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” 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://www.nrdc.org/experts/paul-todd/far-business-usual-plan-transformational-change


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 (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 (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 and here (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

 

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);