November 29, 2022 • 30 mins
In this episode of About Sustainability…
Erin and Simon caught up with Andre just before his trip to Montreal, Canada for the second part of the 15th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD COP15). A few things have changed since the release of our CBD episode back in March. CBD COP15 will now be convened from the 7th to the 19th of December 2022 in Montreal, Canada under the Chinese COP15 presidency.
After a two-year delay, Parties will finally come together to negotiate and agree on the text of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework (or GBF). We explored some of the highlights and interesting aspects of the GBF, including the “30by30” target, other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs), and digital sequence information.
Relevant links:
- IGES’ Special Webpage on CBD COP15
- About Sustainability… episode on the CBD
- Preparations for the post-2020 GBF
"About Sustainability..." is a podcast brought to you by the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), an environmental policy think-tank based in Hayama, Japan. IGES experts are concerned with environmental and sustainability challenges. Everything shared on the podcast will be off-the-cuff discussion, and any viewpoints expressed are those held by the speaker at the time of recording. They are not necessarily official IGES positions.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Erin (00:10):
Hello, hello.
Welcometo About Sustainability..
.
It's Erin, and I'm enjoying thebeautiful fall foliage
in Tokyo, Japan.
Following our episodeon the Convention on
Biological Diversity, or CBD,a few months back, my co-host
Simon and I caught up withAndre just before his trip
to Montreal, Canada, for thesecond part of the 15th meeting
(00:31):
of the Conference of theParties to the CBD -
a mouthful, but that'sthe UN Biodiversity Conference
or CBD COP15.
It's finally happening from the7th to the 19th of
December 2022, though not anymore in Kunming, China.
China is, however,still the COP15 presidency.
(00:51):
After a two-year delay,Parties will finally come
together to negotiate and agreeon the text of the post-2020
global biodiversityframework or GBF.
But there are some significantremaining issues to
be ironed out.
What might those be?
Can you tell us,you know, what's happening with
(01:13):
the cop 15.
I know that the datesand the venue has finally
been decided.
André (01:20):
Yeah.
So just as a bit of a recap,it was supposed to- well,
the CBD COPs generally happenabout every two years.
Erin (01:29):
Mm hmm.
André (01:29):
And this is the 15th one that we're- we're
waiting for now.
And that was supposed to- if ithad stuck to the usual schedule
- it would have happenedin October 2020.
I think itwas October, certainly 2020.
Erin (01:41):
Hmm.
André (01:41):
But of course, COVID delayed that like it did
so many other things and itkept on delaying it.
They kept on pushing the dateforward until,
eventually, they decided tohold the meeting in two parts
and to have the first part tokind of get some of the
procedural things out of theway and to allow more
time for the second part.
And that first part was ahybrid meeting with, I think,
(02:04):
the vast majority ofpeople attending online.
Like- Like myself.
Erin (02:08):
Mm hmm.
André (02:08):
And that was in Kunming in China, which is where the
whole COP was supposed to be.
After that meeting was held,I think a couple
of additional delays.
And then eventually it wasannounced by the CBD
Secretariat that they wouldconvene the meeting
in Montreal, which is where theCBD Secretariat is located.
So the second and final part ofCBD COP15 will be from the 7th
(02:31):
to the 19th of December 2022,and then that will also be
preceded by the fifth of theWorking Group 2020 meetings,
which are the meetings thatbasically formulated the
global biodiversity framework.
And the reason there are somany of those is because
they've been trying to get thetext to, you know, as close to
(02:53):
complete as possible so that atthe COP ,itself, it won't it
won't run over time, basically.
Simon (02:59):
Is it China that's chairing it?
André (03:02):
China has the COP presidency,
but, physically, it's going tobe in Montreal.
And that- that venue isliterally across the street
from the Secretariat.
Erin (03:11):
Are there any implications of that, do you
think?
André (03:14):
I'm sure that the hosts wanted to have it
in their country.
I mean, the whole- you know,a lot is involved in hosting a
meeting like this.
It's a- it's a major headache.
And I can say that from beingone of- you know, playing a
small role in hosting previousones in the past.
So if you're going to takesomething like that on,
there has to be some payoffbecause you're not being
paid for it.
Right?
In fact, you're paying to do it.
(03:36):
This particular COP,because of the global
biodiversity framework,you know, this is the venue
where the global biodiversityframework is supposed
to be adopted.
So, you know, it'll beremembered for that.
It'll be remembered as the hostof the COP that- that's just
like Japan is remembered as thecop that hosted the adoption of
the biodiversity targets andthe Strategic Plan, which is
(03:58):
the precursor to the GBF andthe COPs also provide countries
with an opportunity to attachtheir name to
different things, like Japandid with Aichi targets.
For those who don't know,it is the prefecture where
Nagoya is, which is where theCOP was held in 2010.
And there's theKunming Declaration, which is
kind of a more of a high-levelkind of declaration, not part
(04:21):
of the negotiations really,but that's something which is
being compiled already andattached to the name of
the city, to the COP.
And there may be theremay be other things like that
as well.
Erin (04:32):
Interesting.
Okay.
So let's kind of divein now to the GBF itself.
It's the successor to the Aichibiodiversity targets and the
Strategic Plan,which ended in 2020.
André (04:45):
Mm hmm.
Erin (04:46):
And I assume that also tackled the CBD's mandate
of conservation,sustainable use, and the
sharing of thebenefits of biodiversity.
Is the GBF going to dothe same, and in what ways?
André (05:02):
The way that I would describe it at the elevator
pitch level is that those threeobjectives of the CBD that you
just listed there, those arejust elaborated on in
the Strategic Plan.
And again, they are elaboratedon and reformulated in the
global biodiversity framework.
Erin (05:18):
Mm hmm.
André (05:19):
To some extent it's an update of the Strategic Plan,
but perhaps more than that,it's kind of a reformulation of
the Strategic Plan because theessence of it, there's- there's
not very much that's newbecause the problems are the
same- slightly larger than theywere 12 years ago now - it
should be ten years,but 12 years ago.
So it's not significantlydifferent from the Aichi
(05:42):
Biodiversity Targets andthe Strategic Plan.
Erin (05:44):
Okay.
And I think last time we talkedabout the main headline,
you know, everyone's talkingabout this thing called"30by30".
André (05:53):
Mm hmm.
Erin (05:53):
Right?
First, can you remind us, like,what that's all about and why
everyone's talking about it?
André (06:01):
The "30by30" means 30% by the year 2030, and 30%
refers to the amount of landand sea that is under some form
of biodiversity protection.
But the term "protected area"usually refers to something
that is formally protected,so it's proclaimed in some or
(06:21):
other way, andthat's very variable from
country to country.
But generally speaking,it requires resources,
it requires a legal framing...
It's very difficult for a lotof countries to achieve that.
So...
I wouldn't say the workaround,but a workaround to achieve
that "30by30" - which has beenspoken about quite a lot
(06:42):
recently actually since afew COPs ago, but it's really
starting to gain prominence now- is this idea of OECMs,
which stands for "othereffective area-
based conservation measures".
So just likeprotected areas are area-
based conservation measures,OECMs are other area-
based conservation measures.
It's kind of a fancyway of saying areas that are
(07:05):
contributing to thepreservation of biodiversity,
but without being formallycalled protected areas.
Erin (07:12):
Mm hmm.
André (07:12):
And there are various reasons for why
that might happen.
It might be that the people whoown or who live in those areas
don't want the legal baggagethat might come with
a protected area.
But- I mean, a good example isin many cases where indigenous
peoples and local communitiesare managing areas that they
may have managed for avery long time.
Erin (07:33):
Mm hmm.
André (07:34):
For generations and centuries or longer.
And so they're under asort of fairly stable level of
protection withoutbeing formally protected.
And they don't want to beformally protected, but they're
stillcontributing to conservation.
And then another example,which - just to do a bit of an
IGES plug here, IGES and theUnited Nations University's
(07:56):
Institute for the AdvancedStudy of Sustainability have
been working together for aboutten years on this idea of
Satoyama, or...
Satoyama Initative is a kind ofsocioecological production
landscape and seascape.
These are landscapes that areproducing food or
timber or something...
(08:16):
And at thesame time, conserving.
So it's especially...
Perhaps especially relevant ina country like Japan where
rural areas are actuallyemptying out into cities.
And these areas which havebeen farmed, for example,
or fished in a particular wayfor a very long time,
have actually- they actuallyhave an ecosystem all
(08:36):
of their own.
And when they're abandoned,the biodiversity levels go down.
Erin (08:41):
Mm hmm.
André (08:41):
And so especially in a situation like this, these are
areas which, if they'represerved, if they
continue to be socio-ecologicalproduction landscapes
and seascapes, they actuallycan serve as OECMs as well.
So these are just-just some examples.
Erin (08:56):
Mm hmm.
Simon (08:57):
Do you think this will cover areas that are beyond
national jurisdiction?
I mean, there's almost somesort of paradox in that that
maybe some of those areas need-you could say that they need
protection from overfishing.
I'm thinking of oceans here,but I guess since they are
beyond national jurisdiction,you can't really...
How would you designate themost protected when you- the
(09:19):
question would be,who would protect them?
André (09:22):
How would you protect the open ocean?
Simon (09:24):
Yeah, yeah,
Erin (09:25):
Yeah.
André (09:25):
Yeah.
I don't- I don't actually know.
That's the short answer, but myguess is that that would be
impossible because you wouldhave to have agreement from
everyone on how to fishthe open ocean.
And I think thatprobably is more relevant to
other conventions, like theConvention on the Law
of the Sea.
I would imagine it's morerelevant to that than it is
(09:47):
to the CBD.
But as far as what's-what's left, the EEZs - the
economic exclusion zones - forcountries that do have
a coastline, which Ithink is 200 miles,
if I remember correctly...
Though, within that zone,the idea would be for each
country kind of has ajurisdiction over that.
And so within that, they wouldbe expected or it will be hoped
(10:07):
that each of them will try toconserve at least 30% in some
way or another.
But that leaves the majorityof the oceans.
Just to an ecological point,is that most of the
biodiversity and most of thefishing is done
within those EEZs.
So they are the most importantparts of the ocean.
They're the areas that are ofhighest concern and the
(10:31):
greatest threat as well.
Simon (10:32):
Right.
Okay.
Erin (10:34):
Yeah, very interesting.
I didn't really think about theopen ocean there, but-
André (10:38):
Yeah.
People generallyforget about that.
Like majority of ecologists andconservation biologist
only think "land".
Erin (10:46):
Yeah.
André (10:47):
And myself included.
Erin (10:48):
I guess it's a really hard- I mean how- I guess you
said that it's area-based sothey would designate like a
chunk of EEZ andtry to conserve it?
André (10:58):
I mean marine protected areas are
spatially demarcated.
I mean, you can't see themin reality, but on the map,
they'll be demarcated.
Also, just to mention aprotected area doesn't mean
that nothing can beextracted from there.
Right?
There are various differentkinds- even formal
protected areas,whether marine or terrestrial.
It doesn't mean that there's nouse going on at all.
(11:21):
It's just that it'ssupposed to be sustainable use.
So a lot of variability, a hugeamount of variability there.
Erin (11:27):
I mean, now I'm wondering, you know,
you said that there aredifferent tiers, I guess,
of protection,different categories.
And there are some countriesthat are very keen on having "30
by30" in the targets and othercountries maybe not so.
So if there are no consequenceson countries if they don't meet
(11:47):
the target, so whyis it a controversy?
André (11:51):
It's just a fairly ambitious goal.
So, you know, with-as with other multilateral
environmental agreements,I think countries want to be
able to show the world thatthey're doing a good job
towards a particular goal,you know?
So that's kind of whatdrives it, I think.
(12:12):
And there's no there's no legalramification if you don't
meet that target.
Erin (12:17):
Mm hmm.
André (12:17):
For some countries, it's really not difficult.
For some, it's- some countrieshave already done that.
But for others,it's really difficult.
And, you know,countries are so different.
Size is different, amount ofcoastline is different,
populations, of course,are different.
So the bigger the population,the greater the
need for resources.
So there are all thesedifferent factors, but that
(12:38):
is also understood.
You know, it's- I think there'sa general understanding that
not all countries will be ableto comply to the same extent or
to fulfill the same goals,the same particular targets
that other countries areable to fulfill.
But just generally speaking,"30by30" is fairly ambitious.
And as I mentioned, if it were30% formally protected areas,
(13:00):
you know, under some kind oflegal backing, it would be
arguably impossible for mostcountries to do that because it
requires purchasing land,huge amounts of land and
everything that goes with that.
But these OECMs are...
that's what I calledit sort of a workaround.
It's a way of getting to thattarget without having to
(13:21):
formally protect areas.
And I thinkit's a double-edged sword.
I think it's a really goodthing because it kind of- it
also gives credit to,for example, indigenous peoples
and local communities whohave been conserving.
But of course, it couldalso be misused.
And just as there are manykinds of levels of
protected areas, that- that'sa formal demarcation.
(13:42):
So now we're talking aboutan informal demarcation.
So it's even more blurry,you know, what actually what
actually counts as an OECM.
But I suspect that, you know,over the years to come,
there'll be some- someagreement on what constitutes
an OECM, you know, so thatpeople and governments can't
get away with calling anythingthat just to make it look like
(14:03):
they'refulfilling their targets.
Erin (14:05):
Mm hmm.
André (14:06):
If there's any controversy, it might be
because some countries,despite the OECM option,
they might still think thatthis is just too much to handle.
And, you know, "easy forCountry X, but not so
easy for us.
And that's not fair", you know?
Erin (14:20):
Right.
André (14:20):
Maybe some of that sentiment.
Erin (14:22):
Right.
Because like you said,there are some countries that
have already done it and- orare close to doing it.
André (14:27):
Yeah.
And somewhere it's just so muchmore difficult than it
is for others.
Yeah.
Erin (14:32):
Mm hmm.
Simon (14:32):
Is it then so much more ambitious to a previous
protected area target?
Is it like double that ordouble the current target or?
André (14:41):
So the previous target did not include OECMs, right?
So that- you can'treally compare them.
So...
So first of all, the previoustarget was, I think it was 17%
land and 10% sea...?
I think that wasthe target from the
Aichi Biodiversity Targets.
So this is quitea big markup on that.
But theoretically, the formalprotected area portion could
(15:03):
even go down as long as people-as long as countries are- if
you're making up the differencewith those OECMs, you could
potentially even decrease fromformal protected areas.
But of course,that's not desirable.
Right?
You want it tobe as protected as possible.
Simon (15:18):
But you're right.
Yes.
At least 17% of terrestrial andinland water and 10% of coastal
and marine areas.
André (15:24):
Okay.
Right.
Yes.
Right.
So the 17includes freshwater right?
Even large freshwater bodiesare not included in that.
Yeah, thanks, Simon.
Erin (15:34):
So just to clarify, 30% in what's being discussed
right now, that's 30% of landand 30% of sea?
Is that-
André (15:44):
Of each.
Erin (15:44):
Of each, okay, Of each.
That's- yeah, that's a lot.
Okay.
Mm hmm.
It's not a combination.
André (15:50):
No, it's of each.
Yeah, if it hadbeen a combination, it would
have only been a 3% increase.
Erin (15:55):
Right.
Right.
André (15:56):
So that would have been pretty meager.
Yeah.
Erin (15:58):
Mm hmm.
Mm hmm.
Can I justmention something else here?
I mean, it's something Ihaven't really thought about
very much yet, but ithas been brought up, I think.
Yeah.
I think there has been somecriticism of the convenience of
the "30by30" target.
Right?
Like, so it's just- It's likewhen someone presents you
a list of...
A list of rules or a list of- achecklist of something.
(16:21):
And it happens to be ten or 20- one of these round numbers,
then it kind of makesyou wonder, like,
was it really ten, orwas ten just the number that...
They wanted to you know,they wanted to get to that
number?
So the same with "30by30".
It's- it's 30- the year is 2030.
So, you know, 27% by 30 ("27 by30") wouldn't sound as good,
(16:43):
right?
Or "31by30" wouldn'tsound as good.
So there has been somecriticism of this being an
arbitrary target, and it'sdifficult to argue against that.
But on the other hand,I think that it's probably
about right.
And I think that if it'sdone right, especially if the
OECM thing is done rightand if countries really apply
(17:04):
themselves to that, I think itcould be a success.
That that makes sense toI mean, "30by30" is definitely
more attractive as a,you know, a headline than "31by
30" or whatever.
Yeah, that makes sense.
Apart from "30by30", are thereother topics that are being
hotly debated right now withrespect to the GBF?
André (17:26):
Yeah.
So finance is always on thetable as a big issue.
From whom and how much and andwhen and and all the rest
of it...
So that's kind of aneternal issue, I think.
But the one which I think- Ihaven't been following this as
closely as a lot of people,there might be things
that are missing.
(17:46):
But the one that has attractedmy attention the most is the
issue of digitalsequencing information.
And so...
Or DSI for short, that acronymis all over some of
the COP documents.
Digital sequencing informationis just the information about a
genome and DNA informationabout a particular species.
(18:08):
It's just the information.
So the dispute here is- or thecontention here is that certain
countries are saying, "if thisinformation comes from a
species from within our borders,then we should be
compensated some somehow forany profit that's made from
using that information".
(18:28):
And then other countriesare saying, "well, this didn't
cost you anything.
Getting that information fromthe species didn't
cost you anything".
They're notremoving the species.
It's just, you know, when onespecimen is enough to
get that information.
Erin (18:40):
Mm hmm.
André (18:41):
And furthermore, the good that can be done with
that information could benefiteveryone in the long run,
even if it is bya pharmaceutical company.
So we're talking about,you know, medical and and
technological-especially medical, I guess,
but also other technologicalinnovations that rely on this.
And there's an amazinglyinteresting body of literature
(19:01):
that looks at how, you know,how human beings have used
these genomes and the differentsort of characteristics of
different species and theirgenes to come up with all
sorts of solutions.
But especially in themedical realm, there's all
sorts of things beingdiscovered all the time from
nature and thenapplied to medicines.
And, you know, one of thesecould be the next- could be the
(19:24):
cure for cancer one day.
We don't know.
Erin (19:27):
Sure.
Right.
André (19:28):
So you can imagine, you can understand maybe
the debate there.
Erin (19:30):
Mm hmm.
So I guess under thatkind of thinking,
genetic material or maybegenetic information is kind of
proprietary in a way?
I mean, to usean analogy, like with GMOs,
genetically modified organisms,there are a
lot of labs that patent genes.
Right?
So I'm thinking, like, is itgoing to be similar to that
(19:53):
potentially?
or I mean, it wouldn'tbe a patent per say,
right, because theydon't own the gene...
André (19:59):
Right.
But if they do anything tochange it, then there's the
possibility of that.
Yeah.
I mean, I'm sure that all ofthis is a big part of
the negotiation, but I haven'tactually sat in on any
of those negotiations.
So what I should mention isthat one of the things that's
being discussed is whether DSIshould even be part of the
global biodiversity framework.
Erin (20:18):
Okay.
André (20:19):
Well, some countries want it to be and then
other countries don't.
And I think one of themotivations for not having it
in the global biodiversityframework is that, if it is
in there, it might hold up theprocess and might prevent the
whole biodiversity frameworkfrom being adopted.
Erin (20:36):
Right.
André (20:36):
This is probably a gross oversimplification of things,
but I think it gives you anidea of how complicated it must
be once you getinto the details.
Simon (20:44):
I think there is an Aichi target on fair and
equitable sharingof the benefits.
I don't know what the realwording is- on sharing the
benefits ofanything that derives
from genetic information.
So I suppose it's sort of...
Maybe the discussion is relatedto some Parties wanting to
(21:05):
avoid that falls between thecracks and that some countries
make a lot of money onmonopolising the access
to that information.
André (21:11):
Yeah.
There's an entire protocol ofthe CBD, the Nagoya Protocol,
which also emerged from theJapan COP10 in 2010, which is
all about that.
And to be honest, I don't evenknow why this is being
discussed outside that Protocol.
It might be that becauseit was just considered such a
big issue, or it's just toorelated to other aspects of the
(21:33):
Convention to be isolated tothe Protocol, because the
Protocol has its ownset of negotiations and its
own decisions, which areusually held at the same time
as the CBD COP.
And that'll happen thistime as well.
But this is forming part of theCOP negotiations specifically.
Erin (21:51):
Say that we are able to have a GBF that is adopted
at COP 15.
I mean, right now I know thatthere is a lot of text that is
still bracketed, which meansnot agreed on, Right?
So...
André (22:06):
Yeah.
Erin (22:07):
So hopefully, you know, those will get resolved.
What then after the post-2020GBF is adopted
will change, right, about theway we do things?
How will governments andother stakeholders,
like businesses or civilsociety or even individuals-
how would this framework changethe way that these stakeholders
(22:31):
do things?
Will it?
André (22:33):
I don't think there's anything in the GBF that,
you know, that's different towhat's in the Strategic Plan
that's likely to make peopledo things differently.
And I standunder correction there.
I may be wrong about that,but from what I've seen,
nothing really kind of standsout unless this DSI issue
somehow has a really big impact.
And "30by30" might be somethingthat really gets people excited
(22:58):
about protected areas, you know,more than there were
in the past.
But I think arguably the mostimportant thing is that the
countries have been waiting forthe GBF to be approved in order
to do their nationallevel GBFs, which are the
NBSAPs (National BiodiversityStrategies and Action Plans).
Erin (23:17):
Mm hmm.
André (23:17):
these are produced sort of every four or five
years, typically.
Some Parties are verygood at producing them on
a regular basis.
A couple haven't everdone any, but most have done
sort of a couple at least.
So the level of uptake is...
Could be better, but it seemsto be improving over time.
But then that really slow downbecause of the delay of the COP
(23:40):
and the delay of the GBF.
I'm kind of guessing here,but I think they didn't want to
go too far down the roadbecause they didn't want to
kind of contradict the GBF whenit came out and they didn't
know when it was coming out.
They kept on being told it wasgoing to be in six months' time.
So I suspect that a lot of themhave just been waiting for the
GBF to come out so that theyhave something to model
(24:00):
their NBSAPs on.
And I don't think that-I mean, it's not like they need
the GBF to understandwhat the priorities are in
their country, but forreporting processes to the CBD
and to be kind of part of thisglobal interaction that is the
Conventionon Biological Diversity,
there's an expectation tosomehow match your NBSAP- and
(24:21):
the targets,especially, within your NBSAP
to the targets and the goalsthat are in the GBF.
So if you have a look at thepublication dates of NBSAPs on
the CBD website, there's thisbig gap recently where no one's
producing- or very fewcountries are producing NBSAPs
because they were expecting2020 was the year they could
start thinking about it again.
(24:41):
And then that gotdelayed to 2021, now 2022.
A few countries have, and someof those are kind of a little
more generic than usual,you know, to compensate for the
fact that they don't have aplan to model it on.
But I think a lot of countriesare waiting for the final text
so that they can use thatas a template for their NBSAPs.
(25:02):
So it's kind of- the lack ofa GBF, regrettably, might have
slowed down a lot of the NBSAPs.
So a lot of countriesmay still be working off their
older ones.
And I guess the- you know,in some cases that might not be
so important because they'llcarry on anyway.
But in other cases it mightmake a big difference.
So I would say- this is apersonal opinion, but I would
(25:24):
say that's an important reasonto have the global diversity
framework operational.
Erin (25:30):
So I guess it depends on resources.
Right?
Maybe some countries might havethe means to continue doing
what they're doing and continuebuilding the momentum.
Maybe?
André (25:41):
Yeah, that's kind of- that's a good point.
Resources is another issuebecause once the GBF is doing
its thing, there will be morewell-defined channels for
funding to the countriesthat need it.
So that's definitely a thing.
And I didn'treally include that.
I wasn't thinking about thatwhen I answered it now,
but that's definitely athing as well.
But what I was thinking aboutwas more just the- just the
(26:04):
case that countries just don'thave a plan to work off for the
next few years because they'reholding off on it,
they're standing back andwaiting until they can match
their plan to this global plan.
Erin (26:15):
Hmm.
In those countries, the onesthat care a lot
about biodiversity, they wouldjust continue doing what they
have been doing, I guess .
Maintaining-
André (26:24):
Yeah.
Erin (26:25):
Whereas other countries maybe we don't really know
what's going on in those.
André (26:29):
Yeah.
Erin (26:30):
So if you could think of like maybe one or two things
that you hope would comeout of COP15.
What would that be?
André (26:39):
Well, I think number one would be just that the GBF
is agreed on.
I hope that thereis agreement, you know,
and that parties can be happyabout whatever is agreed upon
in the end.
But that is not too watereddown that it does
not mean anything.
Yeah.
And then this is maybe more ofa personal preference than
anything else, but I think thatthe whole idea of technological
(27:03):
innovation is lacking a bitfrom the GBF as it stands
at the moment.
Where the word innovation isused mostly as is with respect
to innovation by indigenouspeoples and local communities
and related to indigenous andlocal knowledge, which is
obviously very important.
And the whole IPLC ILKinclusion in the GBF is
(27:26):
something it's really importantand it's something which has
really gathered a lotof steam over recent years.
But in addition to that,I think that just the idea of
embracing market mechanisms asone of the solutions to the
problems that we're facing withbiodiversity worldwide now,
I think, is really important.
(27:47):
I think that we're not going toget where we need to get in
terms of achieving these goalspurely through regulation.
I think it requires harnessingthe market, understanding the
market and how to incentivisethe market in the right ways,
you know, to provide these,kind of, triggers for the
market to go in the rightdirection rather than...
More- a little bit more carrotand a bit less stick, I think,
(28:09):
although both arestill very important.
But the innovation side ofthings is not very prominent
in the GBF.
I just had a look at thebracketed version which has
well over a thousand bracketsand that's a lot in a short
document like that.
Erin (28:25):
Yeah.
André (28:25):
And the word "innovation" is barely mentioned.
As I mentioned, where itis mentioned, it usually
pertains to indigenous andlocal knowledge or indigenous
peoples in local communities.
So I think that's somethingwhich I hope that it pops up
and in fact IGES does- We arean observer organisation at or
to the CBD and thereforeat the COPs.
So we do havethe opportunity to make inputs
(28:49):
into the negotiations.
But if I thinkit's appropriate, I think that
the thing that I'm most likelyto propose is a strong emphasis
on innovation in an appropriatepart of the GBF text.
So we'll see how that goes.
A lot depends on howthings pan out.
And with this three-day workinggroup meeting before the COP,
(29:11):
there's three days ofnegotiations specifically on
the GBF and who knows howdifferent the GBF is going to
look after those three days,and then it'll be debated
through most of the COP again.
So it may lookvery similar, it may
look completely different.
We'll have to wait and see.
Bob (29:31):
Thank you for listening to About Sustainability...
Please subscribe at podcast.
iges.jp or searchfor About Sustainability...
wherever you normallyget your podcasts.
If you've got feedback, you canreview us on your podcast
directory of choice or reachout on Twitter @IGES_EN.
(29:54):
About Sustainability...
is produced by the Institute forGlobal Environmental Strategies.
Any views expressed during thepodcast are those of the
speaker at the time ofrecording and do not
necessarily reflect theviews of IGES.
Thank you for choosing to spendyour time with us.
We don't take that lightly andwe hope you'll join
us next time.
Hello, hello.
Welcometo About Sustainability..
.
It's Erin, and I'm enjoying thebeautiful fall foliage
in Tokyo, Japan.
Following our episodeon the Convention on
Biological Diversity, or CBD,a few months back, my co-host
Simon and I caught up withAndre just before his trip
to Montreal, Canada, for thesecond part of the 15th meeting
(00:31):
of the Conference of theParties to the CBD -
a mouthful, but that'sthe UN Biodiversity Conference
or CBD COP15.
It's finally happening from the7th to the 19th of
December 2022, though not anymore in Kunming, China.
China is, however,still the COP15 presidency.
(00:51):
After a two-year delay,Parties will finally come
together to negotiate and agreeon the text of the post-2020
global biodiversityframework or GBF.
But there are some significantremaining issues to
be ironed out.
What might those be?
Can you tell us,you know, what's happening with
(01:13):
the cop 15.
I know that the datesand the venue has finally
been decided.
André (01:20):
Yeah.
So just as a bit of a recap,it was supposed to- well,
the CBD COPs generally happenabout every two years.
Erin (01:29):
Mm hmm.
André (01:29):
And this is the 15th one that we're- we're
waiting for now.
And that was supposed to- if ithad stuck to the usual schedule
- it would have happenedin October 2020.
I think itwas October, certainly 2020.
Erin (01:41):
Hmm.
André (01:41):
But of course, COVID delayed that like it did
so many other things and itkept on delaying it.
They kept on pushing the dateforward until,
eventually, they decided tohold the meeting in two parts
and to have the first part tokind of get some of the
procedural things out of theway and to allow more
time for the second part.
And that first part was ahybrid meeting with, I think,
(02:04):
the vast majority ofpeople attending online.
Like- Like myself.
Erin (02:08):
Mm hmm.
André (02:08):
And that was in Kunming in China, which is where the
whole COP was supposed to be.
After that meeting was held,I think a couple
of additional delays.
And then eventually it wasannounced by the CBD
Secretariat that they wouldconvene the meeting
in Montreal, which is where theCBD Secretariat is located.
So the second and final part ofCBD COP15 will be from the 7th
(02:31):
to the 19th of December 2022,and then that will also be
preceded by the fifth of theWorking Group 2020 meetings,
which are the meetings thatbasically formulated the
global biodiversity framework.
And the reason there are somany of those is because
they've been trying to get thetext to, you know, as close to
(02:53):
complete as possible so that atthe COP ,itself, it won't it
won't run over time, basically.
Simon (02:59):
Is it China that's chairing it?
André (03:02):
China has the COP presidency,
but, physically, it's going tobe in Montreal.
And that- that venue isliterally across the street
from the Secretariat.
Erin (03:11):
Are there any implications of that, do you
think?
André (03:14):
I'm sure that the hosts wanted to have it
in their country.
I mean, the whole- you know,a lot is involved in hosting a
meeting like this.
It's a- it's a major headache.
And I can say that from beingone of- you know, playing a
small role in hosting previousones in the past.
So if you're going to takesomething like that on,
there has to be some payoffbecause you're not being
paid for it.
Right?
In fact, you're paying to do it.
(03:36):
This particular COP,because of the global
biodiversity framework,you know, this is the venue
where the global biodiversityframework is supposed
to be adopted.
So, you know, it'll beremembered for that.
It'll be remembered as the hostof the COP that- that's just
like Japan is remembered as thecop that hosted the adoption of
the biodiversity targets andthe Strategic Plan, which is
(03:58):
the precursor to the GBF andthe COPs also provide countries
with an opportunity to attachtheir name to
different things, like Japandid with Aichi targets.
For those who don't know,it is the prefecture where
Nagoya is, which is where theCOP was held in 2010.
And there's theKunming Declaration, which is
kind of a more of a high-levelkind of declaration, not part
(04:21):
of the negotiations really,but that's something which is
being compiled already andattached to the name of
the city, to the COP.
And there may be theremay be other things like that
as well.
Erin (04:32):
Interesting.
Okay.
So let's kind of divein now to the GBF itself.
It's the successor to the Aichibiodiversity targets and the
Strategic Plan,which ended in 2020.
André (04:45):
Mm hmm.
Erin (04:46):
And I assume that also tackled the CBD's mandate
of conservation,sustainable use, and the
sharing of thebenefits of biodiversity.
Is the GBF going to dothe same, and in what ways?
André (05:02):
The way that I would describe it at the elevator
pitch level is that those threeobjectives of the CBD that you
just listed there, those arejust elaborated on in
the Strategic Plan.
And again, they are elaboratedon and reformulated in the
global biodiversity framework.
Erin (05:18):
Mm hmm.
André (05:19):
To some extent it's an update of the Strategic Plan,
but perhaps more than that,it's kind of a reformulation of
the Strategic Plan because theessence of it, there's- there's
not very much that's newbecause the problems are the
same- slightly larger than theywere 12 years ago now - it
should be ten years,but 12 years ago.
So it's not significantlydifferent from the Aichi
(05:42):
Biodiversity Targets andthe Strategic Plan.
Erin (05:44):
Okay.
And I think last time we talkedabout the main headline,
you know, everyone's talkingabout this thing called"30by30".
André (05:53):
Mm hmm.
Erin (05:53):
Right?
First, can you remind us, like,what that's all about and why
everyone's talking about it?
André (06:01):
The "30by30" means 30% by the year 2030, and 30%
refers to the amount of landand sea that is under some form
of biodiversity protection.
But the term "protected area"usually refers to something
that is formally protected,so it's proclaimed in some or
(06:21):
other way, andthat's very variable from
country to country.
But generally speaking,it requires resources,
it requires a legal framing...
It's very difficult for a lotof countries to achieve that.
So...
I wouldn't say the workaround,but a workaround to achieve
that "30by30" - which has beenspoken about quite a lot
(06:42):
recently actually since afew COPs ago, but it's really
starting to gain prominence now- is this idea of OECMs,
which stands for "othereffective area-
based conservation measures".
So just likeprotected areas are area-
based conservation measures,OECMs are other area-
based conservation measures.
It's kind of a fancyway of saying areas that are
(07:05):
contributing to thepreservation of biodiversity,
but without being formallycalled protected areas.
Erin (07:12):
Mm hmm.
André (07:12):
And there are various reasons for why
that might happen.
It might be that the people whoown or who live in those areas
don't want the legal baggagethat might come with
a protected area.
But- I mean, a good example isin many cases where indigenous
peoples and local communitiesare managing areas that they
may have managed for avery long time.
Erin (07:33):
Mm hmm.
André (07:34):
For generations and centuries or longer.
And so they're under asort of fairly stable level of
protection withoutbeing formally protected.
And they don't want to beformally protected, but they're
stillcontributing to conservation.
And then another example,which - just to do a bit of an
IGES plug here, IGES and theUnited Nations University's
(07:56):
Institute for the AdvancedStudy of Sustainability have
been working together for aboutten years on this idea of
Satoyama, or...
Satoyama Initative is a kind ofsocioecological production
landscape and seascape.
These are landscapes that areproducing food or
timber or something...
(08:16):
And at thesame time, conserving.
So it's especially...
Perhaps especially relevant ina country like Japan where
rural areas are actuallyemptying out into cities.
And these areas which havebeen farmed, for example,
or fished in a particular wayfor a very long time,
have actually- they actuallyhave an ecosystem all
(08:36):
of their own.
And when they're abandoned,the biodiversity levels go down.
Erin (08:41):
Mm hmm.
André (08:41):
And so especially in a situation like this, these are
areas which, if they'represerved, if they
continue to be socio-ecologicalproduction landscapes
and seascapes, they actuallycan serve as OECMs as well.
So these are just-just some examples.
Erin (08:56):
Mm hmm.
Simon (08:57):
Do you think this will cover areas that are beyond
national jurisdiction?
I mean, there's almost somesort of paradox in that that
maybe some of those areas need-you could say that they need
protection from overfishing.
I'm thinking of oceans here,but I guess since they are
beyond national jurisdiction,you can't really...
How would you designate themost protected when you- the
(09:19):
question would be,who would protect them?
André (09:22):
How would you protect the open ocean?
Simon (09:24):
Yeah, yeah,
Erin (09:25):
Yeah.
André (09:25):
Yeah.
I don't- I don't actually know.
That's the short answer, but myguess is that that would be
impossible because you wouldhave to have agreement from
everyone on how to fishthe open ocean.
And I think thatprobably is more relevant to
other conventions, like theConvention on the Law
of the Sea.
I would imagine it's morerelevant to that than it is
(09:47):
to the CBD.
But as far as what's-what's left, the EEZs - the
economic exclusion zones - forcountries that do have
a coastline, which Ithink is 200 miles,
if I remember correctly...
Though, within that zone,the idea would be for each
country kind of has ajurisdiction over that.
And so within that, they wouldbe expected or it will be hoped
(10:07):
that each of them will try toconserve at least 30% in some
way or another.
But that leaves the majorityof the oceans.
Just to an ecological point,is that most of the
biodiversity and most of thefishing is done
within those EEZs.
So they are the most importantparts of the ocean.
They're the areas that are ofhighest concern and the
(10:31):
greatest threat as well.
Simon (10:32):
Right.
Okay.
Erin (10:34):
Yeah, very interesting.
I didn't really think about theopen ocean there, but-
André (10:38):
Yeah.
People generallyforget about that.
Like majority of ecologists andconservation biologist
only think "land".
Erin (10:46):
Yeah.
André (10:47):
And myself included.
Erin (10:48):
I guess it's a really hard- I mean how- I guess you
said that it's area-based sothey would designate like a
chunk of EEZ andtry to conserve it?
André (10:58):
I mean marine protected areas are
spatially demarcated.
I mean, you can't see themin reality, but on the map,
they'll be demarcated.
Also, just to mention aprotected area doesn't mean
that nothing can beextracted from there.
Right?
There are various differentkinds- even formal
protected areas,whether marine or terrestrial.
It doesn't mean that there's nouse going on at all.
(11:21):
It's just that it'ssupposed to be sustainable use.
So a lot of variability, a hugeamount of variability there.
Erin (11:27):
I mean, now I'm wondering, you know,
you said that there aredifferent tiers, I guess,
of protection,different categories.
And there are some countriesthat are very keen on having "30
by30" in the targets and othercountries maybe not so.
So if there are no consequenceson countries if they don't meet
(11:47):
the target, so whyis it a controversy?
André (11:51):
It's just a fairly ambitious goal.
So, you know, with-as with other multilateral
environmental agreements,I think countries want to be
able to show the world thatthey're doing a good job
towards a particular goal,you know?
So that's kind of whatdrives it, I think.
(12:12):
And there's no there's no legalramification if you don't
meet that target.
Erin (12:17):
Mm hmm.
André (12:17):
For some countries, it's really not difficult.
For some, it's- some countrieshave already done that.
But for others,it's really difficult.
And, you know,countries are so different.
Size is different, amount ofcoastline is different,
populations, of course,are different.
So the bigger the population,the greater the
need for resources.
So there are all thesedifferent factors, but that
(12:38):
is also understood.
You know, it's- I think there'sa general understanding that
not all countries will be ableto comply to the same extent or
to fulfill the same goals,the same particular targets
that other countries areable to fulfill.
But just generally speaking,"30by30" is fairly ambitious.
And as I mentioned, if it were30% formally protected areas,
(13:00):
you know, under some kind oflegal backing, it would be
arguably impossible for mostcountries to do that because it
requires purchasing land,huge amounts of land and
everything that goes with that.
But these OECMs are...
that's what I calledit sort of a workaround.
It's a way of getting to thattarget without having to
(13:21):
formally protect areas.
And I thinkit's a double-edged sword.
I think it's a really goodthing because it kind of- it
also gives credit to,for example, indigenous peoples
and local communities whohave been conserving.
But of course, it couldalso be misused.
And just as there are manykinds of levels of
protected areas, that- that'sa formal demarcation.
(13:42):
So now we're talking aboutan informal demarcation.
So it's even more blurry,you know, what actually what
actually counts as an OECM.
But I suspect that, you know,over the years to come,
there'll be some- someagreement on what constitutes
an OECM, you know, so thatpeople and governments can't
get away with calling anythingthat just to make it look like
(14:03):
they'refulfilling their targets.
Erin (14:05):
Mm hmm.
André (14:06):
If there's any controversy, it might be
because some countries,despite the OECM option,
they might still think thatthis is just too much to handle.
And, you know, "easy forCountry X, but not so
easy for us.
And that's not fair", you know?
Erin (14:20):
Right.
André (14:20):
Maybe some of that sentiment.
Erin (14:22):
Right.
Because like you said,there are some countries that
have already done it and- orare close to doing it.
André (14:27):
Yeah.
And somewhere it's just so muchmore difficult than it
is for others.
Yeah.
Erin (14:32):
Mm hmm.
Simon (14:32):
Is it then so much more ambitious to a previous
protected area target?
Is it like double that ordouble the current target or?
André (14:41):
So the previous target did not include OECMs, right?
So that- you can'treally compare them.
So...
So first of all, the previoustarget was, I think it was 17%
land and 10% sea...?
I think that wasthe target from the
Aichi Biodiversity Targets.
So this is quitea big markup on that.
But theoretically, the formalprotected area portion could
(15:03):
even go down as long as people-as long as countries are- if
you're making up the differencewith those OECMs, you could
potentially even decrease fromformal protected areas.
But of course,that's not desirable.
Right?
You want it tobe as protected as possible.
Simon (15:18):
But you're right.
Yes.
At least 17% of terrestrial andinland water and 10% of coastal
and marine areas.
André (15:24):
Okay.
Right.
Yes.
Right.
So the 17includes freshwater right?
Even large freshwater bodiesare not included in that.
Yeah, thanks, Simon.
Erin (15:34):
So just to clarify, 30% in what's being discussed
right now, that's 30% of landand 30% of sea?
Is that-
André (15:44):
Of each.
Erin (15:44):
Of each, okay, Of each.
That's- yeah, that's a lot.
Okay.
Mm hmm.
It's not a combination.
André (15:50):
No, it's of each.
Yeah, if it hadbeen a combination, it would
have only been a 3% increase.
Erin (15:55):
Right.
Right.
André (15:56):
So that would have been pretty meager.
Yeah.
Erin (15:58):
Mm hmm.
Mm hmm.
Can I justmention something else here?
I mean, it's something Ihaven't really thought about
very much yet, but ithas been brought up, I think.
Yeah.
I think there has been somecriticism of the convenience of
the "30by30" target.
Right?
Like, so it's just- It's likewhen someone presents you
a list of...
A list of rules or a list of- achecklist of something.
(16:21):
And it happens to be ten or 20- one of these round numbers,
then it kind of makesyou wonder, like,
was it really ten, orwas ten just the number that...
They wanted to you know,they wanted to get to that
number?
So the same with "30by30".
It's- it's 30- the year is 2030.
So, you know, 27% by 30 ("27 by30") wouldn't sound as good,
(16:43):
right?
Or "31by30" wouldn'tsound as good.
So there has been somecriticism of this being an
arbitrary target, and it'sdifficult to argue against that.
But on the other hand,I think that it's probably
about right.
And I think that if it'sdone right, especially if the
OECM thing is done rightand if countries really apply
(17:04):
themselves to that, I think itcould be a success.
That that makes sense toI mean, "30by30" is definitely
more attractive as a,you know, a headline than "31by
30" or whatever.
Yeah, that makes sense.
Apart from "30by30", are thereother topics that are being
hotly debated right now withrespect to the GBF?
André (17:26):
Yeah.
So finance is always on thetable as a big issue.
From whom and how much and andwhen and and all the rest
of it...
So that's kind of aneternal issue, I think.
But the one which I think- Ihaven't been following this as
closely as a lot of people,there might be things
that are missing.
(17:46):
But the one that has attractedmy attention the most is the
issue of digitalsequencing information.
And so...
Or DSI for short, that acronymis all over some of
the COP documents.
Digital sequencing informationis just the information about a
genome and DNA informationabout a particular species.
(18:08):
It's just the information.
So the dispute here is- or thecontention here is that certain
countries are saying, "if thisinformation comes from a
species from within our borders,then we should be
compensated some somehow forany profit that's made from
using that information".
(18:28):
And then other countriesare saying, "well, this didn't
cost you anything.
Getting that information fromthe species didn't
cost you anything".
They're notremoving the species.
It's just, you know, when onespecimen is enough to
get that information.
Erin (18:40):
Mm hmm.
André (18:41):
And furthermore, the good that can be done with
that information could benefiteveryone in the long run,
even if it is bya pharmaceutical company.
So we're talking about,you know, medical and and
technological-especially medical, I guess,
but also other technologicalinnovations that rely on this.
And there's an amazinglyinteresting body of literature
(19:01):
that looks at how, you know,how human beings have used
these genomes and the differentsort of characteristics of
different species and theirgenes to come up with all
sorts of solutions.
But especially in themedical realm, there's all
sorts of things beingdiscovered all the time from
nature and thenapplied to medicines.
And, you know, one of thesecould be the next- could be the
(19:24):
cure for cancer one day.
We don't know.
Erin (19:27):
Sure.
Right.
André (19:28):
So you can imagine, you can understand maybe
the debate there.
Erin (19:30):
Mm hmm.
So I guess under thatkind of thinking,
genetic material or maybegenetic information is kind of
proprietary in a way?
I mean, to usean analogy, like with GMOs,
genetically modified organisms,there are a
lot of labs that patent genes.
Right?
So I'm thinking, like, is itgoing to be similar to that
(19:53):
potentially?
or I mean, it wouldn'tbe a patent per say,
right, because theydon't own the gene...
André (19:59):
Right.
But if they do anything tochange it, then there's the
possibility of that.
Yeah.
I mean, I'm sure that all ofthis is a big part of
the negotiation, but I haven'tactually sat in on any
of those negotiations.
So what I should mention isthat one of the things that's
being discussed is whether DSIshould even be part of the
global biodiversity framework.
Erin (20:18):
Okay.
André (20:19):
Well, some countries want it to be and then
other countries don't.
And I think one of themotivations for not having it
in the global biodiversityframework is that, if it is
in there, it might hold up theprocess and might prevent the
whole biodiversity frameworkfrom being adopted.
Erin (20:36):
Right.
André (20:36):
This is probably a gross oversimplification of things,
but I think it gives you anidea of how complicated it must
be once you getinto the details.
Simon (20:44):
I think there is an Aichi target on fair and
equitable sharingof the benefits.
I don't know what the realwording is- on sharing the
benefits ofanything that derives
from genetic information.
So I suppose it's sort of...
Maybe the discussion is relatedto some Parties wanting to
(21:05):
avoid that falls between thecracks and that some countries
make a lot of money onmonopolising the access
to that information.
André (21:11):
Yeah.
There's an entire protocol ofthe CBD, the Nagoya Protocol,
which also emerged from theJapan COP10 in 2010, which is
all about that.
And to be honest, I don't evenknow why this is being
discussed outside that Protocol.
It might be that becauseit was just considered such a
big issue, or it's just toorelated to other aspects of the
(21:33):
Convention to be isolated tothe Protocol, because the
Protocol has its ownset of negotiations and its
own decisions, which areusually held at the same time
as the CBD COP.
And that'll happen thistime as well.
But this is forming part of theCOP negotiations specifically.
Erin (21:51):
Say that we are able to have a GBF that is adopted
at COP 15.
I mean, right now I know thatthere is a lot of text that is
still bracketed, which meansnot agreed on, Right?
So...
André (22:06):
Yeah.
Erin (22:07):
So hopefully, you know, those will get resolved.
What then after the post-2020GBF is adopted
will change, right, about theway we do things?
How will governments andother stakeholders,
like businesses or civilsociety or even individuals-
how would this framework changethe way that these stakeholders
(22:31):
do things?
Will it?
André (22:33):
I don't think there's anything in the GBF that,
you know, that's different towhat's in the Strategic Plan
that's likely to make peopledo things differently.
And I standunder correction there.
I may be wrong about that,but from what I've seen,
nothing really kind of standsout unless this DSI issue
somehow has a really big impact.
And "30by30" might be somethingthat really gets people excited
(22:58):
about protected areas, you know,more than there were
in the past.
But I think arguably the mostimportant thing is that the
countries have been waiting forthe GBF to be approved in order
to do their nationallevel GBFs, which are the
NBSAPs (National BiodiversityStrategies and Action Plans).
Erin (23:17):
Mm hmm.
André (23:17):
these are produced sort of every four or five
years, typically.
Some Parties are verygood at producing them on
a regular basis.
A couple haven't everdone any, but most have done
sort of a couple at least.
So the level of uptake is...
Could be better, but it seemsto be improving over time.
But then that really slow downbecause of the delay of the COP
(23:40):
and the delay of the GBF.
I'm kind of guessing here,but I think they didn't want to
go too far down the roadbecause they didn't want to
kind of contradict the GBF whenit came out and they didn't
know when it was coming out.
They kept on being told it wasgoing to be in six months' time.
So I suspect that a lot of themhave just been waiting for the
GBF to come out so that theyhave something to model
(24:00):
their NBSAPs on.
And I don't think that-I mean, it's not like they need
the GBF to understandwhat the priorities are in
their country, but forreporting processes to the CBD
and to be kind of part of thisglobal interaction that is the
Conventionon Biological Diversity,
there's an expectation tosomehow match your NBSAP- and
(24:21):
the targets,especially, within your NBSAP
to the targets and the goalsthat are in the GBF.
So if you have a look at thepublication dates of NBSAPs on
the CBD website, there's thisbig gap recently where no one's
producing- or very fewcountries are producing NBSAPs
because they were expecting2020 was the year they could
start thinking about it again.
(24:41):
And then that gotdelayed to 2021, now 2022.
A few countries have, and someof those are kind of a little
more generic than usual,you know, to compensate for the
fact that they don't have aplan to model it on.
But I think a lot of countriesare waiting for the final text
so that they can use thatas a template for their NBSAPs.
(25:02):
So it's kind of- the lack ofa GBF, regrettably, might have
slowed down a lot of the NBSAPs.
So a lot of countriesmay still be working off their
older ones.
And I guess the- you know,in some cases that might not be
so important because they'llcarry on anyway.
But in other cases it mightmake a big difference.
So I would say- this is apersonal opinion, but I would
(25:24):
say that's an important reasonto have the global diversity
framework operational.
Erin (25:30):
So I guess it depends on resources.
Right?
Maybe some countries might havethe means to continue doing
what they're doing and continuebuilding the momentum.
Maybe?
André (25:41):
Yeah, that's kind of- that's a good point.
Resources is another issuebecause once the GBF is doing
its thing, there will be morewell-defined channels for
funding to the countriesthat need it.
So that's definitely a thing.
And I didn'treally include that.
I wasn't thinking about thatwhen I answered it now,
but that's definitely athing as well.
But what I was thinking aboutwas more just the- just the
(26:04):
case that countries just don'thave a plan to work off for the
next few years because they'reholding off on it,
they're standing back andwaiting until they can match
their plan to this global plan.
Erin (26:15):
Hmm.
In those countries, the onesthat care a lot
about biodiversity, they wouldjust continue doing what they
have been doing, I guess .
Maintaining-
André (26:24):
Yeah.
Erin (26:25):
Whereas other countries maybe we don't really know
what's going on in those.
André (26:29):
Yeah.
Erin (26:30):
So if you could think of like maybe one or two things
that you hope would comeout of COP15.
What would that be?
André (26:39):
Well, I think number one would be just that the GBF
is agreed on.
I hope that thereis agreement, you know,
and that parties can be happyabout whatever is agreed upon
in the end.
But that is not too watereddown that it does
not mean anything.
Yeah.
And then this is maybe more ofa personal preference than
anything else, but I think thatthe whole idea of technological
(27:03):
innovation is lacking a bitfrom the GBF as it stands
at the moment.
Where the word innovation isused mostly as is with respect
to innovation by indigenouspeoples and local communities
and related to indigenous andlocal knowledge, which is
obviously very important.
And the whole IPLC ILKinclusion in the GBF is
(27:26):
something it's really importantand it's something which has
really gathered a lotof steam over recent years.
But in addition to that,I think that just the idea of
embracing market mechanisms asone of the solutions to the
problems that we're facing withbiodiversity worldwide now,
I think, is really important.
(27:47):
I think that we're not going toget where we need to get in
terms of achieving these goalspurely through regulation.
I think it requires harnessingthe market, understanding the
market and how to incentivisethe market in the right ways,
you know, to provide these,kind of, triggers for the
market to go in the rightdirection rather than...
More- a little bit more carrotand a bit less stick, I think,
(28:09):
although both arestill very important.
But the innovation side ofthings is not very prominent
in the GBF.
I just had a look at thebracketed version which has
well over a thousand bracketsand that's a lot in a short
document like that.
Erin (28:25):
Yeah.
André (28:25):
And the word "innovation" is barely mentioned.
As I mentioned, where itis mentioned, it usually
pertains to indigenous andlocal knowledge or indigenous
peoples in local communities.
So I think that's somethingwhich I hope that it pops up
and in fact IGES does- We arean observer organisation at or
to the CBD and thereforeat the COPs.
So we do havethe opportunity to make inputs
(28:49):
into the negotiations.
But if I thinkit's appropriate, I think that
the thing that I'm most likelyto propose is a strong emphasis
on innovation in an appropriatepart of the GBF text.
So we'll see how that goes.
A lot depends on howthings pan out.
And with this three-day workinggroup meeting before the COP,
(29:11):
there's three days ofnegotiations specifically on
the GBF and who knows howdifferent the GBF is going to
look after those three days,and then it'll be debated
through most of the COP again.
So it may lookvery similar, it may
look completely different.
We'll have to wait and see.
Bob (29:31):
Thank you for listening to About Sustainability...
Please subscribe at podcast.
iges.jp or searchfor About Sustainability...
wherever you normallyget your podcasts.
If you've got feedback, you canreview us on your podcast
directory of choice or reachout on Twitter @IGES_EN.
(29:54):
About Sustainability...
is produced by the Institute forGlobal Environmental Strategies.
Any views expressed during thepodcast are those of the
speaker at the time ofrecording and do not
necessarily reflect theviews of IGES.
Thank you for choosing to spendyour time with us.
We don't take that lightly andwe hope you'll join
us next time.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.