How do we get ‘beyond the gap’? By placing biodiversity finance in the global economy

-

As CBD negotiations ramp up, one thing that we can expect for sure is that there will be a lot of talk about ‘the gap’, that is, the discrepancy between current financing of biodiversity conservation, and the projected amount needed to arrest biodiversity loss. Discussions about this gap tend to treat biodiversity conservation as a simple mathematical equation: add money and there will be less biodiversity loss. Of course, the problem with this framing is the extent to which practices that contribute to biodiversity loss are embedded in our current political-economic system; a problem that will not be so easily solved by injecting funding into existing conservation models. In response to this oversight, our research collective, alongside the Third World Network, has produced a report[1] that proposes a different framing of the issue, which includes concrete recommendations for negotiators and civil society about how to address these underlying drivers. 


To move ‘beyond the gap’, we must consider two important questions. First, how is the structure of the global economy implicated in biodiversity loss, and what are the potential levers that could be moved to change these conditions? We analyze trade, investment and financial regulations alongside patterns of debt, austerity, and global inequality that fall across racialised, gender, class, and colonial lines. These are not only outcomes of, but also drivers of, extractivism, and thus ongoing biodiversity loss, and must be addressed as such.  


Second, we ask: how have current attempts at closing the gap performed thus far? We review the impacts of payment for ecosystem services (PES) projects, Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+), private and blended finance schemes, as well as voluntary and market-based efforts to create sustainable supply chains and to manifest more sustainable financial flows. What our findings point us toward is that all of these approaches represent marginal interventions to the overarching context of biodiversity loss, both in terms of raising extra forms of capital for conservation and delivering conservation outcomes. What’s more, they often have negative social impacts, and risk re-entrenching asymmetric power relations. Especially when placed in the context of the global economy, it is clear that even a considerable increase in funding for these policy solutions will not be able to turn the tide on biodiversity loss. 

Of course, more financial resources are necessary; one critical way this deficit must be addressed is by rich governments finally living up to their commitments to ‘common but differentiated responsibilities made in Rio. But, we argue, without attempts to interrupt patterns of debt, austerity, and inequality, more funding will not create the ‘transformative change’ that is sought. To address underlying drivers, we have put together a briefing paper with a list of recommendations under the following five subheadings. 


We recommend the parties of the CBD to:


1)    End the debt-austerity nexus that fuels extractivism and impedes CBD implementation. 

2)     Regulate finance and penalize industries known to damage biodiversity and the rights of Indigenous peoples and local communities.

3)    Ensure biodiversity finance does not impede transformative change nor undermine CBD objectives, UNDRIP, and UNDROP. 

4)    Reduce domestic and international wealth and power inequalities that impede transformational change. 

5)    Act on dismantling class, caste, racial and gender inequalities that underpin biodiversity loss and impede conservation and sustainable use. 


Only through a re-orientation of the CBD negotiations to the underlying conditions that cause biodiversity loss will solutions that create ‘transformative change’ be possible. 


To read the specifics of these recommendations, access our briefing paper (also available in other UN languages) at: http://blogs.ubc.ca/biodiversitycapital/files/2021/03/Resource-mobilization-TWNBP-Feb2021-Dempsey-et-al-English.pdf


by Audrey Irvine-Broque, Biodiversity Capital Research Collective

[1] ‘Beyond the Gap: Placing Biodiversity Finance in the Global Economy’, available at www.twn.my

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