After six days of negotiations in Nairobi, the capital of Kenya, representatives of the 193 countries that make up the UN Convention on Biological Biodiversity approved this Sunday (26) a draft of the next global biodiversity agreement. The text, however, leaves open the questions that define the document.
The UN aims to reach a “Paris Agreement” on biodiversity. The comparison with the climate agreement, signed in Paris in 2015 and which represented an unprecedented commitment by countries to contain climate change, is often cited in negotiations. However, the differences between the two challenges increase animosities between the developed and developing blocs.
The central proposal of the new agreement sets goals for the conservation of territories around the world. The most popular version proposes that 30% of the world’s biodiverse territories be conserved by 2030 — under the moniker “30 x 30”.
The text also provides for a goal of restoring 20% ​​of the degraded territories on the planet, in addition to goals on sustainable development, such as the prediction of the end of subsidies harmful to biodiversity, and also a regulation on the sharing of benefits with the territories that provide resources. of biodiversity, in a kind of payment of royalties that would encourage conservation.
Pointed out as blocking the negotiations, Brazil defends that these goals be national and not global, that is, that each country commits to the conservation of 30% of their respective territories.
With the support of 20 other developing countries, Brazil proposed last Friday (24) the insertion of an objective for the agreement mentioning the transfer of US$ 100 billion annually, until 2030, from developed countries to the developing bloc.
“This financial provision is separate and distinct from those under the Climate Convention and its Paris Agreement, as well as its official development assistance,” reads the proposal, which reinforces the bloc’s position on the need for additional funding to address the new commitments. .
For the developed block, the proposal is unfeasible. According to diplomats heard by the Sheetthe current context would not allow a new financial commitment of this nature.
We cannot accept, because we cannot comply, said European bloc negotiators.
War in Ukraine, pandemic, inflation and food insecurity make up the context cited as a major obstacle to the review of commitments, in addition to the growing distrust in the multilateral system and the rise of far-right governments in the world.
According to one of the facilitators of the negotiations, the biggest risk of the process is the signing of a new global agreement that is less committed and ambitious than the previous text.
The document is being prepared to replace the Aichi goals, signed in Japan in 2010 and in effect until 2020. Most of the goals agreed there, however, were not implemented by the countries.
Now, with ecosystems closer to their points of no return, countries have yet to find ways to ensure the implementation of a new commitment.
The Nairobi negotiation follows on from attempts made in March in Geneva, Switzerland, when negotiators met for 17 days to seek a clearer draft of what the new deal should be.
However, on both occasions, progress was minimal and inconsistent. The assessment is shared by diplomats from different regions, facilitators and co-chairs of the negotiations.
Among the reasons, they highlight the delegations’ lack of mandate to flexible positions and bargain, in addition to the low priority and attention that the topic receives from governments and public opinion. The fact that COP15 should take place at the same time as the Football World Cup could also contribute to the lack of visibility of the agenda, according to observers.
Although the draft still leaves the main issues open, COP15, when the new agreement should be signed, already has a date: between December 5th and 17th, in Montreal, Canada.
Facilitators of the agreement already admit the possibility of a failure at COP15.
The climate of frustration is also shared among environmental NGOs, researchers and indigenous movements that accompany the meetings.
The perception that a “Ghost of Copenhagen” is approaching was cited by several observers of the negotiations. The Danish capital was marked by the failure of the Climate COP15, in 2009, when the world was waiting for a solution for a new climate agreement – ​​it would only come in 2015, in Paris.
To try to escape failure, convention organizers plan to organize ministerial consultations with small regional groups to try to advance the political decision-making level even before the COP on Biodiversity.
Although there is consensus on the need for more political negotiating power, observers heard by the report say that the agenda should reach heads of state at meetings such as the UN General Assembly and the G20 meeting.
According to a facilitator of the negotiations, formal processes should not be enough to resolve the impasses, while informal high-level meetings could help to unlock countries’ positions.
The journalist traveled at the invitation of Avaaz.
