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’);  

By Emilio Godoy
MONTREAL, Dec 16 2022 – In addition to its nutritional properties, quinoa, an ancestral grain from the Andes, also has cosmetic uses, as stated by the resource use and benefit-sharing permit ABSCH-IRCC-PE-261033-1 awarded in February to a private individual under a 15-month commercial use contract.

The permit, issued by the Peruvian government’s National Institute for Agrarian Innovation, allows the Peruvian beneficiary to use the material in a skin regeneration cream.

But it also sets restrictions on the registration of products obtained from quinoa or the removal of its elements from the Andean nation, to prevent the risk of irregular exploitation without a fair distribution of benefits, in other words, biopiracy.”The scientific community is willing to share benefits through simple mechanisms that do not unfairly burden researchers in low- and middle-income countries.” — Amber Scholz

The licensed material may have a digital representation of its genetic structure which in turn may generate new structures from which formulas or products may emerge. This is called digital sequence information (DSI), in the universe of research or commercial applications within the CBD.

Treatment of DSI forms part of the debates at the 15th Conference of the Parties (COP15) to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which began on Dec. 7 and is due to end on Dec. 19 at the Palais des Congrès in the Canadian city of Montreal.

The summit has brought together some 15,000 people representing the 196 States Parties to the CBD, non-governmental organizations, academia, international bodies and companies.

The focus of the debate is the Post-2020 Global Framework on Biodiversity, which consists of 22 targets in areas including financing for conservation, guidelines on digital sequencing of genetic material, degraded ecosystems, protected areas, endangered species, the role of business and gender equality.

Like most of the issues, negotiations on DSI and the sharing of resulting benefits, contained in one of the Global Framework’s four objectives and in target 13, are at a deadlock, on everything from definitions to possible sharing mechanisms.

Except for the digital twist, the issue is at the heart of the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization, part of the CBD, signed in that Japanese city in 2010 and in force since 2014.

The delegations of the 196 States Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity have failed to make progress at COP15 in the negotiations on new targets for the protection of the world’s natural heritage, in the Canadian city of Montreal. In the picture, a working group reviews a proposal on the complex issue. CREDIT: IISD/ENB

Amber Scholz, a German member of the DSI Scientific Network, a group of 70 experts from 25 countries, said there is an urgent need to close the gap between the existing innovation potential and a fair benefit-sharing system so that digital sequencing benefits everyone.

“It’s been a decade now and things haven’t turned out so well. The promise of a system of innovation, open access and benefit sharing is broken,” Scholz, a researcher at the Department of Microbial Ecology and Diversity in the Leibniz Institute’s DSMZ German Collection of Microorganisms and Cell Cultures, told IPS.

DSI stems from the revolution in the massive use of technological tools, which has reached biology as well, fundamental in the discovery and manufacture of molecules and drugs such as those used in vaccines against the coronavirus that caused the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Aichi Biodiversity Targets, adopted in 2010 in that Japanese city during the CBD COP10, were missed by the target year, 2020, and will now be renewed and updated by the Global Framework that will emerge from Montreal.

The targets included respect for the traditional knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities related to the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, their customary use of biological resources, and the full and effective participation of indigenous and local communities in the implementation of the CBD.

Lack of clarity in the definition of DSI, challenges in the traceability of the country of origin of the sequence via digital databases, fear of loss of open access to data and different outlooks on benefit-sharing mechanisms are other aspects complicating the debate among government delegates.

Through the Action Agenda: Make a Pledge platform, organizations, companies and individuals have already made 586 voluntary commitments at COP15, whose theme is “Ecological civilization: Building a shared future for all life on earth”.

Of these, 44 deal with access and benefit sharing, while 294 address conservation and restoration of terrestrial ecosystems, 185 involve partnerships and alliances, and 155 focus on adaptation to climate change and emission reductions.

Genetic havens

Access to genetic resources for commercial or non-commercial purposes has become an issue of great concern in the countries of the global South, due to the fear of biopiracy, especially with the advent of digital sequencing, given that physical access to genetic materials is not absolutely necessary.

Although the Nagoya Protocol includes access and benefit-sharing mechanisms, digital sequencing mechanisms have generated confusion. In fact, this instrument has created a market in which lax jurisdictions have taken advantage by becoming genetic havens.

Around 2,000 gene banks operate worldwide, attracting some 15 million users. Almost two billion sequences have been registered, according to statistics from GenBank, one of the main databases in the sector and part of the U.S. National Center for Biotechnology Information.

Argentina leads the list of permits for access to genetic resources in Latin America under the Protocol, with a total of 56, two of which are commercial, followed by Peru (54, four commercial) and Panama (39, one commercial). Mexico curbed access to such permits in 2019, following a scandal triggered by the registration of maize in 2016.

There are more than 100 gene banks operating in Mexico, 88 in Peru, 56 in Brazil, 47 in Argentina and 25 in Colombia.

The largest providers of genetic resources leading to publicly available DSI are the United States, China and Japan. Brazil ranks 10th among sources and users of samples, according to a study published in 2021 by Scholz and five other researchers.

The mechanisms for managing genetic information sequences have become a condition for negotiating the new post-2020 Global Framework for biodiversity, which poses a conflict between the most biodiverse countries (generally middle- and low-income) and the nations of the industrialized North.

Brazilian indigenous activist Cristiane Juliao, a leader of the Pankararu people, calls for a fair system of benefit-sharing for access to and use of genetic resources and their digital sequences at COP15, being held at the Palais des Congrès in the Canadian city of Montreal. CREDIT: Emilio Godoy/IPS

Indigenous people and their share

Cristiane Juliao, an indigenous woman of the Pankararu people, who is a member of the Brazilian Coordinator of Indigenous Peoples and Organizations of the Northeast, Minas Gerais and Espírito Santo, said the mechanisms adopted must favor the participation of native peoples and guarantee a fair distribution of benefits.

“We don’t look at one small element of a plant. We look at the whole context and the role of that plant. All traditional knowledge is associated with genetic heritage, because we use it in food, medicine or spiritual activities,” she told IPS at COP15.

Therefore, she said, “traceability is important, to know where the knowledge was acquired or accessed.”

In Montreal, Brazilian native organizations are seeking recognition that the digital sequencing contains information that indigenous peoples and local communities protect and that digital information must be subject to benefit-sharing. They are also demanding guarantees of free consultation and the effective participation of indigenous groups in the digital information records.

Thanks to the system based on the country’s Biodiversity Law, in effect since 2016, the Brazilian government has recorded revenues of five million dollars for permits issued.

The Working Group responsible for drafting the new Global Framework put forward a set of options for benefit-sharing measures.

They range from leaving in place the current status quo, to the integration of digital sequence information on genetic resources into national access and benefit-sharing measures, or the creation of a one percent tax on retail sales of genetic resources.

Lagging behind

There is a legal vacuum regarding this issue, because the CBD, the World Intellectual Property Organization and the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, in force since 2004, do not cover all of its aspects.

Scholz suggested the COP reach a decision that demonstrates the political will to establish a fair and equitable system. “The scientific community is willing to share benefits through simple mechanisms that do not unfairly burden researchers in low- and middle-income countries,” she said.

For her part, Juliao demanded a more inclusive and fairer system. “There is no clear record of indigenous peoples who have agreed to benefit sharing. It is said that some knowledge comes from native peoples, but there is no mechanism for the sharing of benefits with us.”

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

By Francine Pickup
NEW YORK, Dec 16 2022 – Climate change is the defining issue of our time. In the words of the UN Secretary General at COP27, “we are on a highway to climate hell with our foot still on the accelerator.” Cutting greenhouse gas emissions to net-zero by 2050 is crucial when it comes to meeting the 1.5 degrees Celsius target.

At the same time, if we don’t effectively deal with corruption in climate action, it will severely impede our abilities to fight the climate crisis through scaled-up adaptation and mitigation efforts.

According to Transparency International, up to 35 percent of climate action funds, depending on programme, have been lost to corruption in the last five years.

Corruption and the climate crisis reinforce each other

On the one hand, corruption fuels the climate crisis by depriving countries of much-needed revenues to act on climate change and build resilience, while also significantly altering the efficient allocation and distribution of resources to achieve development objectives.

For example, according to the U4 Anti-corruption Resource Centre, the top recipients of climate finance are among the riskiest places in the world for corruption.

On the other hand, climate impacts reinforce corruption by creating economic and social instability and inequality, fostering an environment more conducive to corruption and misuse of funds, that ultimately deprives the poorest and hardest hit.

Overcoming corruption in the race against the climate crisis requires collective action and bold partnerships between government, private sector, and civil society to recognise and combat the issue through more effective management of resources and programmes.

This calls for:

• Governments to step up their efforts in environmental governance,
• Businesses to strengthen business integrity,
• Media, youth, and communities to continue to advocate against corruption.

The four immediate actions that require commitment from all actors:

1. Management of funds: A much greater transparency and accountability is needed in the use and management of climate finance in adaptation and mitigation programmes.

Access to finance is often presented as the main obstacle to achieving a just transition and transformative climate action, but that’s only one side of the problem. The other side is to make sure that the much-needed resources to address climate crisis are not lost due to corruption and mismanagement.

One good example is that of the Colombian climate finance tracking system, which provides updated data on domestic, public, private, and international climate funding.

It is one of the first countries in the world to have developed a comprehensive Monitoring, Reporting and Verification (MRV) framework to transparently track the inflow and outflow of climate finance from public, private and international sources.

2. Voice and Accountability: This means leveraging the power of advocacy and accountability mechanisms, and providing civic spaces for meaningful participation of society, empowering them to hold policy makers and private sector accountable.

For example, UNDP is empowering communities in Uganda and Sri Lanka, to use digital tools to mainstream integrity and transparency in environmental resource management. In Sri Lanka,

UNDP has launched a digital platform, in collaboration with the Ministry of Wildlife and Forest Conservation and other partners, for citizens to engage and monitor illicit environmental activities. The initiative is supported through UNDP’s Global Project – Anti-Corruption for Peaceful and Inclusive Societies (ACPIS) funded by the Norad— Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation.

Meanwhile, in Uganda, UNDP and the National Forestry Authority have launched the Uganda Natural Resource Information System (NARIS), designed to monitor and mediate deforestation throughout Uganda to protect the country’s forests and biodiversity.

In the climate change agenda, fighting corruption is not only about the money. It is also about building trust in institutions and restoring hope in the future. Studies show that ‘eco-anxiety’ is increasing, particularly amongst young people.

A global study of 10,000 youth from 10 countries in 2021 found that over 50 percent of young people felt sad, anxious, angry, powerless, helpless, and guilty about climate change. But we have also seen youth, civil society and communities taking action against the environmental damage and climate change from Serbia to India.

Through UNDP’s Climate promise alone, more than 110,000 people have been engaged in stakeholder consultations to revise key national climate strategies, known as nationally determined contributions –, helping to build social consensus and explicit recognition of the roles of youth and women’s leadership in renewed climate pledges in 120 countries.

3. Private sector has a key role to play: Public capacity needs to be strengthened to implement policies to regulate private sector activities to protect the environment. At the same time, businesses should also play their part with fair, human-rights based business practices, business integrity, and environmental sustainability goals.

4. The normative framework to protect human rights: An intensified focus on ‘environmental justice’ at global and national level is needed. On 28 July 2022, the UN General Assembly adopted a historic resolution that gave universal recognition to the human right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment (R2HE). UNDP promotes responsible business by strengthening human rights standards across 17 countries, with support from Japan.

UNDP has supported over 100 national human rights institutions to address the human rights implications of climate change and environmental degradation. In Tanzania, UNDP has supported the ‘Commission for Human Rights and Good Governance’ to manage disputes related to environmental human rights violations. In Chile, UNDP has supported an ongoing process of constitutional reform which includes strong references to environmental rights.

The development community needs to ensure integrated approaches and break the siloes between the governance and environmental communities; and between public and private sectors to tackle the interlinked crises of corruption and climate change.

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’);  

Excerpt:

The writer is Deputy Director, Bureau for Policy and Programme Support, UNDP

By Ed Holt
BRATISLAVA, Dec 16 2022 – A new law banning LGBTQI ‘propaganda’ in Russia will further stigmatise LGBTQI people in the country and could worsen what is already one of the world’s worst HIV/AIDS epidemics, critics have warned.

The legislation, approved by President Vladimir Putin at the start of this month, bans any promotion of what authorities see as “non-traditional sexual relations”.

Groups working with Russia’s LGBTQI community say the new law – an extension of 2013 legislation banning the positive portrayal of same-sex relationships to minors – will effectively make outreach work illegal, potentially severely impacting HIV prevention and treatment among what is a key population for the disease.

It also comes amid intensifying anti-LGBTQI political rhetoric and a Kremlin crackdown on the minority and civic organisations helping it.

“Since 2014, Russia has been purposefully driving HIV service organizations underground. The new law is another nail in the coffin of effective HIV prevention among vulnerable populations,” Evgeny Pisemsky, an LGBTQI activist from Orel in Russia, who runs the Russian LGBTQI information and news website parniplus.com, told IPS.

Russia has one of the worst HIV epidemics in the world. For much of the last decade the country has seen some of the highest rates of new infection recorded anywhere – between 80,000 and 100,000 per year between 2013 and 2019, although this has fallen to 60,000 in the last two years.

Officials figures for the total number of people infected range from between 850,000 cited by the Health Ministry and 1.3 million according to data from the Russian Federal AIDS Centre. The real figure though is believed to be much higher as the Russian Federal AIDS Centre estimates half of people with HIV are unaware of their infection.

Experts on the disease have repeatedly criticised Russian authorities’ approach to HIV prevention and treatment, especially the criminalisation and stigmatisation of key populations, including LGBTQI people.

Indeed, the new legislation is an extension of a controversial 2013 law banning the promotion of LGBTQI relationships to minors. This was denounced by human rights groups as discriminatory, but also criticised by infectious disease experts who suggested it further stigmatised gay men and men who have sex with men (MSM), affecting their access to HIV prevention and treatment.

Organisations working with the LGBTQI community in Russia worry the new legislation could make the situation even worse.

Gennady Roshchupkin, Community Systems Advisor at the Eurasian Coalition on Health, Rights, Gender and Sexual Diversity NGO, told IPS: “Practice in many countries has proved that increased stigma of marginalized populations leads to increased discrimination towards these groups, and, subsequently, these people increasingly frequently refuse to come forward for [HIV] testing and help.

“Formally, the new anti-LGBTQI law puts no limits on providing LGBTQI people with medical help and examinations. But, of course, the ban on sharing information with anyone about the specific characteristics of their sexual life may significantly decrease the quality and timeliness of testing and care.”

Meanwhile, Pisemsky said outreach work was likely to stop in its current form as provision of some services will now be too risky.

“All outreach work will go deep underground. Even online counselling will be dangerous,” he said.

The law could also impact LGBTQI mental health – research showed LGBTQI youth mental health was negatively affected after implementation of the 2013 legislation – which could, in turn, promote risky sexual behaviours.

“We cannot know what exactly will happen. Use of alcohol and practice of chemsex may increase, and there could be a rise in cases of long-term depression and suicides. But what we can say with certainty is that there will be a dramatic decrease in the use of condoms and pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) – unprotected sex with an unknown partner is also an indicator of mental and cognitive conditions in the age of HIV – sexual health literacy, and self-esteem among LGBTQI people,” said Roshchupkin.

Meanwhile, international organisations heading the fight against HIV/AIDS have attacked the law, warning of its potentially serious impact on public health.

“Punitive and restrictive laws increase the risk of acquiring HIV and decrease access to services… Such laws make it harder for people to protect their health and that of their communities,” UNAIDS Executive Director Winnie Byanyima said in a statement.

But such warnings are almost certain to fall on deaf ears, at least among Russian lawmakers.

Although homosexuality was decriminalised in the early 1990s after the fall of communism, LGBTQI people face widespread prejudice and discrimination in Russia. The country placed 46 out of 49 European countries in the latest rankings of LGBTQI inclusion by the rights group ILGA-Europe.

These attitudes are fuelled by what many LGBTQI activists say is a systematic state policy to stigmatise and persecute the minority.

Since the 2013 law was implemented, authorities have cracked down on NGOs campaigning for LGBTQI rights, using various legislation to force them to close. At the same time, politicians have intensified anti-LGBTQI rhetoric, and regularly attack the community.

Indeed, the new legislation was overwhelmingly supported in parliament, with senior political figures rushing to defend it as a necessary measure against Western threats to traditional Russian values.

Chairman of Russia’s federal parliament, Vyacheslav Volodin, said about the law: “We must do everything to protect our children and those who want to live a normal life. Everything else is sin, sodomy, darkness, and our country is fighting this.”

International rights groups say it is clear the law has been brought in for a specific discriminatory purpose.

“There is no other way of seeing it than as an extreme and systematic effort to stigmatise, isolate, and marginalise the entire Russian LGBTQI community. It is an abhorrent example of homophobia and should be repealed,” Rachel Denber, Deputy Director of the Europe and Central Asia Division at Human Rights Watch, told IPS.

“This law has a characteristic similarity to other repressive laws adopted in Russia in recent years – the opportunity for its arbitrary interpretation. In an environment that is as repressive as Russia’s is right now, rather than deciding to take the risk of falling foul of the law and speaking openly about relationships or sexuality, people will just remain silent.

“This law emerged in a climate of cumulative repression of human rights and repressive laws across the board, which seek to silence dissent, and, through the force of law, enforce conformism,” she added.

Pisemsky agreed: “Laws like this one are designed to scare people. Fear needs to be constantly fed with something, otherwise it stops working. This law is not the last step in the escalation of homophobia in Russia.”

The effects of the ban, which essentially makes any positive depictions of the LGBTQI community in literature, film, television, online, and other media illegal with stiff fines (up to 80,000 US Dollars for organisations) for breaches, have been immediately visible.

Pisemsky described how HIV service organizations had altered their websites and social media pages to comply with the law, while Roshchupkin said LGBTQI community health centres were removing from their premises homoerotic posters and brochures with explicit depictions of same-sex sexual acts.

Meanwhile, Russia’s first queer museum, in St Petersburg, had to close its doors just weeks after opening to comply with the law, bookshops have cleared their shelves of works dealing with LGBTQI themes and libraries have taken to displaying similar works with blank covers.

It is unclear what other effects the law will have, but some LGBTQI organisations which spoke to IPS said people had been in touch with them asking for advice on emigrating.

Nikita Iarkov, a volunteer with the Andrey Rylkov Foundation, an NGO which helps people with HIV in Russia, said that though he did not think there was yet widespread fear among LGBTQI people in Russia, he is realistic about what the future holds for many of them.

“Unfortunately, this is not the first law discriminating [against LGBTQI people]. This kind of ban is sort of a regular practice now,” he told IPS.

“I hope that clubs in Moscow and St Petersburg will remain safe spaces for queer people, but I think that it will be impossible to have openly queer parties and clubs.”

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’);