By Emilio Godoy
MONTREAL, Dec 19 2022 – The pillar coral (Dendrogyra cylindrus), which takes its name from its shape, is found throughout the Caribbean Sea, but its population has declined by more than 80 percent since 1990. As a result, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has listed it as “critically endangered” due to the effects of the human-induced climate crisis.

Its fate now depends on the new Kunming-Montreal Global Framework on Biodiversity, which was agreed by the 15th Conference of the Parties (COP15) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) on Monday Dec. 19, at the end of the summit held since Dec. 7 at the Palais des Congrès in Montreal.

Now, the world’s countries must translate the results into national biodiversity strategies, to comply with the new accord. In this regard, David Ainsworth, spokesman for the CBD, in force since 1993 and based in Montreal, announced the creation of a global accelerator for the drafting of national plans, with the support of U.N. agencies.

COP15 of the Convention on Biological Diversity approved a new program to protect the world’s natural heritage for the next 10 years during the summit held in the Canadian city of Montreal. The picture shows a statue of a polar bear, whose species is threatened by melting ice and habitat loss, on a street in Montreal. CREDIT: Emilio Godoy/IPS

The menu of agreements

COP15, whose theme was “Ecological Civilization: Building a shared future for all life on earth”, approved four objectives on improving the status of biodiversity, reducing species extinction, fair and appropriate sharing of benefits from access to and use of genetic resources, and means of implementation of the agreement.

In addition, the plenary of the summit, which brought together some 15,000 people representing governments, non-governmental organizations, academia, international bodies and companies, agreed on 23 goals within the Global Framework, for the conservation and management of 30 percent of terrestrial areas and 30 percent of marine areas by 2030, in what is known in U.N. jargon as the 30×30.

This includes the complete or partial restoration of at least 30 percent of degraded terrestrial and marine ecosystems, as well as the reduction of the loss of areas of high biological importance to almost zero.

Likewise, the agreement reached by the 196 States Parties at COP15 includes the halving of food waste, the elimination or reform of at least 500 billion dollars a year in subsidies harmful to biodiversity, and at least 200 billion dollars in funding for biodiversity by 2030 from public and private sources.

It also endorsed increasing financial transfers from countries of the industrialized North to nations of the developing South by at least 20 billion dollars by 2025 and 30 billion dollars by 2030, and the voluntary publication by companies for monitoring, evaluation and disclosure of the impact of their activities on biodiversity.

The Global Environment Facility (GEF) will manage a new fund, whose operation will be defined by the countries over the next two years.

With regard to digital sequence information (DSI) on genetic resources, the Global Framework stipulates the establishment of a multilateral fund for benefit-sharing between providers and users of genetic resources and states that governments will define the final figure at COP16 in Turkey in 2024.

The Global Framework also contains gender and youth perspectives, two strong demands of the process that was initially scheduled to end in the city of Kunming, China, in 2020. But because that country was unable to host mass meetings due to its zero-tolerance policy towards COVID-19, a first virtual chapter was held there and another later in person, and the final one now took place in Montreal.

The states parties are required to report at least every five years on their national compliance with the Global Framework. The CBD will include national information submitted in February 2026 and June 2029 in its status and trend reports.

With some differences, civil society organizations and indigenous peoples gave a nod to the Global Framework, but issued warnings. Viviana Figueroa, representative of the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity, and Simone Lovera, policy director of the Global Forest Coalition, applauded the agreement in conversations with IPS, while pointing out its risks.

“It’s a good step forward, because it recognizes the role of indigenous peoples, the use of biodiversity and the role of traditional knowledge,” said Figueroa, an Omaguaca indigenous lawyer from Argentina whose organization brings together indigenous groups from around the world to present their positions at international environmental meetings.

“It has been a long process, to which native peoples have contributed and have made proposals. The most important aspects that we proposed have been recognized and we hope to work together with the countries,” she added.

But, she remarked, “the most important thing will be the implementation.”

Goal C and targets one, three, five, nine, 13, 21 and 22 of the Global Framework relate to respect for the rights of native and local communities.

Lovera, whose organization brings together NGOs and indigenous groups, said the accord “recognizes the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities, and of women. It also includes a recommendation to withdraw subsidies and reduce public and private investments in destructive activities, such as large-scale cattle ranching and oil palm monoculture.”

But indigenous and human rights organizations have questioned the 30×30 approach on the grounds that it undermines ancestral rights, blocks access to aboriginal territories, and requires consultation and unpressured, informed consent for protected areas prior to any decision on the future of those areas.

Discussions at the Convention on Biological Diversity summit intensified in the last few days of COP15 and ran late into the night, as in this session on health and biodiversity. But in the end, agreement was reached on a new Global Framework on Biodiversity, which will be binding on the 196 states parties. CREDIT: IISD/ENB

Major challenge

While the Global Framework has indicators and monitoring mechanisms and is legally binding, it has no actual teeth, and the precedent of the failed Aichi Targets casts a shadow over its future, especially with the world’s poor track record on international agreements.

The Aichi Biodiversity Targets, adopted in 2010 in that Japanese city during the CBD’s COP10 and which its 196 states parties failed to meet in 2020, included the creation of terrestrial and marine protected areas; the fight against pollution and invasive species; respect for indigenous knowledge; and the restoration of damaged ecosystems.

Several estimates put the amount needed to protect biological heritage at 700 billion dollars, which means there is still an enormous gap to be closed.

In more than 30 years, the GEF has disbursed over 22 billion dollars and helped transfer another 120 billion dollars to more than 5,000 regional and national projects. For the new period starting in 2023, the fund is counting on some five billion dollars in financing.

In addition, the Small Grants Program has supported around 27,000 community initiatives in developing countries.

“There is little public funding, more is needed,” Lovera said. “It’s sad that they say the private sector must fund biodiversity. In indigenous territories money is needed. They can do much more than governments with less money. Direct support can be more effective and they will meet the commitments.”

The activist also criticized the use of offsets, a mechanism whereby one area can be destroyed and another can be restored elsewhere – already used in countries such as Chile, Colombia and Mexico.

“This system allows us to destroy 70 percent of the planet while preserving the other 30 percent,” Lovera said. “It is madness. For indigenous peoples and local communities, it is very negative, because they lose their own biodiversity and the compensation is of no use to them, because it happens somewhere else.”

Figueroa said institutions that already manage funds could create direct mechanisms for indigenous peoples, as is the case with the Small Grants Program.

Of the 609 commitments that organizations, companies and individuals have already made voluntarily at COP15, 303 are aimed at the conservation and restoration of terrestrial ecosystems, 188 at alliances, and 159 at adaptation to climate change and reduction of polluting emissions.

The summit also coincided with the 10th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and the 4th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits from their Utilization, both components of the CBD.

Images of the planet’s sixth mass extinction reflect the size of the challenge. More than a quarter of some 150,000 species on the IUCN Red List are threatened with extinction.

The “Living Planet Report 2022: Building a nature-positive society”, prepared by the WWF and the Institute of Zoology in London, shows that Latin America and the Caribbean has experienced the largest decline in monitored wildlife populations worldwide, with an average decline of 94 percent between 1970 and 2018.

With a decade to act, each passing day represents more biological wealth lost.

IPS produced this article with support from Internews‘ Earth Journalism Network.

By Baher Kamal
MADRID, Dec 19 2022 – When tens of thousands of Europeans had to flee the horrors of two born-in-Europe devastating armed conflicts that attracted other powers: the World Wars I and II, they migrated to the Americas and other Western countries in search of safe haven.

Upon their arrival at their destination, they were checked at the border and admitted to enter as useful workforce.

Seldom, if ever, anybody classified them as “illegal” migrants. Those human beings were fleeing the horrors of those wars.

Due to persistent lack of safe and regular migration pathways, millions continue to take perilous journeys each year. Since 2014 more than 50,000 migrants have lost their lives on migratory routes across the world

Now that millions of people are forced to flee the horrors not only of wars but also of additional waves of devastation, from a climate emergency they did not create to a train of world’s financial crisis originated in and by the world’s most industrialised -and richest- powers, these migrants are classified as “illegal.”

There have been different approaches to get around what the right to far-right political parties in Europe, the United States, Australia, among several others, call “invasion,” a “threat to our civilisation,” “our democracy,” and “our religion,” let alone that they represent a “high risk of terrorism.”

Here, there is an open message from the rich West to these poor migrants: ‘don’t you dare come here, unless….’

• Unless you bring money: in the aftermath of the 2008 world financial crisis, several industrialised countries followed the example of the by then United Kingdom’s government, i.e., migrants were admitted provided they have money enough to buy a property and open a sound bank account;
• Unless you are highly skilled: another criteria used to admit migrants depends on their professional, useful capacity;
• And unless you are “like us”: such is the case of the tens of thousands of human beings attempting to escape the horrors of another, absolutely condemnable war, the European proxy war unfolding in Ukraine. Hungarian President, Viktor Orban, referred to Ukrainians as “they look like us… they are like us.”

If migrants do not enjoy these conditions, they are immediately called “illegal,” and thus non-admitted. And those who had already arrived are being sweept away from the US and Europe.

Why such a race to expel migrants?

The trend to expel migrants has steadily increased in this year 2022, coincidently –or not– proxy war in Ukraine started in February, pushing millions of Ukrainian citizens to flee the horrors of this condemnable armed conflict.

All Western countries, in particular Europe, have opened their doors to those millions of migrants and refugees, to whom all sorts of humanitarian assistance are rightly provided.

In contrast, millions of other human beings are fleeing horror, looking for ways to survive and a job that allows their families and themselves to stay alive.

Migrants workers “dehumanised”

“Migrant workers are often dehumanised”, said the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), Volker Türk, reminding that “they are human beings entitled to human rights and full protection of their human dignity”.

No one should have to surrender their human right to migrate in order to find a living wage, the UN human rights office, OHCHR said in a new report published on 16 December 2022, highlighting the importance of temporary migratory labour programmes.

The report, We wanted workers, but human beings came, published just two days ahead of the International Migrants Day, zeroes-in on schemes in operation across the Asia-Pacific region – the largest single migrant-producing region in the world.

The report points to just some of the abuse, discrimination, and inhuman treatment of migrants: as part of some seasonal schemes, migrants are expected to work on Saturdays and Sundays, leaving them no time to attend religious services.

Migrant domestic workers in other States have reported being told they would be fired, if they prayed or fasted while at work.

Some migrant construction workers report receiving sub-standard medical care in clinics provided by their employers.

Enforced disappearances

Migrants are particularly at risk during what are often arduous journeys just trying to reach their destination, warn UN-appointed independent human rights experts.

The experts stressed that States must coordinate in “preventing the yearly disappearances of thousands of migrants en route.”

Citing International Organization for Migration (IOM) estimates, they said that over 35,000 migrants have died or disappeared since 2014.

“However, there are no exact figures on the proportion of enforced disappearances in cases involving State agents or people acting with the authorisation, support or acquiescence of countries.”

But information indicates that most disappearances occur “during detention or deportation proceedings or because of migrant smuggling or trafficking,” said the UN-appointed human rights experts.

Blanket refusals, detention, expulsions

They blamed States’ rigid border management and migration policies for many disappearances, citing policies that include “blanket refusals of entry; criminalization of migration; and mandatory, automatic, or extensive use of immigration detention; and arbitrary expulsions.”

“These factors encourage migrants to take more dangerous routes, to put their lives in the hands of smugglers and to expose themselves to a higher risk of human rights violations and enforced disappearance”, the experts spelt out.

Misleading promises

Every year, millions leave their countries under temporary labour migration programmes that promise economic benefits for destination countries and development dividends to countries of origin.

The report details how in many cases temporary work schemes impose a range of “unacceptable human rights restrictions.”

It highlights how migrant workers are “often forced to live in overcrowded and unsanitary housing, unable to afford nutritious food, denied adequate healthcare, and face prolonged and sometimes mandatory separation from their families.”

Moreover, policies that exclude them from government support in some countries put migrants at a disproportionate risk of COVID-19 infection, the report says.

“They should not be expected to give up their rights in return for being able to migrate for work, however crucial it is for them and their families, and for the economies of their countries of origin and destination”, Türk underscored.

Are all the “other migrants” illegal?

One day a year –18 December–, the world is expected to observe the International Migrants Day.

On it, the UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, stated that today, over 80% of the world’s migrants cross borders in a safe and orderly fashion.

On this International Migrants Day, “we reflect on the lives of the over 280 million people who left their country in the universal pursuit of opportunity, dignity, freedom, and a better life,” he said.

“Today, over 80 per cent of the world’s migrants cross borders in a safe and orderly fashion.” This migration is a powerful driver of economic growth, dynamism, and understanding.

Over the past eight years, at least 51,000 migrants have died – and thousands more have disappeared. Behind each number is a human being – a sister, brother, daughter, son, mother, or father.

“Migrant rights are human rights” the United Nations chief reminded. “They must be respected without discrimination – and irrespective of whether their movement is forced, voluntary, or formally authorised.”

Is there a ‘migration crisis’?

Guterres also highlighted the urgent need to expand and diversify rights-based pathways for migration – to advance the Sustainable Development Goals and address labour market shortages.

“There is no migration crisis; there is a crisis of solidarity.” Today and every day, let us safeguard our common humanity and secure the rights and dignity of all.”

How many migrants?

In recent years, conflict, insecurity, and the effects of climate change, war and conflict have heavily contributed to the forced movement whether within countries or across borders.

In 2020 over 281 million people were international migrants while over 59 million people were internally displaced by the end of 2021.

The UN underlines that regardless of the reasons that compel people to move, migrants and displaced people represent some of the most vulnerable and marginalised groups in society…,

… and they are often exposed to abuse and exploitation, have limited access to essential services including healthcare, and are faced with xenophobic attacks and stigma fueled by misinformation.

On the other hand, many migrant workers are often in temporary, informal, or unprotected jobs, which exposes them to a greater risk of insecurity, layoffs, and poor working conditions.

“Due to persistent lack of safe and regular migration pathways, millions continue to take perilous journeys each year. Since 2014 more than 50,000 migrants have lost their lives on migratory routes across the world.”

Despite all the above, and of all World and International conventions, declarations, and commitments which have been adopted by all States, reality shows that some migrants are more equal –and human– than others.

By Roopa Dhatt, David Bryden and Gill Adynski
WASHINGTON DC/ CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA/ GENEVA, Dec 19 2022 – Health services don’t deliver themselves. It is the nurse who triages in the emergency department, the midwife who delivers babies and cares for mothers, the community health worker who gives babies vaccines, the care assistant who bathes someone at home, the surgeon who performs the operation, the anesthetist who blocks the pain, the pharmacist who matches the script to the medication, and the physiotherapist who restores movement.

With Universal Health Coverage Day (December 12) just behind us, it is critical to recognize the contribution of health workers, most of whom are women, and call for political leaders to urgently recognize and address the escalating resignations, shortfalls, and staff movements putting health security at all levels, from local to global at risk.

Listening to organizations who represent frontline health workers, community health workers, nurses, family doctors, and health professionals, we hear that after nearly three years of a pandemic there is worker burnout, staff shortages, migration of health workers, increasing reports of danger and violence at work, and rising mental health concerns.

Taken together, there are four alarming trends currently affecting health workers’ ability to deliver health services for all and hindering our advancement towards UHC.

Global shortage of health workers

WHO figures released in April this year estimated a projected global shortage of 10 million health workers in 2030 based on current trends (mostly depicting a pre-COVID-19 situation). Since then, in the US alone, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics now estimates that more than 200,000 registered nurse positions are projected to be vacant annually over the next decade and WHO points out the largest shortages will be in Africa and Southeast Asia.

Globally, burnout levels among doctors and nurses have been estimated at 66 percent, a figure that doesn’t bode well for future health worker retention or indeed the ability to attract new recruits. Lack of available health workers, particularly in the global south where disease burden is higher, was the biggest obstacle to maintaining health services and delivering vaccines during COVID-19, according to WHO.

Protection of health workers

The pandemic stretched already understaffed and under-resourced health systems, increasing pressure and danger. Too often women were issued medical personal protective equipment (PPE) designed for male bodies that left them at risk. Health workers were sent door-to-door to enforce lockdowns or do contact tracing or give vaccines with no added protection, facing angry, confused, or frightened people.

They worked extra shifts under horrendous conditions, many with little or no extra pay. It is no wonder that the International Council of Nurses described the COVID-19 effect as a “mass traumatization of the world’s nurses.” The average prevalence of PTSD among global health workers is estimated to be around 17 percent, but this figure is much higher for women frontline workers, at 31 percent.

Advocates for health equity have a responsibility too, to bring the same passion that we see, for instance, in the global struggle for access to COVID vaccines, to the cause of equity and fairness for health workers who deliver these vaccines.

The problem of pay

A June 2022 Women in Global Health report estimated that upwards of six million women health workers worldwide were either underpaid or not paid at all despite working in core health system roles. Just 14 percent of community health workers on the African continent are salaried. WHO figures reveal that women earn 24 percent less than men doing the same job.

Women are disadvantaged in promotions too: despite 70 percent of health workers and 90 percent of frontline health workers being women, men hold around three quarters of the leadership positions. Historically female professions, like nursing and midwifery, have workers of all genders but they face difficulties advancing into leadership positions due to historical biases against them as caring and nurturing professions, where they are not seen as leaders.

The “Great Resignation” in health

Unsurprisingly, there is a Great Resignation in health–worldwide we see a flood of women health professionals who are planning to or have already left their jobs. In the summer of 2021, in the UK alone, more than 27,000 staff voluntarily resigned from the NHS amid burnout caused by a combination of pandemic pressures and staff shortages. In Ghana, most health workers experienced high levels of stress (68 percent) and burnout (67 percent) citing lack of preparedness as a key factor.

A billboard on a Nairobi freeway advertises for nurses to move to Germany. On Facebook pages, we find hundreds of advertisements for health workers to move to the UK. The incentive for international moves is fast-track visas and better pay. And why wouldn’t health workers give serious consideration to moving somewhere with better pay or more training or the chance to earn enough to send money back to their families?

There are serious implications as nurses from low-income countries leave their health systems to prop up others in wealthier countries that have failed to train health workers of their own. It is estimated that this Great Migration of health workers costs LMICs an estimated $15.85 billion annually in excess mortality.

While any individual has the right to migrate freely, recruiting companies actively recruit nurses while violating the Global Code of Practice on International Recruitment of Health Personnel, further exacerbating health worker shortages in areas that need health workers most.

Africa has only four percent of all health workers in the world, but more than 50 percent of the 10 million health workforce shortage is in Africa. With the Great Resignation and the Great Migration, these are serious concerns and were pointed out by Heads of State at the U.S.-Africa Leader’s Summit last week.

Universal health coverage should not just be about individuals and communities getting better and more affordable health services, it should also be about recognising health workers, their roles, and their needs. Health workers need safe working environments free of violence and harassment that give them all the resources they need to do their jobs well.

Appreciation isn’t just about applause. It’s about governments, which are responsible for the health of their citizens, ensuring systems are properly resourced–from hospitals to home aid. From guaranteeing equity in pay to properly paid work. From provision of proper PPE to safety at work in all conditions. And making sure that career choices and promotions are open to all, regardless of gender.

If global leaders are serious, then it’s time they do more, as they have promised, and accelerate their efforts to achieve universal health coverage and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The Working for Health 2022-2030 Action Plan sets out how countries can support each other to build and strengthen their health and care workforce.

Our overburdened health workers have signaled that they have had enough. They have continued to protect us despite the shortages, lack of protection and problems related to pay, but they are burnt out. It is time we moved from applause to action and begin finally, to address the known problems plaguing global health systems.

Dr. Roopa Dhatt is Executive Director and Co-Founder of Women in Global Health (Washington, DC); David Bryden is Director of Frontline Health Workers Coalition and Senior Policy and Advocacy Advisor at IntraHealth International (Chapel Hill, NC.); Dr. Gill Adynski is Nursing and Health Policy Analyst at the International Council of Nurses (Geneva, Switzerland).

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Stella Paul
Montreal, Dec 19 2022 – Since the beginning of the high-level segment, tensions have been steadily rising at the 15th meeting of the conference of the parties to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD COP15) among all participants, including members of country delegation teams, NGOs, observers, monitors, and media. At the press events held daily at the media center and various other events in the Montreal Convention Center, an outburst of anger and frustration have become a common sight.

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

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

Target 22 at COP15: A Quick Look

Target 22 aims to “Ensure women and girls equitable access and benefits from conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, as well as their informed and effective participation at all levels of policy and decision-making related to biodiversity.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Preparing for the Next Steps

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

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

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

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

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

Note: The last bracket on Gender Target on the term “gender-responsive” was lifted, and the target was adopted when all parties of COP15 formally adopted the Global Biodiversity Framework late last night.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Busani Bafana
Bulawayo, Dec 19 2022 – Billy Offland (21), a British sustainability student, went on a two-year ‘World Conservation Journey’ to bring attention to the biodiversity crisis as the world seeks a deal to protect nature.

Offland, a BSc Sustainability and Environmental Management student at the University of Leeds, was jolted into taking a solo research trip after reading the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) Global Assessment report highlighting the perilous state of the world’s biodiversity. The IPBES assessment notes that more than one million species of plants and animals face extinction more than ever before in human history.

Getting up and taking action is always a big decision. There’s no easy way of starting your journey into activism or ‘actionism’ – changing a big part of your life for something you believe in.

“It took something as ground-breaking as the IPBES Global Assessment for me – but really, as soon as I read it, I knew I had to do something,” Offland told IPS in an interview from Azad Kashmir, Pakistan, where he is making the first foreign film about the battle for beekeepers to continue producing medicinal honey as the impacts of climate change threaten to wash away their pot of gold.

“The scale of the report is unlike anything else and contains messages which defy time. I always saw it as a culmination of everything I had learnt, discovered, and been told in my previous 22 years, including (completing a) degree in sustainability and environmental management. It laid it all bare.”

Offland said the grim narrative of the IPBES assessment left him questioning why people are unaware of this impending catastrophe and why it was not front-page news.

“In my eyes, the best thing about this report was that it came from the knowledge of hundreds of not just scientists and researchers but included, for the first time ever, the traditional knowledge of communities all around the world,” said Offland, who has now visited 196 countries worldwide. He plans to visit Eritrea as the final country of his sustainability tour.

“The most important thing I’ve learnt is that our global nature system is being destroyed by the actions of the majority of humans, and this has terrible consequences for nature – with it being predicted that a million species are at risk of extinction in the coming decades. This will also bring severe negative consequences for the livelihoods and wellbeing of so many people across the globe.”

Offland’s response to the biodiversity crisis, signalled by the IPBES Global Assessment, underscores the power that scientific research has to highlight the nature crisis and to mobilise and motivate real action by  individuals and organisations to bring our world back from the brink.

The Global Assessment also found that the average abundance of native species in most major land-based habitats has fallen by at least 20 percent, mostly since 1900. More than 40 percent of amphibian species, almost 33 percent of reef-forming corals and more than a third of all marine mammals are threatened. The picture is less clear for insect species, but available evidence supports a tentative estimate of 10 percent being threatened.

It gets worse. The assessment further found that at least 680 vertebrate species had been driven to extinction since the 16th century. More than 9 percent of all domesticated breeds of mammals used for food and agriculture had become extinct by 2016, with at least 1,000 more species still threatened.

The work of IPBES has also influenced policy change across the world. Following the discussions and agreement at the BES-Net Anglophone Africa Regional Trialogue, policy, science and practice sector representatives in Nigeria, for example, convened to refine a two-year strategic action plan for pollinator-friendly land degradation neutrality. This was a means to act on the IPBES thematic assessments on pollinators and land restoration.

The authors built on the earlier findings of the IPBES Regional Assessment Report for Africa to show what is changing in biodiversity and ecosystem services on the African continent. They also identified future pathways and options for an African continent where long-term development objectives are recognised as inseparably connected to conserving the region’s rich biocultural heritage.

As another direct impact of IPBES work, taking note of the urgency of the Global Assessment, 30 leading South African businesses teamed up with World Wide Fund South Africa and the Wildlife Trust (EWT) to undertake biodiversity valuation assessments to determine how to cost-effectively mainstream biodiversity into their strategies and practices.

The businesses indicated that given the key findings of the IPBES report, “there was, ‘more than ever’, a need for them to step up their biodiversity game.”

These are just some of many examples of governments, businesses, practitioners and individuals who took biodiversity science to heart and set out to make a difference. To document the impact of its work, IPBES developed its own Impact Tracking Database (TRACK) five years ago. It is a crowd-sourced tool that keeps track of, for example, new or changed laws, regulations, policy commitments, investments, research techniques, and more, that were inspired by the scientific reports published by the platform.

Rob Spaull, Head of Communications at IPBES, explains that IPBES realised it could not comprehensively monitor impacts globally.

“So, we decided to create an indicative list of these impacts whenever we found out about them,” Spaull said. He notes that the TRACK is a fully public database that can be used by anybody who wants to know about what kind of impacts IPBES has had or to submit an example of an IPBES impact themselves.

“The idea behind wanting to make it public and as searchable is that we want to give everybody interested in IPBES a chance to tell stories about the work that we do and the impact that we are having, but we want them to be able to find stories that are as closely related to their own priorities as possible,” Spaull tells IPS.

TRACK to date has almost 500 different specific examples of impact from every region and most countries and every kind of scale, including the private sector.

“TRACK is a really valuable asset that, we think, shows how science can have a very direct impact and that it does not need to be restricted to scientific publications that may end up gathering dust on a shelf somewhere. It can take a little time for science to result in concrete change, but thanks to the TRACK database we can trace the impact over time,” said Spaull.

This in itself is great news for the scientists who volunteer years of their time to work on IPBES assessments, but it can also be used to bring about even more change: Spaull added that member States had told IPBES they had used the examples collected in TRACK when advocating to their ministries and government organisations about the importance of IPBES in highlighting the science behind biodiversity issues worldwide, a strategy that can ultimately bring about even more support for biodiversity science.

TRACK is a fully public database that can be used by anybody who wants to know about what kind of impacts IPBES has had or to submit an example of an IPBES impact themselves. This includes 500 different specific examples of impact from every region and most countries and every kind of scale, including the private sector. Credit: Busani Bafana/IPS

At the COP15 Biodiversity Conference in Montreal, UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, said that the destruction of biodiversity and nature has come at a huge price for humanity.

“Humanity has become a weapon of mass extinction… with a million species at risk of disappearing forever,” said Guterres, noting that climate action and biodiversity protection were two sides of the same coin.

“It’s time for the world to adopt an ambitious biodiversity framework — a true peace pact with nature — to deliver a green, healthy future for all.”

IPBES science can be found in many places, such as in the draft Global Biodiversity Framework that is being discussed at the COP.

What does Offland make of the current global action to save biodiversity at COP15 in Montreal?

“There’s no doubt for me that we’re making progress,” Offland told IPS, adding, “The worry is that it’s not the transformative change that we need to see. Often the biodiversity crisis is subjugated under the need for climate action, but recent work noticeably by IPBES and the IPCC seeks to reconcile the two.”

Offland has a vision for a summit where biodiversity takes an equal level of priority.

“I would quite like to see an intermediary COP for biodiversity and climate change together, recognising the importance of treating both together and not in silos and, therefore, giving the biodiversity crisis the priority it requires across every country in the world.”

Meanwhile, it is hopeful that biodiversity science will continue to make an impact at different scales, whether it’s on the global scale of a COP or on the individual scale as with Offland himself. Truly transformative change will need to occur at all levels of society.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);