By Stella Paul
MONTREAL & HYDERABAD , Aug 27 2024 – “We are living in a time where nature is regularly raising its hand and saying, ‘Look, I’m here and I’m in trouble,’ and then bringing us all sorts of natural disasters to the table,” says Astrid Schomaker, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (UNCBD), in an exclusive interview with IPS. 

“And,” she emphasizes, “The world is beginning to recognize that we have to have a different relationship with nature. Luckily, we already have a framework to do that.”

Since taking the reins of the UNCBD in July—less than three months before the 16th Biodiversity Convention of the Parties (COP16) is held in Colombia—Schomaker has been a leader in a rush. From preparing for the COP to coordinating with Colombia, the COP presidency and global leaders who will be attending the conference, while also presiding over a number of meetings and communicating the urgency of timely implementation of the Global Biodiversity Framework, Schomaker has a damaging schedule.

There are three COPs this year—all within a short span of three months and the CBD COP16, scheduled to take place from October 19–November 1, is the first of them. Schomaker is looking at this as a huge opportunity to send out a message to the other COPs.

“Unless we have a different way of interacting with the earth’s natural resources, we will not succeed on biodiversity, but also certainly not on climate change. And if that comes out and there is meant to be a new coalition launched at the COP that Colombia will be piloting, I think we will send a super strong message to the other conventions and I’m sure they will hear it and pick up on it.”

Coordinating With Other UN Conventions

But a successful COP will also depend on how well CBD can collaborate with other COPs, as the issues—biodiversity, climate change and drought are also closely linked. Schomaker asserts that she is on the right track, coordinating closely with other conventions as well as other UN agencies.

“I’ve been working with all these other conventions and processes as well, because for us to make this Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) a success is to make sure that the UN system pulls together and that governments also reflect on their own way of working,” she explains, that biodiversity is not sector specific where environment ministries alone can run it, but one in which other ministries and stakeholders are needed to make this framework a success.

From Green Diplomacy to Biodiversity

Schomaker, however, is not new to multi-agency collaboration and coordination. She begins the interview by sharing glimpses into her previous role at previous role at the European Commission’s Environment Department, describing it “a bit of warm-up” for her current position as the head of UN CBD.

“My last job was the Director for Green Diplomacy and Multilateralism. So, previously, I did it for a group of 27 countries. Now I work with 196 member states. Previously, I covered, so to speak, environmental governance and all assessments, including biodiversity, but also the chemical conventions and how all these conventions work together. Now I’m more focused on biodiversity—this is very much about everybody coming together.”

Schomaker also describes this as a “super exciting opportunity” to be able to work dedicatedly on biodiversity at a time “when the world has sort of heard the wake-up call”.

COP16: Challenges and Hopes

Barely eight weeks from now, world leaders will be heading to Cali, Colombia, to attend the first COP since adopting a new global plan in Montreal to protect at least 30 percent of the earth’s biodiversity by 2030. The past two years have seen a slew of activities, including structuring the implementation mechanism, supporting countries to revise their individual biodiversity action plans and setting up indicators for measuring the progress of the implementation. According to Schomaker, there are, however, several issues that need urgent attention at Cali.

“I think in Montreal (which is dubbed Biodiversity’s Paris moment), we managed to be more successful than in Paris, because we already had our monitoring framework and its broad outlines agreed at the same time. So that was actually a great success,” Schomaker says, continuing with a candid assessment of the challenges.

“But there are many areas that need extra focus. First of all, for the parties now need to move from this political agreement into implementing it and into aligning what they’re doing nationally with the targets and goals of the framework. And as you know, we have this National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans (NBSAPs) as our key instruments for implementation; those need to be revised, and the parties have committed to revising those national action plans, or where they cannot do that, at least to come forward with targets by COP16. And for me, this is a bit like the proof of the pudding.”

A Push for Inclusiveness

But it is resource mobilization that tops Schomaker’s list of priorities, including raising money from private sector investors.  The UN Biodiversity Convention aims to mobilize at least USD 20 billion per year by 2025 and at least USD 30 billion per year by 2030 for biodiversity-related funding from all sources, including the public and private sectors. However, so far, the actual pledges have been just about USD 300 million, while the contribution has been less than USD 100 million.

In May of this year, the then acting Executive Secretary David Cooper told IPS that the world needed a clear roadmap to bridge this wide financing gap.

Schomaker appears in agreement with that and talks about an all-inclusive resource mobilization strategy to meet the unmet goals in biodiversity financing. She is especially pushing for greater inclusion of business and thinks contribution from private business could unlock the investment that has been missing so far.

“Business, I think, plays a super important role. It was really great to see the private sector show up in force in Montreal. I think we’re now expecting a greater mobilization for Cali. So business is very, very aware of their role, of both their dependencies and their impact.”

“As you know, there are compelling figures on the relationship between nature and business, which is worth USD 44 trillion,” reminds Schomaker, referring to the New Nature Economy Report of the World Economic Forum. Published in 2020, the report highlighted that USD 44 trillion of economic value generation—over half the world’s total GDP—is moderately or highly dependent on nature and its services and, as a result, exposed to risks from nature loss.

“So, I think that’s important if you continue to work with business and make sure that they have the tools to understand what the impacts and dependencies are. And we will provide a lot of space for that also at the COP, the Business and Biodiversity Day and many other activities, for sure,” she says.

Staying Positive

But, despite the challenges ahead, Schomaker doesn’t want to sound all gloom and doom. Instead, she is looking at each development, however small, as a sign of positivity and hope.

In fact, on the day of this interview, the CBD had been leading a crucial meeting on Digital Sequencing Information conference in Montreal. DSI discussions center on the fair and equitable sharing of valuable benefits from digital sequence information—the digital versions of plant, animal, and microorganism DNA—and are generally considered one of the most contentious issues among biodiversity negotiators from the global north and the global south. But Schomaker asserts that there are reasons for hope. One of them is planning to launch a DSI fund.

“As you know, COP15 has already decided that there should be a mechanism and a fund for Digital Sequence Information for the benefits to be paid—the benefit from the use of digital sequencing information from genetic resources. So, one of the options is that the Global Environment Facility (GEF) might manage this fund.

“But overall, I can say that the discussions that I’ve been witnessing over the past few days and this morning are very, very constructive. And this is not to downplay that there are different perspectives, but I think everybody has come here saying, ‘Okay, we’ve taken a decision at COP15 and that decision told us we’re going to have that mechanism, we’re going to have a fund and we need to operationalize it. And our deadline is Cali’,” Schomaker says.

States Must Take the Lead

As the chief of UN Biodiversity, Schomaker has already dived into action, but she doesn’t mince words while pointing out that the UN can only be a facilitator—the real power and the responsibility to make decisions lie clearly with the states. This is especially important to remember because to kickstart the implementation of the GBF, countries need to submit their revised, more ambitious NBSAPs but until today, only 14 of the 196 signatory countries have done so.

“We are looking at how these big planning processes, the NBSAPs and then the NDCs under the Climate Convention, and how these things can also be done in better coordination, also at national level, with each other, remains a big challenge. The second thing, and I’ve already hinted at that, is this idea that if we want to be successful in combating biodiversity loss, of course, governments need to take the lead,” she emphasizes.

“Do Something”

Finally, when asked what message she would have for anyone heading to COP16, Schomaker has a clear answer: Signing of the GBF proved that there was enough political commitment, but it should not be seen as an event that was “just a beautiful moment, where energy came together, and everybody just had good moment together, and the stars were aligned.”

Instead, she says,  “It’s time to roll up the sleeves and do something.”

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’);  

IPS UN Bureau, IPS UN Bureau Report, Cali, Columbia, COP16,

By Cecilia Russell
JOHANNESBURG, Aug 27 2024 – ‘Peace with Nature’ is the theme for the 16th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP16) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which will take place in Cali, Colombia, between October 21 and November 1, 2024.

But what does ‘Peace with Nature’ mean?

Minister of Environment and Sustainable Development, Susana Muhamad

For COP16 chair and Minister of Environment and Sustainable Development, Susana Muhamad, the theme of Peace with Nature means understanding that climate change and restoring nature are both sides of the same coin.

“That’s the main motivation why Colombia decided to host this conference, we see there is a double movement that humanity has to make,” Muhamad told a press briefing on August 22, 2024.

Her vision clearly places biodiversity as politically relevant as the climate change agenda.

While it is crucial to decarbonize and have a just energy transition, it’s equally important to “restore nature” so that it can, in the end, “stabilize the climate.”

She outlines three political successes: strong engagement from all sectors, positioning biodiversity as a parallel movement to decarbonization, and approving the Digital Sequencing Information Fund.

“At the same time as we are not decarbonizing, the climate will continue changing, and nature will not have the time to adapt,” Muhamad said. “And if nature collapses, communities and people will also collapse, and society will collapse.”

COP16’s role as the first of three COPs (organized respectively by the UNCBD, UNFCCC and UNCCD) this year is to bring “political and economic awareness to biodiversity and so bring humanity back to safe limits during the 21^st century.”

CBD Executive Secretary Astrid Schomaker

For CBD’s Executive Secretary Astrid Schomaker, the Columbian presidency’s theme of Peace with Nature is a call to action.

She describes the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGVF) as the blueprint for making peace with nature, with four goals: protecting and restoring nature, sharing benefits, investing in nature, and collaborating with nature.

Schomaker asserts that COP16 is essential for resolving the outstanding issues from COP 15.

“This is about access and benefit sharing of digital sequence information from genetic resources. Now that’s a very technical subject, but the very, very important one also in terms of the mobilization of resources, but also in terms of the understanding of how we interact with nature, that when we take from nature, we benefit from nature, we give back to nature.”

Schomaker also referred to the need to finance biodiversity with international support, adding to Canada’s donation of USD 200 million. The fund currently stands at USD 300 million.

Finally, COP16 will include initiatives that will bring indigenous peoples and local communities to the table and elevate their voices so that the traditional knowledge they can bring can deepen the debate.

Canadian Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault

Handing over the baton to the COP16 presidency, Guilbeault looked back at COP15, which has been termed biodiversity’s “Paris moment,” referring to the Paris Climate Treaty of 2015, which aims to hold “the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels” and pursue efforts “to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.”

Despite the achievements and hard work, biodiversity issues are still challenging, and are not yet at “Peace with Nature.”

“Species are still going extinct. We still use natural resources unsustainably. And we’ve still not collectively realized that, in the fight against climate change, our biggest ally is nature.”

What are the challenges?

Finance

Muhamad recognized that financing is crucial for “sustained” and secure resources for the future. She called on Parties to come forward and make firm commitments to finance biodiversity, although they have until 2025 to do so in terms of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.

The COP16 chairperson also hoped that this forum would be a “pioneer” for new financing mechanisms that go beyond relying on countries financing the framework and to “open new doors of possibilities for funding mechanisms that are more sustainable and that are at the scale of the challenge that we are facing.”

Business

Muhamad also referred to the proactive role of business with regard to their responsibilities towards keeping a safe environment and its contribution to biodiversity.

The framework mandates government remove, over time, subsidies to sectors of the economy that may impact biodiversity. This could lead to backlash, so human rights and fairness are crucial; however, there are also many opportunities.

“We hope at COP16 to bring a lot of inspiration from those business models that are already incorporated and taking nature as a design into consideration, and that are being the vanguard of new prospects.”

It is also crucial to make this a partnership between government and business to move forward and there will be opportunities in both the green and blue zones at COP16 to take the conversation forward.

Digital sequencing

Muhamad anticipates that the approval of a digital sequencing fund and the mechanism for implementation will be key achievements of the negotiations.

Schomaker added that it had already been “decided that there will be a new global mechanism for sharing the benefits of digital sequencing information on genetic resources, and that global mechanism includes a fund.” What is still under discussion is what form the fund will take.

“Will it be a new fund, a completely new fund, which is one of the options on the table, or will it be one of the existing funds that we have?”

David Cooper, CBD’s Deputy Executive Secretary , agreed that the discussion includes whether to use existing funds like the Global Biodiversity Fund, which is managed by the Global Environment Facility or create a new fund.

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 Andrew Firmin
LONDON, Aug 27 2024 – Civil society is working on all fronts to tackle the climate crisis. Activists are protesting in numbers to pressure governments and corporations to cut greenhouse gas emissions. They’re using non-violent direct action and high-profile stunts, paying a heavy price as numerous states criminalise climate protest.

Campaigners are taking to the courts to hold governments and companies accountable for their climate commitments and impacts, with recent breakthroughs in Belgium, India and Switzerland, among others, and many more cases pending. They’re pressuring institutions to stop investing in fossil fuels – 72 per cent of UK universities have pledged to divest – and putting forward corporate resolutions calling for stronger action.

At the global level, activists are working to influence key meetings, particularly the COP climate summits. At the most recent summit, COP28, states agreed for the first time on the need to cut fossil fuel emissions – an incredibly belated acknowledgement, but one that came only after intensive civil society lobbying.

As pressure mounts, fossil fuel companies are looking for any way they can portray themselves as responsible corporate citizens while continuing their lethal business for as long as possible. They want to make it look as though they’re transitioning to renewable energies and cutting greenhouse gas emissions, when the opposite is true.

Cultural institutions are a prime target for fossil fuel companies with declining reputations but deep pockets. The outlay is tiny compared to the benefits. Through sponsorship, they try to present themselves as generous philanthropists and borrow the high public standing of well-known institutions. But climate activists aren’t letting them get away with it. They’re putting increasing pressure on art galleries and museums to end fossil fuel funding.

Science Museum in the spotlight

The UK is ground zero, home to numerous world-class galleries and museums under pressure to attract private sector sponsorship and to oil and gas titans such as BP and Shell. Pretty much all of London’s major cultural institutions have taken fossil fuel funding in the past. But that’s far less the case now. Thanks to the efforts of campaigning groups such as Culture Unstained, Fossil Free London and Liberate Tate, several have cut ties.

The latest victory came in July, when London’s Science Museum ended its contract with Norwegian state-owned oil giant Equinor. Equinor sponsored WonderLab – an interactive children’s exhibition – since 2016.

Equinor continues to develop new extractive projects, despite the International Energy Agency making clear there can be no further fossil fuel developments if there’s any hope of realising the Paris Agreement. Equinor majority owns the North Sea Rosebank oil and gas field, which the UK government approved for drilling last year.

The Science Museum publicly stated that its sponsorship had simply reached its end, but emails suggested that Equinor was in breach of the museum’s stated commitment to ensure sponsors comply with the Paris Agreement, as determined by the Transition Pathway Initiative, which assesses whether companies are adequately transitioning to a low-carbon economy.

Last year it was revealed that the Science Museum’s contract contained a gagging clause preventing the museum saying anything that might harm Equinor’s reputation. Such restrictions could prevent museums discussing the central role of the fossil fuel industry in causing climate change. There are also examples of companies such as Anglo-Dutch oil giant Shell trying to influence the content of exhibitions they sponsor.

As well as reputation-washing, fossil fuel companies can leverage sponsorships to lobby for further extraction: BP’s funding of a Mexican-themed event at the British Museum enabled it to network with Mexican government representatives as part of a successful bid for drilling licences. As its funding of arts bodies became more controversial, BP was also reported to have brought together representatives of sponsored institutions to discuss how to deal with activists.

Room for improvement

It’s unlikely this change would have happened without civil society pressure, which increased the Science Museum’s reputational costs. It marked the successful conclusion of an eight-year campaign involving young climate activists, scientists and civil society groups in the UK and Equinor’s home country, Norway.

But there’s still much room for improvement. The Science Museum still has a contract with BP, even though the Church of England divested from BP for the same reason the museum dropped Equinor: because the Transition Pathway Initiative assessed it wasn’t aligned with the Paris Agreement.

Even more grotesquely, the Science Museum’s new ‘Energy Revolution’ exhibition is sponsored by Adani, the world’s largest private coalmine developer, which is also involved in manufacturing drones Israel is using to kill people in Gaza. In April, campaigners held a sit-in protest against this deal. Hundreds of teachers have refused to take their students to the exhibition. In 2021, when the agreement was struck, two trustees resigned in protest.

There are many ways to express disgust. Shell’s sponsorship of a Science Museum climate exhibition led some prominent academics to boycott the institution and refuse to allow their work to appear in its exhibitions. Several of the galleries and museums that have accepted fossil fuel money have seen activists occupy their spaces in protest. When the Tate group of galleries was sponsored by BP, Liberate Tate staged a series of artistic interventions, including one where people threw specially designed fake banknotes.

British Museum on the wrong side of history

As long as it insists on taking fossil fuel money, the Science Museum can only expect more bad publicity. And it’s now something of a laggard. Many of the UK’s internationally renowned institutions have conceded civil society’s demands to cut the cord. The National Portrait Gallery, Royal Opera House, Royal Shakespeare Company and Tate have severed links with BP, and the British Film Institute, National Theatre and Southbank Centre have stopped accepting funding from Shell.

The trend has spread beyond the UK: Amsterdam’s renowned Van Gogh Museum ended its Shell deal in response to campaigning. In 2020, the city’s famous museum quarter was declared free of fossil fuel sponsorship.

But alongside the Science Museum, there’s another big holdout: the British Museum, long controversial for its vast collection of looted colonial-era artefacts. Last year it once again put itself on the wrong side of history by agreeing a 10-year US$65.6 million deal with BP, making a mockery of its stated intention to phase out fossil fuel use. It acted in defiance of protests and a letter signed by over 300 museum professionals urging it to end its relationship with BP, while its deputy chair resigned in protest.

It’s not just the cultural sector that fossil fuel corporations are trying to co-opt – they’re also extensively involved in sport. Petrostates such as Qatar, and likely soon Saudi Arabia, are hosting peak global sporting events, sponsoring everything from elite athletes to grassroots sports and using sovereign wealth funds to buy high-profile football clubs.

People rightly expect arts, sciences and sports to uphold exemplary standards because, at their best, they’re the highest expressions of what humanity can achieve. That’s why it’s so shocking when fossil fuel companies try to coopt them. All their attempts to launder their reputations must be met with determined resistance.

Andrew Firmin is CIVICUS Editor-in-Chief, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society 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 Liam Scott
WASHINGTON, Aug 27 2024 – At least 55 governments in the past decade have restricted the freedom of movement for people they deem as threats, including journalists, according to a Freedom House report published last Thursday.

Governments control freedom of movement via travel bans, revoking citizenship, document control and denial of consular services, the report found. All the tactics are designed to coerce and punish government critics, according to Jessica White, the report’s London-based co-author.

“This is a type of tactic that really shows the vindictive and punitive nature of some countries,” White said. This form of repression “is an attempt to really stifle peoples’ ability to speak out freely from wherever they are.”

Belarus, China, India, Nicaragua, Russia, Rwanda and Saudi Arabia are among the countries that engage in this form of repression, the report found. Freedom House based its findings in part on interviews with more than 30 people affected by mobility controls.

Travel bans are the most common tactic, according to White, with Freedom House identifying at least 40 governments who prevent citizens leaving or returning to the country.

Revoking citizenship is another strategy, despite being prohibited by international law. The Nicaraguan government in 2023 stripped more than 200 political prisoners of their citizenship shortly after deporting them to the United States.

Among them were Juan Lorenzo Holmann, head of Nicaragua’s oldest newspaper, La Prensa. “It is as if I do not exist anymore. It is another attack on my human rights,” he told VOA after being freed. “But you cannot do away with the person’s personality. In the Nicaraguan constitution, it says that you cannot wipe out a person’s personal records or take away their nationality. I feel Nicaraguan, and they cannot take that away from me.”

Before being expelled from his own country, Lorenzo had spent 545 days in prison, in what was widely viewed as a politically motivated case.

Blocking access to passports and other travel documents is another tactic. In one example, Hong Kong in June canceled the passports of six pro-democracy activists who were living in exile in Britain.

In some cases, governments refuse to issue people passports to trap them in the country. And in cases where the individual is already abroad, embassies deny passport renewals to block the individual from traveling anywhere, including back home.

Myanmar’s embassy in Berlin, for instance, has refused to renew the passport of Ma Thida, a Burmese writer in exile in Germany. Ma Thida told VOA earlier this year she believes the refusal is in retaliation for her writing.

White said Ma Thida’s case was a classic example of mobility restrictions. For now, the German government has issued a passport reserved for people who are unable to obtain a passport from their home country — which White applauded but said is still rare.

“Our ability to freely leave and return to our home country is something that in democratic societies, people often take for granted. It’s one of our fundamental human rights, but it’s one that is being undermined and violated across many parts of the world,” White said.

Mobility restrictions can have devastating consequences, including making it difficult to work, travel and visit family. What makes matters even worse is the emotional toll, according to White.

“There is a huge psychological impact,” White said. “A lot of our interviewees mention especially the pain of being separated from family members and not being able to return to their country.”

In the report, Freedom House called on democratic governments to impose sanctions on actors that engage in mobility controls.

White said that democratic governments should do more to help dissidents, including by providing them with alternative travel documents if they can’t obtain them from their home countries.

https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/2024-02/FIW_2024_DigitalBooklet.pdf

Source: Voice of America (VOA)

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’);