ReportWire

Tag: Stella Paul

  • At COP16, Biodiversity Credits Raising Hopes and Protests

    At COP16, Biodiversity Credits Raising Hopes and Protests

    Indigenous women in Cali hold a protest commodificationof their traditional natural products. Majority of the indigenous organizations participants in the COP have been vocal about their opposition to biodiversitycredits, which they think is a false solution to halt biodiversity loss. Credit:Stella Paul/IPS COP16 Logo, installed at the conference venue atCali, Colombia. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS
    • by Stella Paul (cali, columbia)
    • Inter Press Service

    CALI, Columbia, Oct 26 (IPS) – At the end of the first week at the 16th Conference of Parties on Biodiversity (COP16), finance emerges as the biggest issue but also shrouded in controversies.

    On Saturday, as the COP moved closer to its most crucial phase of negotiations, resource mobilization—listed under Target 19 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF)—took centerstage, with most parties demanding faster action, greater transparency and the adoption of true solutions to halt biodiversity loss. 

    Biodiversity finance: Expectation vs Reality

    On Thursday, October 24, the government of China formally announced that the Kunming Biodiversity Fund—first announced by Chinese president Xi Jinping in 2021—was now fully in operation. The fund promises to contribute USD 220 million over the next 10 years, which would be spent especially to help developing countries in implementation of the KMGBF and achieve its targets, said Huang Runqiu, Minister of Environment and Ecology, China, at a press conference. It wasn’t clear, however, how much of the promised amount had been deposited.

    This has been the only news of resource mobilization for global biodiversity conservation received at COP16, as no other donors came forth with any further announcements of new financial pledges or contributions to the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund (GBFF), which was expected to receive USD 400 billion in contribution by now but has only received a paltry USD 250 million.  In addition, there were no announcements of the countries reducing their current spending on harmful subsidies that amount to USD 500 billion and cause biodiversity degradation and biodiversity loss.

    In absence of new contributions and lack of any concrete progress on reduction of harmful subsidies, the new mechanisms like biodiversity credits to mobilize resources for implementation of the Global Biodiversity Fund is fast gaining traction.

    From October 21–24, the COP16 witnessed a flurry of activities centered primarily around biodiversity credits and the building of new pathways to mobilize finance through this means. Experts from both the UN and the private sector were heard at various forums discussing the needs of developing tools and methodologies that would help mobilize new finance through biodiversity credits while also ensuring transparency.

    COP16 logo, installed at the conference venue in Cali, Colombia. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS
    COP16 logo, installed at the conference venue in Cali, Colombia. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

    Inclusiveness and the Questions

    According to a 2023 report by the World Economic Forum, the demand for biodiversity credits could rise to USD 180 billion annually by 2050. The report said that if major companies stepped into the market, the annual demand for biodiversity credits could go to as high as USD 7 billion per year by 2030.

    Experts from the UN and a variety of technical people with various backgrounds said that since biodiversity credits are still in their infancy, there will undoubtedly be a lot of scrutiny and criticism. The Biodiversity Credit Alliance is a group that provides guidance for the establishment of a biodiversity credit market. The urgent need, they said, was to develop infrastructure and policies that would help answer those questions and tackle the scrutiny. The first and foremost of them was to help build digital tools and infrastructure that could be used to share and store biodiversity data in a credible and transparent manner.

    Nathalie Whitaker, co-founder of Toha Network in New Zealand, a group of nature-based business investors, said that her organization is building digital tools, especially for helping local communities to participate in biodiversity credit programs and access the benefits.

    “Once the communities have these tools, they can instantly see what data is being used to pay for the biodiversity credits or even decide the value of the natural sources in their territory. So, they can see what resources are being discussed, what is being valued, how it’s being done and how the whole discussion is moving forward,” Whitaker said.

    Fabian Shimdt-Pramov, another speaker at the event, said that the quality of the tools would decide the course and results of a biodiversity credits project.

    Shimdt-Pramov, chief business development officer at Biometric Earth, a German company that uses artificial intelligence to build biodiversity analytics tools from different sources such as remote sensing, wildlife cameras, acoustic monitoring, etc.

    “If methodology is not correct, if the data is not correct, the system doesn’t work,” he said, emphasizing on the requirement of high-level technological expertise that is needed to get a biodiversity credit project off the ground.

    However, when questioned on the cost of buying such high-end technologies and tools, especially by Indigenous communities living in remote areas without any internet connectivity, both speakers appeared to be at a loss for words.

    “I have seen in the Amazon a community selling five mahogany trees on the internet, so I am guessing it’s not a big challenge,” Shmidt-Pramov said in a dismissive voice. Whitaker acknowledged that lack of access to digital technology in Indigenous Peoples communities was an issue but had no solutions to propose.

    Terence Hay-Edie of Nature ID, UNDP, however, stressed the need to empower the communities with the knowledge and skills that would help them access the tools and be part of a biodiversity credit.

    As an example, he cites restoration of river-based biodiversity as a biodiversity credit project where a river is considered to have the same rights as a human being. According to him, if values of credits are counted and traded for restoration of biodiversity around a river, it will require recognition of all these rights that a river has, which is only possible when the community living along the river has full knowledge of what is at stake, what is restored, what value of the restored biodiversity is to be determined and how the pricing of that value will be decided.

    “A river can be a legal entity and have a legal ID. Now, can we build some tools and put them in the hands of the community that is doing the restoration to know the details of it? That’s what we are looking at,” Hay-Edie said.

    A False Solution?

    However, Indigenous peoples organizations at the COP16 were overwhelmingly opposing biodiversity credits, which they called “commodifying nature.”

    What are biodiversity credits? It’s basically regenerating biodiversity where it is destroyed and earning money from that. But it doesn’t work that way, according to Souparna Lahiri, senior climate change campaigner at Global Forest Coalition.

    “If we talk of a forest, the ecosystem is not just about trees but about every life that thrives in and around it—the rivers, the animals, plants, bees, insects, flowers and all the organisms. Once destroyed, it’s lost forever. And when you regenerate it elsewhere, you can never guarantee that it will be an exact replica of what has been lost.  This is why the very concept of biodiversity credit is a destructive idea,” says Lahiri.

    Valentina Figuera, also of the Global Forest Coalition, said that while trading carbon credits could work as a tool in carbon change mitigation, it would not be the same in biodiversity.

    “In climate change, you can measure the total carbon generated by a forest, for example. But in biodiversity, how do you measure it? What is the mechanism? How do you even value life that thrives there? So, this concept is a straight import from climate change and forcefully imposed in biodiversity, which is nothing but a false solution, so that businesses that cause biodiversity loss can conduct their business as usual.

    The Dilemma of Participation

    COP16, dubbed the “People’s Cop” by Colombia, the host country, has drawn several hundred representatives of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLC), especially from across Latin America, including Colombia, Brazil, Panama, Venezuela and Peru. While the Latin American IPLC organizations appeared united in their opposition to biodiversity credits, African organizations seemed to be willing to consider it.

    Mmboneni Esther Mathobo of the South African NGO International Institute of Environment said that her organization was in support of biodiversity credits, which could, she said, not only help the community earn money but also motivate them further to preserve biodiversity.

    “We are influencing and making sure that our rights are safeguarded and protected in this newly emerging market of bringing biodiversity credits,” said Mathobo.

    Currently, Namibia is implementing its first biodiversity carbon credits project in partnership with the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). Known as the Wildlife Credits Scheme, the project is known as a Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) that rewards communities for protecting wildlife and biodiversity.  Mathobo said that the project in Namibia made her realize that there was a great opportunity for local communities to conserve and restore biodiversity and earn from it.

    “We faced many challenges to earn carbon credits because that system was established and created behind our heads. And now we wake up, but we find ourselves sitting with a lot of problems in that market where our communities are not even benefiting. But we believe that with the engagement of the biodiversity alliance, UNDP, we are going to be the ones making sure that whatever happens in the biodiversity credit market, it benefits all our regions and all our communities, as well as safeguarding and protecting our rights,” she said.

    “To each their own, if Latin American indigenous communities feel they don’t want to trade natural resources, that’s their right. But in Africa, we have the potential to earn biodiversity credits and we need the money, so we are supporting it,” Mahobo commented when reminded of the opposition of Latin American countries to biodiversity credits.

    Source: World Economic Forum Report on Biodiversity Credit

    IPS UN Bureau Report


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2024) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • We Should Aim to be at Peace with Nature, Says David Cooper of UN Convention on Biological Diversity

    We Should Aim to be at Peace with Nature, Says David Cooper of UN Convention on Biological Diversity

    Bee-harvesting in an urban setting. Preparations are underway for the 16th Biodiversity Convention of the Parties (COP16) in Cali, Valle del Cauca. Credit: USDA
    • by Stella Paul (hyderabad & montreal)
    • Inter Press Service

    HYDERABAD & MONTREAL, May 02 (IPS) – In a world faced with habitat loss and species extinction, climate change, and pollution, it’s crucial that countries develop their national action plans and create a society that lives in harmony with nature, says David Cooper, Acting Executive Secretary of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), in an exclusive interview with IPS.

    And in a year where more than 4 billion people across the globe are expected to participate in elections, Cooper believes that politicians should put biodiversity on their manifestos.

    Since taking the reins from the previous Executive Director, Elizabeth Mrema, Cooper has been at the forefront of steering the CBD towards the implementation of the Global Biodiversity Framework.

    Later this year, world leaders will gather in Cali, Colombia for the 16th Biodiversity Convention of the Parties (COP16) slated for October 21 to November 1, 2024 for which preparations are currently underway.

    Cooper gives insight into the core issues that will be on the top of the COP16 agenda, the current status of biodiversity finance, including the newly operationalized biodiversity fund, the upcoming meetings of the scientific and technical bodies of the CBD, the current status of National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAP) and what is likely to unfold in the coming months in Digital Sequence Information (DSI).

    David Cooper, Acting Executive Secretary of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).
    David Cooper, Acting Executive Secretary of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).

    Biodiversity Finance: On Track but at Slow Pace

    The UN Biodiversity Convention aims to mobilize at least USD 20 billion per year by 2025 and at least USD 30 billion per year by 2030 for biodiversity-related funding from all sources, including the public and private sectors.

    However, the current situation with biodiversity funding shows that while progress is happening, it’s not fast enough. Some countries and groups are trying hard to give more money to projects that help nature, but overall, it’s still below expectations, and there are unfilled promises, Cooper acknowledges.

    “We need to see a serious road map,” Cooper says, “All countries, in particular the donor country community, have to see how we are going to achieve at least that USD 20 billion by 2025 because that’s imminent.”

    He called on big donors to honor their commitments.

    “It’s really important that the big donors who promise money actually follow through and give the money they said they would. We need everyone to work together to make sure there’s enough money to protect our plants, animals, and the places they live,” Cooper says. “Certainly, we need to see all countries put efforts behind all of the goals and targets of the framework and that, of course, includes those on financial resources.”

    Cooper welcomed the decision by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) to establish a new fund, the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund. He said the CBD secretariat was working closely with Carlos Manuel Rodriguez, the GEF CEO, and his team.

    “We then saw a number of contributions to that fund coming. The contribution from Canada is a significant one of 200 million Canadian dollars. Other significant donations came from Germany, Spain, Japan, and most recently, Luxembourg. Actually, the contribution from Luxembourg, if we look at its pro rata, given the size of the Luxembourg economy, is also quite generous, even though it’s only USD 7 million in total.”

    National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs)

    It’s not only about funding, Cooper says, but countries showing their commitment to their agreements, including developing NBSAPs. He acknowledged that very few countries had submitted so far.

    “It’s only a few countries so far, and Spain, Japan, China, France, Hungary, and Ireland have submitted their NBSAPS, as well as the European Union,” says Cooper.

    While he is optimistic that all the countries will develop their targets, he recognizes that it’s a complex process.

    “I think most countries are in the process of developing their national targets, which is the first thing they’re supposed to do. But this is a process that is also supposed to engage all the different sectors of the economy and all the different parts of society, with the engagement of local communities, indigenous peoples, businesses, and so on.”

    The CBD supports the countries through the complexities.

    “The developing countries in particular have been supported through the Global Environment Facility. We’ve also been organizing a number of regional dialogues so that countries can share their experience as they move forward,” Cooper says.

    At COP15, it was decided that all countries should submit their NBSAPs, if possible, before COP16.

    “If they’re not able to submit their full NBSAPS by then, then at least they should provide their updated national targets. So, we do expect many, many countries to have progressed on their NBSAPs by COP16. Immediately prior to COP16, there will be another meeting of the subsidiary body on implementation to also take stock of where we are on that.”

    COP16: What’s In, What’s Out

    The core focus of CBD COP16 is likely to revolve around the adoption and implementation of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. This framework sets out the global targets and goals for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use for the next decade and beyond. Key aspects of the framework may include targets related to halting biodiversity loss, promoting sustainable resource management, enhancing ecosystem resilience, and ensuring equitable sharing of the benefits derived from biodiversity.

    “I think I can highlight four key areas for COP 16,” says Cooper. “The first is that we have to see, and we have to have demonstrated progress in terms of implementation of the Global Biodiversity Framework. That means national targets are set. That means NBSAPs developed in at least a majority of countries. That means funds are flowing, which means, as I said before, a credible path towards this USD 20 billion by 2025 target. It also means the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund should be receiving more funds and supporting more projects.”

    The second core issue will be the fair and equitable sharing of benefits from the use of Digital Sequence Information (DSI) on genetic resources. There was an agreement made at COP15 to establish this mechanism, but no details were fleshed out at that time, so those details are now being negotiated in an intergovernmental working group.

    “Of course, the establishment of such a mechanism with a fund would give another major boost to the Convention because it would bring in another source of funding.”

    The third area would be finance, he says.

    “The fourth area that I would highlight is the need to further strengthen the role of indigenous peoples and local communities as key actors.”

    He also points out that there’s a number of other issues, such as the issue of biodiversity and health and synthetic biology, that need to be managed, including looking at a risk assessment and risk management for, for instance, gene-edited mosquitoes.

    “They’ve determined that the theme of the COP will be peace with nature, which is a broad theme that will include many, many issues,” he reveals.

     Plastic Pollution Treaty and CBD’s Role

    The fourth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-4) on plastic pollution in April 2024 at the Shaw Center in Ottawa, Canada, aims to develop an internationally legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment, to end plastic pollution by 2040.

    Ending plastic pollution is also one of the biodiversity targets, Cooper says, adding that the CBD is actively involved in the logistical organization of INC-4.

    “Also, the reduction of waste from plastics and pollution from plastics is one of the elements of target 7 of the Kunming Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. So, we are seeing the success of INC-4 negotiations as hugely important for the implementation of the Framework,” he says.

    What to Watch out for Between Now and COP16

    Although all eyes will be on the COP16 negotiations, there are a number of global events taking place in the next few months that will contribute to the agenda and determine the level of the world’s preparedness for the conference.

    “The most important ones are obviously the SBSTTA (Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical, and Technological Advice) and the SBI (Subsidiary Body on Implementation), then this working group on Digital Sequence Information that will take place in August,” Cooper says.

    Like the SBI, SBSTTA is a subsidiary body established under the CBD. While the SBI specifically assists in reviewing progress in the implementation of the Convention and identifies obstacles to its implementation, among other functions, SBSTTA plays a crucial role in ensuring that decisions made under the CBD are informed by the best available scientific evidence and technical expertise.

    “Then we have the G7 and G20 processes coming up, which are important processes to show leadership. The CBD COP itself will be followed by the COPs of climate change and desertification, making the linkage between these. Also, we expect Colombia and the indigenous peoples will host just before COP, a pre-cop focusing on indigenous peoples and local communities and their roles,” Cooper says.

    Finally, as a record 64 countries across the world hold their elections this year to elect a new national government, does this provide a unique opportunity to speak about biodiversity and should biodiversity, like climate change, be made an election issue?

    “Definitely,” says Cooper.

    “If we look at many of the extreme events that people suffered from, particularly last year, whether these be fires, wildfires, droughts, storms, or floods, you know, these are largely attributed by the media to climate change. Climate change is increasing the probability and severity of these events, but these events are also happening because of ecosystem degradation because we haven’t been managing biodiversity and ecosystems well. So, I think we all have an opportunity to make this message and these links clearer. Politicians have a particular responsibility to do so, and I hope more of them will do so as these various elections in various parts of the world pan out.”

    IPS UN Bureau Report


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2024) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • COP28: One Health Steps Delight Many, Others Show Cautious Optimism

    COP28: One Health Steps Delight Many, Others Show Cautious Optimism

    A mask seller in an Indian food market in Kerala during a recent zoonotic disease outbreak. COP28 is the first climate negotiation where the majority of the countries have agreed to declare their commitment to prevent the worsening health impacts of climate change. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS
    • by Stella Paul (dubai)
    • Inter Press Service

    DUBAI, Dec 09 (IPS) – One Health activist, Kelly Dent, has been attending UNFCC COPs since 2009, when it was held in Copenhagen. From there, it has been a 15-year-long journey to Dubai, but Dent is finally having a reason to feel good: for the first time, the majority of the countries have come together to formally declare their commitment to prevent the worsening health impacts of climate change.

    “After 14 years of working for this (inclusion of One Health in the climate change negotiations), it is finally there in the health declaration, so we are very happy. It is mentioned clearly—says what it is and uses the exact term; there is no ambiguity,” says Dent, who is the Global Director of External Engagement at World Animal Protection, one of the 14 organizations that issued a statement of endorsement soon after the health declaration was issued in Dubai on December 3.

    The Health Declaration

    The three-page document called “COP28 Declaration on Climate and Health” says that the parties will facilitate collaboration on human, animal, environmental, and climate health challenges. Implementing a One Health approach would include addressing environmental determinants of health, stepping up research on the connections between environmental and climatic factors and antimicrobial resistance, and finding zoonotic spillovers early to stop, prepare for, and respond to future pandemics.

    While the declaration is not legally binding, it serves as a voluntary call to action outside the formal process of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). So far, 124 countries have signed it.

    According to Dent, this health declaration should be viewed alongside the “Emirates Declaration on Sustainable Agriculture, Resilient Food Systems, and Climate Action,” another landmark declaration made at COP28 on December 4. This is also the first-ever leaders’ level declaration on food systems and climate at a COP, and it highlights the unique and crucial role that food systems play in either driving or mitigating climate change—as well as adapting to its impacts.

    Put together, the two declarations widen the scope of addressing and tackling environmental, human, and animal health, all of which are interrelated.  “Even a couple of years ago, there was nothing on One Health or climate and health connections in the COPs. And now we have not one but two declarations on this. So, this is definitely a great start,” Dent says.

    Nathalie Beasnel, a surgical nurse and health philanthropist from Chad. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS
    Nathalie Beasnel, a surgical nurse and health philanthropist from Chad. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

    Perspective of a Developing Oil-Producing Country

    Nathalie Beasnel is a surgical nurse from Chad, a nation in sub-Saharan Africa with alarmingly high levels of air pollution due to industrial emissions, such as the production of oil and gas.

    According to Energy Intelligence – a global energy information company, in the first quarter of 2023, Chad’s crude oil production was 141,700 barrels per day. Of this, the country only uses a marginal portion—slightly over 2 thousand barrels; the rest is used by consumers outside of the country. The total revenue from the oil is estimated to be over USD 1.13 billion.

    Ironically, Chad ranks 190 out of 191 countries on the UN Human Development Index which makes it among the poorest countries in the world. 42% of the country’s population lives below the national poverty line.

    In addition, air pollution has emerged as one of the biggest health crises in Chad. The current PM2.5 concentration in Chad is 4.9 times higher than the WHO 24-hour air quality guidelines, according to live data gathered by AQI.in, the global air quality monitoring tool.

    Beasnel, who provides specific and basic medical supplies to hospitals in the rural areas of Senegal, Chad, and South Africa through her charity Health4Peace, receives dozens of requests every quarter from pregnant women to help them go abroad to give birth in a “clean air environment.”

    Beasnel feels that the health declaration has hopes for communities facing health challenges induced by climate change and fossil fuel burning in poorer countries like Chad; they can expect some concrete action and support, especially since the announcement of a total of 1 billion USD in financing for climate and health. The billion-dollar funding comes from an array of existing and new funders, including the Green Climate Fund, Asian Development Bank, Global Fund, and Rockefeller Foundation.

    “This is a portal. We know that USD 1 billion has already been raised, specifically by the health sector. Now I want to see where this 1 billion goes. For example, we have sudden floods, droughts, farm failures, and air pollution. However, we now need to see the mechanism of the flow of this fund—whether it is through leadership, whether it is through people, or whether it is through the people who are directly affected,” she says.

    Coming up Next: One Health Guidelines From the Quadripartite

    Last year in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt, four UN agencies (quadripartite)—WHO, UNEP, FAO, and WOAH—collectively drew a Joint Plan of Action (JPA) to advocate for and support the implementation of One Health at all levels and across sectors to tackle interconnected health risks and protect the health of all species.

    Since then, the quadripartite has taken several steps to advance the adoption of the One Health approach, which include, among others, a workshop on environmental determinants of health and the One Health Assembly.

    At COP28, the quadripartite has developed an implementation guide to provide the countries with step-by-step guidance on how to adopt and adapt the OH JPA at the national level. Scheduled to be launched on December 10, 2023, the guideline is expected to focus on how to adopt a multidisciplinary and inclusive principle. According to Cristina Romanelli, Programme Officer & Biodiversity, Climate and Health Focal Point, World Health Organization, this is one of the most exciting developments that we can expect during the remaining days of COP28. Now that we understand what a holistic, multilayered One Health framing means, how does that apply in terms of implementation? So, what will happen on December 10 is the launch of the plan for this implementation,” Romanelli says.

    Some Words of Caution

    Meanwhile, One Health advocates are urging people to make note of some missions in the health declaration that could affect its successful adoption and implementation. One of these is factory farming of animals, which significantly raises the chances of trauma and sickness in animals and contributes to at least 11% of total greenhouse gas emissions.

    “There is a powerful agriculture lobby that doesn’t allow any changes. We have to challenge this dominant lobby and their business model and expose the harm they are causing. The governments also need to take responsibility, rid away subsidies in industrial agriculture, and support protein diversification,” says Dent.

    Dent cites the example of Germany, which, in November, allocated 38 million euros to support the production of alternative (plant-based) proteins.

    The German government’s decision follows similar steps taken by the Netherlands, which has already invested 60 million euros to develop an ecosystem for cultivated meat and precision fermentation. Denmark (168 million euros) France (65 million euros) and the UK are other European countries that have announced investing in developing plant-based, alternative proteins.

    IPS UN Bureau Report


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

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

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Deforestation, Encroachment Threaten West Africas One Health Plans

    Deforestation, Encroachment Threaten West Africas One Health Plans

    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

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Global Biodiversity Framework: A Good Compromise

    Global Biodiversity Framework: A Good Compromise

    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

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Gender Target at COP15: Russias Single Word Objection Holds Up Process

    Gender Target at COP15: Russias Single Word Objection Holds Up Process

    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 if Women's Caucus. Stella Paul/IPS
    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

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • COP15: Impact of Mega Infrastructure Projects on Biodiversity Stay Off-Radar

    COP15: Impact of Mega Infrastructure Projects on Biodiversity Stay Off-Radar

    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

    Global Issues

    Source link