Ambitious efforts to eliminate “elimination”

-

A decade ago, in 2010 the CBD decided to “eliminate, phase our or reform incentives that are harmful to biodiversity.”

Now It’s 2021 – Aichi Target 3 has not been achieved – but instead of stepping up the efforts, the goal of “eliminating” is getting eliminated itself.

A short time line:

2010: COP 10 in Nagoya decided on Aichi Target 3

“By 2020, at the latest, incentives, including subsidies, harmful to biodiversity are eliminated, phased out or reformed in order to minimize or avoid negative impacts, and positive incentives for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity are developed and applied, consistent and in harmony with the Convention and other relevant international obligations, taking into account national socio economic conditions. ”

     and in Decision X/44, paras 3 and 9 the COP urged Parties to 

“… increase their efforts in actively identifying, eliminating, phasing out, or reforming, […]  existing harmful incentives...”

2014: COP 12 in Pyeongchang set  in Decision XII/3 reiterates the importance of Aichi Target 3 and its 

“… considerable potential to reduce negative pressures on biodiversity as well as to potentially mobilize resources for biodiversity.” 

     referring repeatedly to 

 “… elimination, phase-out or reform of harmful incentives… ”

     XII/3 Annex 1, paras 1-4 detail possible actions to  “eliminate, phase our or reform” while para 5  sets a milestone for 2015-2018 including: 

“2018: Finalization of policy plans that (i) identify those harmful incentives that are candidates for elimination, phase-out, or reform; (ii) provide for a prioritized list of measures leading to their eventual elimination, phase-out, or reform; [...]”

2016: COP 13 in Cancun, Decision XIII/20 para 23 on Resource Mobilisation in reference to Aichi Target 3  specifies the 

“… elimination, phase-out or reform...”

2018: COP 14 in Sharm El-Sheikh Decision XIV/22, paras 9 on Resource Moblisation also still refers to  Aichi Target 3

“… elimination, phase-out, or reform of incentives, including subsidies that are harmful for biodiversity ... “

2021: The preparation for COP15 discusses words like “redirecting”  and eliminates “elimination”.


by Antje Lorch (Ecoropa)

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The post-2020 GBF, a massive step back in time

-
Once upon a time, some 30 years ago, life was very easy for conservationists. Instead of having to cope with complicated concepts like biodiversity, which are defined and quantifiable with scientifically agreed indicators, they could simply conserve “nature”. Almost everything that looked more or less green qualified as “nature”: pine plantations, destroyed wetlands (called “polders” in countries like the Netherlands), potato fields with some flowers in them, shrimp ponds ,or city parks. Moreover, all this nature could easily be protected by simply putting a fence around it. The resulting protected areas, the only areas that could be controlled by, often politically insignificant, nature conservation agencies and organizations, formed the cornerstone of nature conservation policies.   Then, in 1992, the Convention on Biodiversity came along, and everything became more complicated. Suddenly it mattered whether “nature” was biodiverse or not, and whether it was actually an ecosystem that
Read more

The Right to a Healthy Environment for a more effective and equitable implementation of the GBF

-
The integration of a Rights-Based Approach (RBA) is critical for a transformative, comprehensive and measurable post-2020 global biodiversity framework (GBF) and the realization of a world where all people can live in harmony with nature,  in line with Member States’ obligations under international law.   The aim is to improve positions rather than just conditions for sustainable change and fairness. Fundamental rights include substantive and procedural rights. Every right has a corresponding duty. David R. Boyd, the Special Rapporteur on the issue of human rights obligations relating to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment, states that respect of human rights and a rights-based approach are key to “ achieving rapid and ambitious progress in the protection, conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity . [1] ”   Human rights and a healthy environment are mutually dependent. Everyone’s ability to enjoy human rights to life, health, food and water depend
Read more

Mainstreaming Biodiversity: Vitally Important? Marginal? Misleading?

-
On 14 th   May, Friends of the Earth International and EcoNexus held a webinar on mainstreaming. It looked into the vital importance of mainstreaming to make sure that all economic sectors -in aggregate- reduce their impact so that the world can return to live within planetary boundaries as defined for biodiversity.  It quickly became clear that the process to define the draft mainstreaming decision has been flawed. There was an Informal Advisory Group (IAG), as decided by the COP, with a balanced participation of parties and a limited number of stakeholders. However, an extra Extended Consultative Network (ECN) has been set up, comprised of stakeholders only, most of them with corporate links. The inputs of the ECN have been taken into account for the drafting of the IAG, in a completely un-transparent manner.    More information on the mainstreaming process can be found in the presentation which is available here:  https://nextcloud.foei.org/index.php/s/jyG8zBQSqR72eDk   The result i
Read more