Reflections on Biodiversity CoP-16
Making peace? Did CoP-16 do enough to change the way we value nature and recognise rights?
Colombia recently hosted the sixteenth meeting of parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD CoP-16) in the city of Cali. The underlying ethos of the two-week high level negotiations was ‘making peace with nature’ - to do this, many recognised that first we must make peace with people. Colombia itself has a violent and troubled past, from colonial occupation to guerilla and paramilitary conflicts. The legacy of this turbulence persists today - social and environmental injustices including the pollution of water supplies from mining activities, land grabbing for monoculture plantations, and the exploitation and abuse of both people and nature continue to shape and divide the country.
‘Without biodiversity there is no future for humanity’ - CoP-16 posters and protest signs seen throughout Cali.
To bring discussions of peace with nature to the world’s stage, the government of Cali deployed over 10,000 police and military officers accompanied by armoured ‘gladiator’ vehicles, security dogs, and police horses - making peace with nature is a multi-species effort! During the CoP the city felt vibrant and alive, and most importantly safe. People from all walks of life filled the streets around the CoP’s ‘green zone’ and the pedestrianised areas along the Rio Boulevard - celebrating long into the evening following a packed schedule of performances, theatre, immersive events, and art installations.
​
The Conference centre, nestled between highly uniform and pesticide-rich sugar cane plantations and the vastness of the Farallones mountains, brought together over 18,000 global government and market leaders, civil society representatives, activists, and Indigenous groups - all to discuss the implementation mechanisms for the Global Biodiversity Framework. My interests in this space lie in the troubled lines between what is agreed on paper and what is done in practice; in the political manoeuvrings to assert influence and participate in decision making; and in the gulf between fundamentally conflicting values and perspectives that separate the ideals of extractive capitalism and coexistence with nature - perspectives which are forced into collision at these CoP discussions. ​
​​
The CBD has made considerable efforts to reconcile diverging perspectives, and during CoP-16 lengthy discussions around the diverse values of nature demonstrated a willingness to consider how nature can be valued beyond the dominant neoliberal economic sphere. Side-events, meeting rooms, and workshops were filled with discussions on the recognition of the Rights of Nature - a movement that is growing in global and collective awareness with over 35 countries recognising in some capacity the rights of species, ecosystems, rivers, forests, and mountains.
There is a lot still to do in this space. The launch of the Fungi Conservation Pledge during CoP-16 demonstrates how global biodiversity governance is falling short of recognising all kingdoms of life on Earth. Similarly, the Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature (GARN), and partners, launched the ‘Amazon Rights Declaration’ and the ‘Antarctica Declaration’ highlighting how multilateral environmental agreements can leave substantial gaps in the protection of nature. These declarations seek to recognise both biomes as nonhuman entities with a right to exist in the eyes of the law. To date, decisions for biodiversity remain largely centred on human interests. Movements to recognise the Rights of Nature demonstrate the need for nature to have a voice and representation in international fora. The Rights of Nature movement also illuminates a fundamental challenge for biodiversity politics - how can humans negotiate on behalf of the non-human world, and can we live in peace with nature if the voices and perspectives of nature, species, ecosystems, and non-human beings are not represented in these decision spaces?
​​
Newcastle Modelling, Evidence and Policy team at CoP-16
.jpg)
Speakers at the ‘Ecosystems as Legal Entities: Exploring the Rights of Nature for Antarctica’ official side-event at CoP-16. Roberta Bosu - Antarctic Rights (left-most), Natalia Greene – GARN (second from left), Osprey Orielle Lake - WECAN (second from right), Madhu Rao – IUCN (right-most) (IUCN), Rafaela Iturralde – GARN (panellist, not photographed).
​​​In addition to the Rights of Nature, I also followed discussions on how the Framework can be implemented in sensitivity to human rights and the rights of Indigenous Peoples. A key piece up for discussion here revolved around Article 8(j) and frameworks to recognise the traditional knowledge, innovations, and practices of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. After long deliberations, and some watering-down of text, the decision to adopt a permanent subsidiary body for Indigenous Peoples and local communities is a huge achievement which makes substantial progress to decolonise the very Western-led knowledge foundations of the CBD.
Prior to the agreement of a new subsidiary body on Article 8(j), Indigenous Peoples and local communities participated in CoP through informal working groups and relied on the goodwill of Parties to have their perspectives reflected in decisions. If we recognise knowledge as fundamental to constructs of power, this exclusion of some knowledge within the CBD landscape has rendered certain knowledge-holders powerless to both participate and direct decision making. Now that a permanent subsidiary body has been established, these groups should be able to participate more fully and equitably in decision making, adding to the vibrancy and depth of knowledge, values, and perspectives that shape biodiversity policy and action.
Whilst success on Article 8(j) is a long-awaited milestone for the governance of biodiversity, there are still areas of tension to resolve. Terminology around IPLC’s (Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities) remains contentions, as does the language recognising Latin America’s Afro-descendants - specifically language that recognises ‘people of African descent’ rather than ‘peoples of African descent’. As the lengthy deliberations during CoP-16 have shown, words are powerful, and omissions can prove damaging. Neglecting to recognise ‘Afro-descendant peoples’ and conflating Indigenous Peoples with local communities buffers over the existence and experience of distinct ethnic groups, historical and contemporary injustices, and the unique rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Unfortunately, and very frustratingly for many, CoP-16 finished without attending to all agenda items - leaving decisions around financial resourcing and reporting mechanisms undecided. The glacial pace of decision-making during CoP is in stark contrast to the urgency the triple planetary crisis presents. It remains to be seen whether the heavily bureaucratic and sometimes diluted decisions made at CoP-16 will result in meaningful changes for biodiversity. Words on paper will mean very little without conviction and action on the ground.
​​
