*Global CA-CoP* *CONSERVATION AGRICULTURE COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE*

*for sustainable agriculture and land management*

Dear Susbscribers,

Pleasesee herebelow a communication from David Duthe from Bioplan on the
IISD Earth Negotiation Bulletin’s “Brief Analysis of the Meeting” for the
Second Meeting of the Open-ended Working Group on the Post-2020 Global
Biodiversity Framework (GBF) which took place in Rome, Italy from 24—29th
February 2020.  The full ENB reporting can be accessed via the link at the
head of the summary below.

*Amir Kassam *

*Moderator*

*Global CA-CoP*

e-mail: [log in to unmask]

URL: http://www.fao.org/conservation-agriculture



*Conservation Agriculture is an ecosystem approach to regenerative
sustainable agriculture and land management based on the practical
application of context-specific and locally adapted three interlinked
principles of: (i) Continuous no or minimum mechanical soil disturbance
(no-till seeding/planting and weeding, and minimum soil disturbance with
all other farm operations including harvesting);  (ii) permanent
maintenance of soil mulch cover (crop biomass, stubble and cover crops);
and (iii) diversification of cropping system (economically, environmentally
and socially adapted rotations and/or sequences and/or associations
involving annuals and/or perennials, including legumes and cover crops),
along with other complementary good agricultural production and land
management practices. Conservation Agriculture systems are present in all
continents, involving rainfed and irrigated systems including annual
cropland systems, perennial systems, orchards and plantation systems,
agroforestry systems, crop-livestock systems, pasture and rangeland
systems, organic production systems and rice-based systems. Conservation
Tillage, Reduced Tillage and Minimum Tillage are not Conservation
Agriculture, and nor is No-Till on its own* (more at:
http://www.fao.org/conservation-agriculture).


---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: David Duthie <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2020 at 02:59
Subject: The transformative change we (did not) want – but still need
To: bioplan <[log in to unmask]>


Dear BIOPLANNERS,


Apologies for posting the below a little late, but I was waiting for some
surety to emerge on the current coronavirus crisis, but it seems my last
subject line was a little more prescient than I thought.

 So, please find below the IISD Earth Negotiation Bulletin’s “Brief
Analysis of the Meeting” for the Second Meeting of the Open-ended Working
Group on the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) which took place
in Rome, Italy from 24—29th February 2020.  The full ENB reporting can be
accessed via the link at the head of the summary below.


The ENB analysis casts the ongoing and future development of the GBF as an
“epic” process by quoting from C. P. Cavafy’s “Ithaca
<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.poetryfoundation.org%2Fpoems%2F51296%2Fithaka-56d22eef917ec&data=02%7C01%7Cbioplan%40groups.undp.org%7C65fd4c23dc234964eef008d7ca8bcee2%7Cb3e5db5e2944483799f57488ace54319%7C0%7C0%7C637200574161066195&sdata=NURJTMRZ4IMFTEREV4TRscN13eBSqjlQu0E2M%2B3ozr8%3D&reserved=0>”
and it certainly looks like being an epic challenge for the negotiating
process to identify, and agree, an operational path back up the slippery,
downward slope of current biodiversity loss.


Amongst the many commentaries on the meeting, I found these two nicely
captured the “glass half full - glass half empty” dichotomy facing the
negotiations…….

https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/11890-All-roads-lead-from-Rome-the-latest-meeting-en-route-to-Kunming-biodiversity-COP15
<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.chinadialogue.net%2Farticle%2Fshow%2Fsingle%2Fen%2F11890-All-roads-lead-from-Rome-the-latest-meeting-en-route-to-Kunming-biodiversity-COP15&data=02%7C01%7Cbioplan%40groups.undp.org%7C65fd4c23dc234964eef008d7ca8bcee2%7Cb3e5db5e2944483799f57488ace54319%7C0%7C0%7C637200574161066195&sdata=QeHZJadaVXxZcuqyFEqlt%2BITkdsZzYnikANBSqVtQko%3D&reserved=0>

https://www.nrdc.org/experts/paul-todd/far-business-usual-plan-transformational-change
<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nrdc.org%2Fexperts%2Fpaul-todd%2Ffar-business-usual-plan-transformational-change&data=02%7C01%7Cbioplan%40groups.undp.org%7C65fd4c23dc234964eef008d7ca8bcee2%7Cb3e5db5e2944483799f57488ace54319%7C0%7C0%7C637200574161066195&sdata=YPKVwPN4E7iFDWMMhqDZl%2Fe8KoPdqrKmNh3xdonDDA4%3D&reserved=0>


The latter opinion piece also tilts a lance at transformative change – a
phrase much heard term at the CBD meeting.


I agree – we need to be extremely careful with the use of small(ish) words,
with large connotations. (Radical) transformative change can come in a
number of different colours and shades and my advice is to read, or at
least browse, the following two articles before nailing your
(transformative) colours to any particular transformative mast……


Linnér, Björn-Ola, and Victoria Wibeck, ‘*Conceptualising Variations in
Societal Transformations Towards Sustainability*’, Environmental Science &
Policy, 106 (2020), 221–27  http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.01.007
<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1016%2Fj.envsci.2020.01.007&data=02%7C01%7Cbioplan%40groups.undp.org%7C65fd4c23dc234964eef008d7ca8bcee2%7Cb3e5db5e2944483799f57488ace54319%7C0%7C0%7C637200574161076188&sdata=NDRSOyYi2sD9XINbntTCo3QqmIo47VSI8v%2FQmoEmfEE%3D&reserved=0>
(open access)


Stevenson, Hayley, ‘*Contemporary Discourses of Green Political Economy: a
Q Method Analysis*’, Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 21 (2015),
533–48 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2015.1118681
<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1080%2F1523908X.2015.1118681&data=02%7C01%7Cbioplan%40groups.undp.org%7C65fd4c23dc234964eef008d7ca8bcee2%7Cb3e5db5e2944483799f57488ace54319%7C0%7C0%7C637200574161076188&sdata=cnMvgrp9o1g1BW3pDvt6iMBIZrlQc1n0zS%2BPZjB%2BNQ4%3D&reserved=0>
(free access)


With respect to biodiversity, or even other arenas, transformative change
does not have to be top down driven by the likes of the CBD negotiation
processes; other, bottom-up external processes can dramatically alter the
implementation landscape, as the current corvid-19 “pandemic” is currently
revealing.


I have often thought of biodiversity planning as the smallest in a set of
Russian dolls, constrained in shape by enveloping, larger socio-economic
and socio-political dolls whose shape (speed and scale) make it very
difficult for the biodiversity doll to transform.  Now, it looks like the
cracks appearing in the outer dolls (see here
<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mondaq.com%2FArticle%2F904104%3Femail_access%3Don&data=02%7C01%7Cbioplan%40groups.undp.org%7C65fd4c23dc234964eef008d7ca8bcee2%7Cb3e5db5e2944483799f57488ace54319%7C0%7C0%7C637200574161086183&sdata=x2KKIdCvs%2Bq7Mk3YQG0UG4QemD91T8fHO1o4s%2BpHiBc%3D&reserved=0>
and here
<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2020%2F03%2F16%2Fopinion%2Fcoronavirus-economy-debt.html%3Fnl%3Dtodaysheadlines%26emc%3Dedit_th_200317%26campaign_id%3D2%26instance_id%3D16829%26segment_id%3D22299%26user_id%3Dc4379ad29cfb29b455956deb71205e83%26regi_id%3D610108860317&data=02%7C01%7Cbioplan%40groups.undp.org%7C65fd4c23dc234964eef008d7ca8bcee2%7Cb3e5db5e2944483799f57488ace54319%7C0%7C0%7C637200574161086183&sdata=XzpNcGeu6PsXcD7pYliH5KaGav45s%2BB6E6tyAffQbRc%3D&reserved=0>
(register for access)) are offering up a chance to create a new global
“matryoshka”, in which biodiversity can be in better shape. Let us hope the
OEWG can take the opportunity.


Best wishes and hoping for all  to stay safe.


David Duthie


*************

*Summary of the Second Meeting of the Open-ended Working Group on the
Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework*

*24-29 February 2020 | Rome, Italy*



*https://enb.iisd.org/vol09/enb09751e.html*
<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fenb.iisd.org%2Fvol09%2Fenb09751e.html&data=02%7C01%7Cbioplan%40groups.undp.org%7C65fd4c23dc234964eef008d7ca8bcee2%7Cb3e5db5e2944483799f57488ace54319%7C0%7C0%7C637200574161096175&sdata=obvDtrDIEydhhvWZ6iEsGd%2Ft1N8v4aeM%2FgVwN44YLe0%3D&reserved=0>



*A Brief Analysis of the Meeting*



*As you set out for Ithaka*

*hope your road is a long one,*

*full of adventure, full of discovery.*

*Laistrygonians, Cyclops,*

*angry Poseidon—don’t be afraid of them:*

*you’ll never find things like that on your way*

*as long as you keep your thoughts raised high,*

*as long as a rare excitement*

*stirs your spirit and your body.*

*Laistrygonians, Cyclops,*

*wild Poseidon—you won’t encounter them*

*unless you bring them along inside your soul,*

*unless your soul sets them up in front of you.*



*-- C.P. Cavafy, Ithaka, 1910*



The path towards the post-2020 global biodiversity framework (GBF)
resembles Ulysses’ efforts to return to Ithaka, which Homer depicted, more
than 26 centuries ago, as the process involved in reaching a goal, in
recovering something we’ve lost. Ithaka, albeit an island in Greece and
Ulysses’ home, is not a place but a process, a journey in one’s life, a
symbol of completion and value.



The GBF is the biodiversity community’s Ithaka. The process that, if
successful, will set the foundations for recovering humanity’s lost
connection with nature, reverting the negative trends of biodiversity loss,
and ensuring that future generations will not have to face a planet
irreversibly damaged by human activity.



This brief analysis will follow the path of the GBF’s development, focusing
on main achievements of the second meeting of the Open-ended Working Group
on the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (WG) as well as highlighting
obstacles ahead on the road to the Convention on Biological Diversity’s
15th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (CBD COP 15), scheduled to be
held in Kunming, China, in October 2020.



*Charting the Journey*



Following the first meeting of the WG in Nairobi, Kenya, the WG Co-Chairs
produced a zero draft of the GBF, unveiled in January 2020, to guide
deliberations. While most delegates recognized that the zero draft
constitutes a good basis for discussion, the second meeting of the WG
demonstrated that much work lies ahead to ensure a comprehensive,
ambitious, and implementable framework that has everyone on board.



The development of the framework is by no means easy, with delegates using
adjectives such as “monumental” and “colossal” to describe the task and the
difficulties it entails. For most of the biodiversity community, this was
no surprise. The efforts to develop an all-encompassing framework that
includes, in addition to addressing direct and indirect drivers of
biodiversity loss and rapid species’ extinction, a plethora of
considerations, such as ecosystem health, nature’s contributions to people,
human health, socio-economic concerns, trade concerns, human rights’
considerations, new technologies, indigenous peoples and local communities
(IPLCs), gender issues, intergenerational concerns, education, among
others, is by definition an extremely daunting task.



In preparation for the voyage to deliver a comprehensive framework, the CBD
has embarked on an unprecedented effort to collect and pull together the
necessary building blocks through a multifaceted process. This journey also
involves diverse stop-overs to provide information and expertise. These
include three scheduled meetings of the WG, inter-sessional meetings of the
Convention’s subsidiary bodies that are expected to provide the necessary
scientific and technical recommendations, and many consultation meetings
and other events, organized by the Secretariat and its partners as well as
parties. Midway through the journey, trends have emerged. While the second
meeting of the WG showed progress in the development of the GBF, it
simultaneously revealed some of the main obstacles to its successful
completion.



*Navigating Treacherous Waters*



The format of the meeting, dividing the work in four contact groups,
allowed for significant progress in the GBF’s development. Contact groups
facilitated in depth, target-by-target discussion, which enabled a better
understanding of different positions.



Numerous proposals were tabled during the contact group discussions,
including inspiring phrases aimed at raising the level of ambition of the
zero draft, and repackaging it to what some referred to as “a guide to
transformative change.” The unique, open, and inclusive character of the
Convention proved an invaluable ally in that respect, allowing
intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, as well as other
relevant bodies, to contribute with concrete proposals. Many of those
proposals attracted parties’ support and were included in the meeting’s
report for further consideration, with many delegates noting that they
contained essential elements for an ambitious GBF. In the words of a
seasoned delegate, contributions from specialized bodies on issues under
their remit “are meaningful and absolutely essential as these bodies have
the means and capacity to not only inform the framework’s development, but,
most importantly, to significantly contribute in its successful
implementation.”



Most participants noted the general spirit of cooperation and collegiality
that prevailed during the deliberations, which many perceived as necessary
to achieve consensus on some of the more controversial issues. Throughout
the meeting, a sense of humour was also often present in the contact
groups, assisting in overcoming occasional tense moments as well as the
general feeling of unease caused by fear of the rapidly spreading
coronavirus (COVID-19) that has sparked worldwide concern.



Information events held in parallel to the WG meeting, in addition to
consultation meetings organized by the Secretariat and its partners, as
well as parties, on specific topics under discussion proved helpful in
informing the framework, providing insights and new ideas for
consideration. Many delegates underscored that such events, “are very
useful in our race against time to develop a comprehensive and ambitious
framework that has everybody on board.”



*Laistrygonians, Cyclops, and Angry Poseidon*



While the WG’s achievements should not be underestimated thus far, most
participants seem to agree that significant challenges lie ahead, noting
that successfully addressing those challenges will “make or break” the GBF.
Many agreed that while delegates offered useful suggestions and clarified
positions, there was limited negotiation. While this has been a tactic
envisaged by the WG rather than a failure, it left many participants
wondering whether there is sufficient time to tackle the controversial
items under discussion during the upcoming meetings of the Subsidiary Body
on Scientific, Technical, and Technological Advice (SBSTTA), the Subsidiary
Body on Implementation (SBI), and, ultimately, the third WG meeting, prior
to the final showdown in Kunming.



Despite the collegial spirit, tensions were not absent in Rome. Brief
exchanges of views on whether the principle of common but differentiated
responsibilities is under the remit of the Convention revealed differences
that may spill over into future discussions, including, but not limited to,
resource mobilization targets. Initial discussions on baselines, against
which progress will be measured, also revealed parties’ different
understandings and aspirations. In depth deliberations and, hopefully,
resolution of these issues will have to wait for the WG’s third meeting. On
the one hand, this is understandable due to the need to further inform
consultations with scheduled input from scientific bodies and technical
expert groups. But on the other hand, as one delegate noted, “These are not
easy matters to resolve, time is not on our side, and, as things stand,
there is no guarantee we will be able to successfully tackle them.”



The potential for further tensions in the near future is difficult to
ignore. An information event, focusing on the results of the first global
dialogue on digital sequence information (DSI) held in Pretoria, South
Africa, in November 2019, revealed what many participants described as
remarkable progress on a highly controversial and complex issue. In spite
of this, a seasoned participant cautioned that progress in informal
settings does not always translate into advancements in formal
negotiations, reminding delegates that the global dialogue was held under
Chatham House rules, leading to more open and frank discussions, but, at
the same time, to limited accountability. Most delegates and participants
engaged in the discussions agreed that the formal process to address DSI,
with the relevant *Ad Hoc* Technical Expert Group (AHTEG) meeting in March
2020 to inform the third meeting of the WG in July, simply does not allow
sufficient time for a comprehensive analysis. They noted that, as things
stand, considerable compromises may well be needed in Kunming to
meaningfully include DSI in the GBF.



In addition to the projected input by the DSI AHTEG, substantive
contributions are expected by SBSTTA 24 and SBI 3. SBSTTA 24 is expected to
tackle scientific and technical questions, including baselines as well as
numeric and percentage references in the GBF, while SBI 3 will provide
implementation-related recommendations including resource mobilization.
While these inputs are of paramount importance for successful negotiations,
some participants expressed concerns on whether the subsidiary bodies will
be able to “walk the talk.” They pointed to past criticism on the modus
operandi of these bodies, noting they are often absorbed in political
considerations, which, if repeated in the forthcoming sessions, may
jeopardize the timely agreement on important elements of the GBF.



*Always keep Ithaka in your mind. Arriving there is what you are destined
for*



The development of the GBF offers a unique window of opportunity for the
biodiversity community. While everyone at the second meeting of the WG
agreed on the urgency to address biodiversity loss and reverse the cycle of
destruction, the real question is how to raise ambition and make
biodiversity-related concerns more visible in the public sphere.



Delegates and observers alike stressed throughout the week and during their
closing statements the importance of linking the GBF with other relevant
conventions, bodies, and processes, including those outside the
environmental realm. Mainstreaming biodiversity concerns throughout all
productive sectors has been a central element for the CBD since the meeting
of the Conference of the Parties in Cancún, Mexico, in 2016. Mainstreaming
has been no easy task so far and, in the words of an observer, “vested
interests in different sectors are not to be underestimated. Important
elements of the framework, such as the elimination of subsidies harmful to
biodiversity, will require the coordination and cooperation of different
ministries, with delegates often underscoring the significance of a
“whole-of-government” approach. Involving relevant ministries, including on
agriculture and health, will be necessary for a realistic chance to achieve
goals and targets outside the direct realm of parties’ environmental
ministries.



In addition to a “whole-of-government” approach, delegates highlighted the
need for a “whole-of-society” approach, saying that the biodiversity
community cannot address, on its own, broader concerns. In that respect,
participants stressed the importance of directly involving UN conventions,
organizations, and bodies in the WG’s deliberations. These bodies offered
useful insights on targets related to their respective mandates,
significantly contributing to the framework. Even more importantly, as both
delegates and representatives of the aforementioned entities stressed,
directly engaging these conventions and bodies in the targets’ formulation
allows for a sense of ownership, which is necessary for uptake and joint
implementation.



Equally important, bodies outside the environmental realm, including but
not limited to the World Bank and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation
and Development, were active in the discussions, offering useful insights
on targets relevant to their work. An information session on the role of
the financial and business sectors in implementing the GBF offered
additional ideas on entry points for actively engaging the private sector,
including a proposal for the creation of a multi-stakeholder advisory group
on biodiversity, business, and finance. As a seasoned delegate noted,
“Involving the private sector is a necessary condition for a comprehensive
framework and can also go a long way in assisting implementation.”

Expressing cautious optimism for the upcoming GBF negotiations, one
participant emphasized, “We need to abandon our trenches and be ready for
compromises.”



Archetypal dichotomies are still present in the deliberations, yet all
sides agree on the need to be clear and succinct in future meetings, if
they are to arrive at targets that are meaningful, easy to communicate, and
ambitious. Nobody can accurately predict at this point in time whether this
journey to Ithaka will be successful. The next eight months and the
upcoming meetings will be decisive in that respect. Neither the time nor
the complexity of the issues are allies in this effort. Yet, as they left
Rome, delegates seemed to agree that two things are certain: the stakes are
as high as they can get, and the world is watching.

########################################################################

To unsubscribe from the CA-Cop-L list, click the following link:
&*TICKET_URL(CA-Cop-L,SIGNOFF);