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service



Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Deforestation, Encroachment Threaten West Africas One Health Plans — Global Issues

Tacugama Chimpanzee Sanctuary – a conservation center dedicated to rescuing, rehabilitating, and protecting Sierra Leone’s national chimpanzee. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS
  • by Stella Paul (freetown)
  • Inter Press Service

FREETOWN, Nov 03 (IPS) – Thirty-three years ago, Bala Amerasekaran – a Sri Lankan by birth – visited Freetown, Sierra Leone. Since then, the West African nation has been his home, where Amerasekaran has dedicated his life to conserving the chimpanzee – Sierra Leone’s national animal.

In 1995, with support from the national government, he founded Tacugama Chimpanzee Sanctuary – the country’s first conservation center that rescues, rehabilitates, and protects chimpanzees, often hunted, traded, and killed for their meat. Currently home to 100 chimpanzees, the conservation works of the sanctuary also help prevent the spread of any possible diseases transmitted from primates to humans.

However, 20 years later, Amerasekaran’s enthusiasm is declining as he has witnessed massive encroachment within the sanctuary, destroying its forest cover and threatening the sustainability of the conservation program itself.

“I am beginning to feel that I have wasted my life for 28 years because there is no safety for this place,” says a visibly upset Amerasekaran.

Wildlife Connection to Africa’s Zoonotic Disease Trail

“At least 75 percent of emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases of humans—including Ebola, Marburg, Henipavirus, and zoonotic avian flu—have an animal origin, according to Hellen Amuguni – Associate Professor in the Department of Infectious Disease and Global Health at the Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine at Tufts University. “Chances are that when the next illness like COVID-19 emerges to threaten global health, it will originate in animals before it passes to humans, a process known as spillover,” Amuguni says.

West Africa has a long history of recurring zoonotic disease spillovers, the biggest of which occurred in 2014 when the region witnessed a devastating Ebola virus outbreak. The outbreak spread quickly across the entire region, including Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone, where about 11,000 people died.

A 2018 study led by Caroline Huber of Precision Health Economics estimated that the disease outbreak also caused an economic and social burden worth over USD50 billion. Researchers later traced the origin to a spillover event: a two-year-old boy in Guinea likely infected while playing near a tree where bats roosted.

Since then, the conservation of biodiversity, especially the natural habitats of wildlife, has gained attention in the region to prevent any quick transmission of a zoonotic pathogen from animals to humans. But almost all the major forests and key wildlife habitats also face increasing stress from loggers, hunters, traders, and illegal builders.

An example is the Upper Guinean Forest, which covers the lowland forests of West Africa from Guinea to Togo. This forest is a global biodiversity hotspot and contains the world’s second-largest rainforest, the Congo Basin. However, studies have found that the forest has lost 84 percent of its original area, mostly due to agricultural expansion, commercial logging, charcoal burning, and human settlement.

Within the borders of Guinea – where the 2014 Ebola outbreak occurred first – 17.1-kilo hectares of humid primary forest disappeared between 2002 -2022, according to Global Forest Watch (GFW). To put it in perspective, this is the loss of a forest area as big as the city of Washington, DC.

GFW has also tracked large-scale deforestation in Equatorial Guinea –the country that reported the first cases of Marburg – a deadly viral zoonotic disease in May this year that claimed 12 lives. According to GFW’s estimates, in 2010, Equatorial Guinea had 2.63 mega hectares (Mha) of tree cover, extending over 98 percent of its land area, but by 2022, it lost 7.76 thousand hectares (kha) of tree cover, which is roughly the size of Paris.

Sierra Leone’s Vulnerable Forests

In Sierra Leone, several dense forests are habitats of many endangered wildlife species, including 6000 chimpanzees. These include Kangari Hills and Nimini Hills forests, Outamba-Kilimi National Park, and the Gola Rainforest – one of the largest remaining West African tracts extending to neighboring Liberia.

While deforestation has occurred in all these forests owing to illegal logging, unsustainable land use, infrastructural development, and charcoal production, it is particularly high in Gola Forest. According to a 2017 Purdue University research, the Gola forest has been losing its green cover at an annual rate of 4.18 percent. These losses are largely due to the expansion of rice farms within the forest area, says John Christian Abu-Kpawoh, who conducted the research.

In comparison, Tacugama Sanctuary is a tiny patch of forest of only about 40 hectares. Yet its proximity to the national capital, Freetown, a 40-minute drive away, makes it a prime target for encroachers. About 30 percent of the sanctuary has been encroached upon by builders, many of whom are powerful and well-connected.

“Last year, the Ministry of Lands deployed soldiers here (to protect the chimpanzee sanctuary). Yet every name that is coming up in the recent encroachments is of a soldier,” Amerasekaran reveals, indicating deep-rooted corruption in the government.

Worrying News for One Health

Since the COVID-19 pandemic, the One Health Approach to prevent a future zoonotic disease spillover has gained traction. The One Health approach recognizes the interconnection between human, animal, and environmental health and emphasizes an integrated approach to prevent any health crisis, especially related to infections transmitted from animals to humans.

Across West Africa, several large projects are already being implemented where multidisciplinary experts, including veterinarians, zoologists, epidemiologists, social behavior scientists, and risk communicators, are working together to prevent a new spillover.

The USAID-funded STOP Spillover, PREDICT and RESPOND, the Eco Health Alliance projects, and the West African One Health actions for understanding, preventing, and mitigating outbreaks are some examples.

These projects, among others, are engaged in studying and monitoring animal-human interaction, assessing risks of a possible disease breakout, putting surveillance measures in place to detect the early warning of spillover, and raising awareness among locals about the importance of conserving forest and wildlife to prevent a disease outbreak.

Tacugama Chimpanzee Sanctuary is also working with local communities to address some of the threats being faced by the rainforest-dwelling species. For example, the sanctuary is helping to establish livestock rearing projects, setting up swamp rice plantations, improving fuel efficiency of cooking, setting up tree nurseries for sustainable harvesting of wood and food products, and running education programs for school children.

But the uncontrolled development and encroachment on the forest land pose serious threats to the success of these activities, the biggest of them being the shrinking of space between humans and animals.

Although the 2014 Ebola virus outbreak and spillover were attributed to bats, chimpanzees can also be responsible for a new Ebola outbreak as they can contract and succumb to the virus. Ebola has been a major reason for the declining chimpanzee population across Africa. Once humans come in contact with an infected chimpanzee or its body fluids, the deadly disease can be transmitted to humans – leading to a viral spillover.

This means every unmonitored handling of a chimpanzee, including its capture, to sell it as a pet or kill for meat poses a risk of a disease breakout simply because the hunter or the capturer cannot know whether the animal has contracted Ebola virus. On the other hand, protecting a chimpanzee’s natural habitat and ensuring it stays within that habitat not only leads to its conservation but also prevents it from passing on any deadly pathogen, such as Ebola, to humans.

‘Learn from East Africa’

Considering the spillover risks, conserving the habitats of key wildlife species, especially those known to transmit viral zoonotic diseases to humans, is vital. Many feel West Africa can learn from its East African neighbors who have set examples of protecting their wildlife reserves by creating a safe distance between the wildlife and humans.

“Look at countries like Rwanda or Kenya, then you will see that where there is a wild reserve, they create a buffer zone of 2-3 kilometers,’’ says the founder of Tacugama Chimpanzee Sanctuary.

The failure to maintain this distance can pose serious risks to the region’s One Health goal, says Frederick Jobo Moseray, Assistant Conservation Manager at the sanctuary.

“When the forest goes, the animals become homeless. They then come to human colonies. Here, we are talking about chimpanzees. They are hunted, killed, and also kept as pets. All of this is dangerous. We are talking about preventing a zoonotic disease spillover, but first, we must stop the shrinking of safe space between humans and chimpanzees,” Moseray concludes.

IPS UN Bureau Report


Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

© Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service



Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

A Good Compromise — Global Issues

Final plenary session of COP15. Some analysts say the adopted framework is a good compromise. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS
  • by Stella Paul (montreal)
  • Inter Press Service

Montreal, Dec 20 (IPS) – In a landmark agreement, all parties of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (UNCBD) adopted the draft Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) to protect at least 30% of the world’s lands and water by 2030.

Led by China and facilitated by the CBD, the parties of the convention adopted the draft very late on Sunday night, after 12 days of intense negotiations over 23 targets that, put together, make the framework for biodiversity protection until 2030.

The Old vs. New GBF

When COP15 negotiations began on December 7, the GBF had 22 targets. However, on December 19, the final day of the COP, there were 23 targets in the adopted document. There have not been any new additions, but Target 19 – focused on finance – has been divided into two targets: Target 19 and Target 20. Target 20, therefore, is now Target 21, Target 21 is Target 22, and Target 22 is now Target 23.

The adopted document looks leaner and shorter compared to the version presented before the parties on December 7. However, the new version – presented by China on Saturday and adopted later by all parties – has all the text considered crucial.

For example, on Target 3 – widely considered as the lifeline of the GBF and equivalent to the Climate Change COP’s goal of keeping global warming to 1.5 degrees – the old text was long and somewhat vague, with too many details but no indication of action.

In Target 19.1, focusing on resource mobilization, the draft framework proposed to increase financial resources progressively and annually from all sources by reaching at least $200 billion by 2030.

The adopted framework has a more straightforward but detailed language: “Raise international financial flows from developed to developing countries … to at least US$ 20 billion per year by 2025, and at least US$ 30 billion per year by 2030.”

In Target 22, the draft version read: “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 adopted version of this target has a language that is richer and more action-oriented:  “Ensure gender equality in the implementation of the framework through a gender-responsive approach where all women and girls have equal opportunity and capacity to contribute to the three objectives of the Convention, including by recognizing their equal rights and access to land and natural resources and their full, equitable, meaningful and informed participation and leadership at all levels of action, engagement, policy, and decision-making related to biodiversity.”

The Big Decisions

In addition to the GBF, the parties at COP15 have approved a series of related agreements on the framework’s implementation, including planning, monitoring, reporting, and review; resource mobilization; helping nations to build their capacity to meet the obligations; and digital sequence information on genetic resources.

For example, Digital sequence information on genetic resources – a dominant topic at COP15 – has many commercial and non-commercial applications, including pharmaceutical product development, improved crop breeding, taxonomy, and monitoring invasive species.

Francis Ogwal and Basile Van Havre, co-chairs of the Global Biodiversity Framework, at a press meeting after the framework was adopted. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS
Francis Ogwal and Basile Van Havre, co-chairs of the Global Biodiversity Framework, at a press meeting after the framework was adopted. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

COP15 delegates agreed to establish a multilateral fund for the equal sharing of benefits between providers and users of DSI within the GBF.

Another big decision was to create a specific fund for biodiversity within the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) – the nodal agency that receives, channelizes and distributes all funds for environmental protection in the world. Reacting to the decision, Carlos Manuel Rodriguez, GEF CEO and Chairperson, called GBF a significant breakthrough and supported the creation of the fund.”

“Resource mobilization has been a central theme here in Montreal over the last two weeks, both to reach an ambitious agreement, and to ensure it is implemented. I am therefore honored and extremely pleased that the Conference of the Parties has requested the GEF to establish a Global Biodiversity Fund as soon as possible, to complement existing support and scale up financing to ensure the timely implementation of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework,” Rodriguez said in a press statement.

A Good Compromise

Jennifer Corpuz of Indigenous People’s Forum for Biodiversity (IPFB), an umbrella of over 10 thousand indigenous organizations across the world, had been lobbying intensely to ensure mainstreaming of indigenous peoples’ rights in the GBF, called the adopted document, a “good compromise” and “a good start.”

According to Corpuz, the GBF – now known as “The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework,” contains strong language on all targets that concern indigenous peoples and local communities. The language is very strong, especially in the areas of spatial planning (Target 1), area-based conservation (Target 3), customary sustainable use (Targets 5 and 9), traditional knowledge (Goal C, Targets 13 and 21), and participation and respect for the rights of Indigenous peoples and local communities to lands, territories, and resources (Target 22).

“The Framework should be celebrated as a historic step towards transforming how we approach biodiversity conservation. The text provides a strong basis for countries to walk hand in hand with Indigenous peoples in addressing the biodiversity crisis and in ensuring that the negative legacy of conservation on Indigenous peoples will be corrected,” Corpuz told IPS.

Basile Van Havre – the co-chair of the framework, appeared to agree with Corpuz. Answering a question on the implications and meaning of various terms such as “equitable governance” in the GBF, Havre told IPS, “it would help local governments to create a mechanism for working together with different sections of the populations, especially the Indigenous peoples.”

On the adoption of a gender target (Target 23) and the adoption of the Gender Action Plan, the CBD Women’s Caucus expressed their gratitude to various parties for their support. A group of women also broke out in a jubilant dance – an expression of their joy and relief after years of persuasion to include Gender as a stand-alone target in the GBF.

The next steps and challenges ahead

According to experts, the success of the GBF will heavily lie on two factors: 1) Adopting and operationalizing GBF indicators relevant to each target and 2) Creating a mechanism quickly for those decisions that involve a multilateral system.

For example, under the new GBF, finances for biodiversity will come from rich and developed nations and private investors. But the pathways and mechanisms for these are yet to be decided, and the sooner these are done, the better it will be for all parties to begin implementing the framework.

A lot will also depend on how quickly the countries can revise their current National Biodiversity Action Plans to make ways for implanting new decisions under the GBF, according to Francis Ogwal, CBD co-chair of the GBF.

Others have also cautioned that if countries are not able to make necessary policy changes, there is a risk that the GBF could fail.

“The agreement represents a major milestone for the conservation of our natural world, and biodiversity has never been so high on the political and business agenda, but it can be undermined by slow implementation and failure to mobilize the promised resources. Governments have chosen the right side of history in Montreal, but history will judge all of us if we don’t deliver on the promise made today,” warned Marco Lambertini, Director General of WWF International.

The agreement also obligates countries to monitor and report on a large set of “headlines” and other indicators related to progress against the GBF’s goals and targets every five years or less. Headline indicators include the percent of land and seas effectively conserved, the number of companies disclosing their impacts and dependencies on biodiversity, and many others.

The CBD will combine national information submitted by late February 2026 and late June 2029 into global trends and progress reports.

IPS UN Bureau Report


Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

© Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service



Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Russias Single Word Objection Holds Up Process — Global Issues

Women doing on-the-spot training at COP15. Target 22 is being held up by a single word. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS
  • by Stella Paul (montreal)
  • Inter Press Service

Montreal, Dec 19 (IPS) – Since the beginning of the high-level segment, tensions have been steadily rising at the 15th meeting of the conference of the parties to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD COP15) among all participants, including members of country delegation teams, NGOs, observers, monitors, and media. At the press events held daily at the media center and various other events in the Montreal Convention Center, an outburst of anger and frustration have become a common sight.

In the middle of such high drama, there is one corner at the COP – the Women’s Pavilion in the Palace Quebec room that presents a very different picture: a group of women sitting in a circle on low stools, intently listening to a fellow woman speak about easy and effective ways to connect, coordinate, and collaborate with their community members.

“That is a training in session,” says Mrinalini Rai – the director of Women4Biodiversity – a global coalition of dozens of women-led organizations worldwide working together to get gender equality mainstreamed into the CBD Global Biodiversity Framework.  In March this year, in the 3rd Working Group meeting of the CBD in Geneva, CBD first received a proposal for a stand-alone target on gender to the GBF, which, at that time, had 21 targets. The proposal was officially tabled by Costa Rica and supported by GRULAC – a group with 11 member countries from Latin America and West Africa. These are Guatemala, Argentina, Dominican Republic, Mexico, Chile, Cote d’Ivoire, Ecuador, Togo, Benin, Cameroon, and Tanzania.  Today, barely nine months later, the GBF consists of 22 targets – an inclusion that reflects an extraordinary level of coordination among the women’s coalition and their astonishing level of lobbying with different parties.

Target 22 at COP15: A Quick Look

Target 22 aims 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.”

On the sidelines of the high-level segment of COP15, Rai spoke to IPS News on the struggle that has gone behind the current status of Target 22, the level of support it has received from the parties, and the area of contention that still remain to be resolved.

“It has been really a long journey that has taken years of advocacy, lobbying, discourses, and consultations around the importance of recognizing rights of all women and girls at the heart of the Convention,” Rai says candidly before adding that the gender target has received overwhelming support of all parties of the biodiversity convention at COP15. “There are 196 parties to this convention apart from the US, which is a non-party, and the Holy See (the Vatican). Right now, nobody has objected to having a target (22),” Rai reveals.

Mrinalini Rai, Coordinator of Women’s Caucus. Stella Paul/IPS

The reason is simple: mainstreaming gender into all the targets and goals of the biodiversity framework seems easier to perceive and understand far more easily than the other cross-cutting themes like finance or human rights. “If you are looking at how gender mainstreams into COP15 targets, for example, Access and Benefit Sharing, traditional knowledge, etc. – you immediately think of knowledge of women and then how do you ensure women have access. There are some very complicated issues in the COP like DSI (Digital Sequencing Information), invasive species, marine, and coastal biodiversity, etc., but whatever spaces you are looking at, gender ties to it,’ Rai says.

Gender-responsive vs. Gender sensitive – the last remaining challenge

Despite its broad support, however, the target doesn’t have a completely clean text yet. Incredibly, a single country – Russia – has raised objections to a single word, putting that within brackets.

According to Rai, on the opening day of COP15, in the working group’s plenary, Russia put a bracket on the ‘responsiveness’ in the text. This means that although the rest of the text is clean, the target 22 is not ready to be adopted yet because of this single bracket. However, the Women’s Caucus – a group of civil society organizations that is the main focal contact for all gender-related issues and has support from the CBD secretariat – is talking to the Russian delegation and pursuing them to either lift their objection or come up with an alternative that will be acceptable to all.

“Russia said that they want to replace “gender-responsive” with the term “gender-sensitive”. Now, for us, the word sensitive doesn’t really mean anything concrete. It is like being aware of something. You have been sensitized about gender, so now you are gender-sensitive or aware of gender. But the term “gender-responsive” demands action; it means there is an action for you to take and to be held accountable,” Rai explains.

Preparing for the Next Steps

While the lobbying continues, several Women’s Caucus members are already thinking ahead of COP15, strategizing for the time when countries will move to the implementation phase of the Gender Action Plan.

“It will be crucial how everything unfolds at the local level. At this point, it feels a little concerning to the national policies of respective countries in designing a compatible program for women-based organizations and women in the community to have access to finance. But as we see practically, it’s very hard for women to have that access because, one, they are not in any structure that could get them financing, and two, women, particularly in the rural areas, can’t even have access to the necessities, let alone access finance for climate or biodiversity. So, it’s important to engage grassroots women and civil society in the planning mechanism so that financing can be down streamed,” says Tsegaye Frezer Yeheyis, who heads Mahibere Hitwot of Social Development – an Ethiopian NGO and member of the Women’s Caucus.

Sharon Ruthia, a lawyer from Kenya who counsels on gender and biodiversity, further adds, “it will be important for the countries to design a mechanism to build the capacity of women – technically and financially,’

And how can gender be mainstreamed into crucial issues like DSI outside the GBF and are also contentious?  Cecilia Githaiga, another lawyer from Women4Biodiversity, shares some insights: “The biggest challenge (for gender mainstreaming is that the discussions on Nagoya Protocol are very fragmented at this moment. It would be good if these discussions were focused, then there would be a single mechanism for reporting, and that would help us women (who are not able to spread all over) still follow up, monitor, and tell when we are making progress and when there is a need for upscaling.’

When the whole chance of the target is hanging by the thread of one word, it’s easy to be frustrated, especially after crossing such a long journey. However, Target 22 advocates are making a brave effort to be positive. “We do have parties who support the word ‘responsiveness,’ so we are hoping that all 195 countries will support it. This hasn’t yet come to the working groups or the contact groups, so we are keeping an eye on that,” Rai concludes in a hopeful voice.

IPS UN Bureau Report


Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

© Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service



Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Impact of Mega Infrastructure Projects on Biodiversity Stay Off-Radar — Global Issues

Activists at COP15 believe that keeping infrastructure off the radar is a problem and have expressed concern about the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) of China which impacts on biodiversity hotspots and Indigenous communities. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS
  • by Stella Paul
  • Inter Press Service

Dec 15 (IPS) – As the COP entered its crucial second week, negotiations are intensifying now. A slew of new contact groups – meeting mostly behind closed doors – are discussing the minutest details of the Global Biodiversity Framework and the contentious issues within or around it, such as Digital Sequencing Information, Access, and Benefit Sharing. The core aim of all these groups is to talk and resolve all issues and produce a draft treaty that will be acceptable to all parties.

In this flurry of activities, however, there’s an elephant in the room that no one wants to see: The impact of mega infrastructural projects on biodiversity. Leading the table of these most impacting mega projects is the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) of China – the president of COP15.

BRI: A Mammoth Project Like No Other

China launched BRI in 2013, intending to revive and strengthen its trade links with the rest of the world. Today, it’s a mammoth project involving several regions of Asia, Africa and Europe with plans to construct roads, railways, ports, and, more recently, health, digital, and space projects, building physical and economic links, enhancing trade and interconnectivity.

It is, however, not a single Chinese government initiative but consists of many different projects in multiple countries, financed through multiple avenues, including Chinese and international banks and investment funds.

According to a 2019 paper published by the Center for Economics and Business Research (CEBR), the BRI was likely to boost world GDP by $7.1 trillion annually within the next two decades. The Information Office of the Chinese government also reports that BRI has created more than 244,000 jobs for locals abroad.

However, a vast majority of BRI projects require the use of Chinese companies, labour, and raw materials, meaning the GDP gains from BRI will go to the Chinese ‘locals,’ not to the locals of the countries in which China has invested.

An Ambition Vehicle or a Debt Trap

Today, at least sixty-four countries fall within its ambit, and the number is increasing.  The terrestrial route of BRI aims to cut across Central Asia, Russia, India, Pakistan and Europe, and the maritime route runs along the coast of Asia, East Africa, and Europe.

However, many of these small countries saw themselves falling into mounting debts. The first is Sri Lanka which recently plunged into a financial crisis from debts owed to China for highways, ports, airports, and a coal power plant. Sri Lanka owes China lenders over $7.4 billion– 20% of its total foreign debt. Other countries following the footsteps of Sri Lanka are Kyrgyzstan and Montenegro; while Kyrgyzstan owes 40% of its foreign debt, including $1.8 billion to Chinese lenders, the European Union (EU) refused to pay off a $1 billion Chinese loan for the BRI but has offered help on other infrastructure projects.

Impacts on Environment, Gender and Indigenous Peoples

The financial crisis put aside, the implication of the BRI on the region’s biodiversity is huge as it includes many different environmentally important areas such as protected areas, key landscapes, Global 200 Ecoregions (a list of ecoregions identified by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) as priorities for conservation), and biodiversity hotspots that cover the distribution range of flagship species.  In fact, the study found that 32% of the total area of all protected areas in countries crossed by BRI corridors were potentially affected by the project. There are also areas that are important for delivering ecosystem services that provide social and economic benefits to people.

According to a geospatial study done by WWF, which examined the environmental impacts of BRI, the initiative will affect 1,700 biodiversity hotspots, threaten 265 species, and potentially introduce hundreds of alien species that threaten these fragile ecosystems.

The BRI corridors also overlap with 1,739 Important Bird Areas or Key Biodiversity Areas and 46 biodiversity hotspots or Global 200 Ecoregions5. This is in addition to the range of 265 IUCN threatened species, including 39 critically endangered species and 81 endangered species – including saiga antelopes, tigers and giant pandas.

According to Allie Constantine, Gender and Indigenous rights Advisor to Global Forest Coalition, there is still no impact assessment on how the BRI affects women, and China has not released data on gender and the BRI. However, given that China has signed and ratified most UN human rights treaties, including the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (Goal 5 being “Gender Equality”), the country is obliged to report on gender impacts of BRI projects it operates.

While China’s 14th Five-Year plan discusses women’s equality and gender rights, there is no indication of how China will implement or enforce this within the BRI.

“However, even without this data, we can still make certain inferences regarding gendered impacts,” says Constantine, who recently conducted a study on the impact of BRI on women and indigenous peoples in Southeast Asia.

The study reveals that BRI’s expansion through important ecological corridors, including Chinese-backed hydropower projects built along the Mekong River that cause changes in river flow, directly puts specific communities and fragile ecosystems at risk. In turn, this impacts fish migrations and creates a further loss of livelihoods for downstream communities in Laos, Cambodia, Thailand and Vietnam that rely on the river for sustenance.

It also says that specific BRI projects often negatively affect indigenous and forest communities. For example, the Indigenous Mah Meri community in Malaysia is frequently harmed by government processes, including the development of BRI ports in Mah Meri territories. Although Malaysia supports the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), it frequently acts against Indigenous land and human rights, Constantine’s study reveals.

Greening or Greenwashing

Since the outbreak of COVID-19, China has been intensifying “Green BRI” efforts, including research on how to make BRI projects more environmentally sound. For example, in 2021, the Chinese ministries of Foreign Commerce and Ecology and Environment released “Green Development Guidelines.” China has also committed to ending coal-fired power plants and investing in renewable energy sources.

Speaking to IPS, Li Shuo, Global Policy Advisor at Greenpeace East Asia, said that within China, there is a growing concern over the country’s investment overseas, especially in high-carbon projects such as coal plants.

“It’s a little hard to say if BRI is a good thing or a bad thing for the local economy or local environment. You have to look at it on a case-by-case basis,“ says Shuo, “But there is a clear recognition that some of the BRI projects are quite problematic from an environmental point of view. I think there is a realization from the Chinese side as well, and that is why a year ago, there was this Chinese commitment to not fund coal-fired power projects. The announcement was made in September 2021 in the UN General Assembly.”

Shuo, however, says that there is still no such recognition or public debate when it comes to biodiversity.

“There is a recognition that China should not invest in high-carbon projects, so there is a slow transition, but on the other hand, where biodiversity is feeding into all these, I think you are in need of more recognition on the Chinese side on the biodiversity implications of the BRI projects. I think climate recognition is slowly getting there but not necessarily on biodiversity. And if you think about it, a lot of the infrastructural projects will have a negative footprint,” Shuo says.

Observers at COP15, however, are saying that with many destructive projects under the BRI, such as large dams built along the Mekong River, which also threaten biodiversity, forests, and forest communities—simply defunding coal and investing in other potentially harmful projects is not the solution.

Exclusion of Infrastructure in GBF

Infrastructure has not been included in the current biodiversity draft framework. On Dec 8, at a side event of the ongoing COP15, Amy Fraenkel, Executive Secretary, Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS), expressed alarm that infrastructure is not addressed in the GBF.

Highlighting that migratory species must be able to reach new habitats, she noted the CMS tackles threats posed to these species by infrastructure. She also called on governments and investors to consider whether there is a real need for new infrastructure developments and to look into alternatives, including “no new infrastructure” options.

Simone Lovera of the Global Forest Coalition has been more vocal in her criticism of BRI, the exclusion of infrastructure in the biodiversity framework and China’s silence on the initiative’s impact on biodiversity. She especially spoke out on how the current financing mechanism – already a contentious issue at COP15 could further fail if mega projects like BRI were continued to be ignored.

“It doesn’t make any sense to just close the financing gap; even US100 billion dollars per year, we have 1.3 trillion US dollars that are going to destructive activities. Sadly, China’s own Belt and Road Initiative is an example of initiatives that are still financing very harmful projects. They are trying to green it up, but they are not doing any gender analysis, and a lot of BRI activities are actually very harmful on the ground. So first and foremost, the thing China should do is look at its own Belt and Road Initiative and make sure that that is aligned. On the one hand, they claim to have ecological civilization at home, but they export the destruction to other countries,” Lovera told IPS News.

Speaking to IPS, Basile Van Havre- Co-chair of the GBF, said negotiators were now “focusing on not adding any new texts to the draft and instead were working to shift as much existing text as possible out of the brackets”. This means if infrastructure has been excluded from the GBF, it is not likely to be included now.

The onus of curbing the harms caused to biodiversity by projects like BRI falls entirely on the countries that own and run them – such as China.

“The European Union just banned commodities that come from deforestation and biodiversity destruction. It’s possible. Let us have an agreement here so they (China) also have a legal alignment. They can say, ‘okay, in line with this multilateral agreement, we will start banning products caused by biodiversity destruction, and I think the EU legislation will show it’s possible. It is a good example, and we very much look at China to do that,” Lovera says.

IPS UN Bureau Report


Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

© Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service



Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

A Long Way to Montreal — Global Issues

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


Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

© Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service



Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Exit mobile version