New opportunities for synergies within the biodiversity cluster

The discussion on synergies between MEAs in general and the biodiversity-related conventions in particular, although having been ongoing for a long time, has re-cently found more urgency for a number of reasons:

• In 2010, the biodiversity community recognized that the 2010 biodiversity target of achieving ‘by 2010 a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss at the global, regional and national level as a contribution to poverty allevia-tion and to the benefit of all life on Earth’¹⁷ was not achieved.¹⁸ This finding questions the efficiency of conventions in addressing the biodiversity crisis.

• The lack of capacity and resources to implement the range of MEAs in develop-ing countries is widely recognized¹⁹ – strengthened synergies should facilitate implementation and streamline the resources required for implementation.

• The discussion on international environmental governance²⁰ is expected to be

14 International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, Rome, 3 November 2001, in force 29 June 2004, United Nations Treaty Series (2006) 2400, <www.planttreaty.org>.

15 Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, Ramsar, Iran, 2 February 1971, in force 21 De-cember 1975, United Nations Treaty Series (1976) 996, <http://www.ramsar.org>.

16 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, Paris, 16 November 1972, in force 17 December 1975, International Legal Materials (1972) 1358, <http://whc.unesco.org>.

17 The 2010 biodiversity target was adopted through decision VI/26 as the mission of the CBD Strategic Plan by the sixth Conference of the Parties in 2002. See Report of the Sixth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, UN Doc. UNEP/CBD/COP/6/20 (2002), decision VI/26 ‘Strategic Plan for the Convention on Biological Diversity’.

18 See Convention on Biological Diversity, Global Biodiversity Outlook 3, supra note 6.

19 For example, the Bali Strategic Plan for Technology Support and Capacity-Building, adopted at the twenty-third session of the Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum, Nairobi, 21–25 February 2005, UN Doc. UNEP/GC.23/6/Add.1 (2004), acknowledges in paragraph 1 ‘the need for environment-related technology support and capacity-building in developing countries’. See also the frequent calls for provision of financial resources and capacity-building for developing countries in the Plan of Implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development (2002), e.g. paragraph 32 (b): ‘Implement the work programme arising from the Jakarta Mandate on the Conservation and Sustain-able Use of Marine and Coastal Biological Diversity of the Convention on Biological Diversity, including through the urgent mobilization of financial resources and technological assistance and the development of human and institutional capacity, particularly in developing countries’.

20 See UNEP, The Environmental Dimension of IFSD: Importance of Environmental Pillar to IFSD, Issues Brief 1 (2011), available at <http://www.unep.org/environmentalgovernance/Portals/8/InstitutionalFrame-workforSustainabledevPAPER1.pdf> (visited 10 January 2012); and UNEP, The Environmental Dimension of IFSD: Fragmentation of Environmental Pillar and its Impact on Efficiency and Effectiveness. Issues Brief 2 (2011), available at <http://www.unep.org/environmentalgovernance/Portals/8/InstitutionalFramework-forSustainabledevPAPER2.pdf> (visited 10 January 2012).

98

How Biodiversity Synergies Support and Facilitate National Implementation of Multilateral Environmental Agreements to Halt Biodiversity Loss

strengthened by the fact that the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (‘Rio+20’),²¹ to be held in June 2012, will consider the institu-tional framework for sustainable development as one of its two major themes.

• The governing bodies of the six biodiversity-related MEAs as considered in this paper have consistently adopted decisions and resolutions asking for strengthen-ing of synergies.

• The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020,²² adopted by the tenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the CBD, calls for partnerships, among others with the other biodiversity-related conventions, for its effective implementa-tion.²³

• The Intergovernmental Science – Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES),²⁴ which was established at the second IPBES plenary meeting in April 2012,²⁵ is expected to address jointly the concerns and roles of the bio-diversity-related conventions.

For these reasons the present presents an opportune time to address the issue of synergies and, if possible, to find ways of enhancing them, with the ultimate goal being the creation of a system of international environmental governance that is bet-ter equipped to curb the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services.

3 The science – policy interface

The first key area to be addressed in this paper is the science – policy interface for biodiversity. Scientific advice is central to the biodiversity-related conventions, which is demonstrated by the existing scientific advisory bodies: the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA) of the CBD,²⁶ the Animals and Plant Committees of CITES,²⁷ the Scientific Council of CMS²⁸ and the Scien-tific and Technical Review Panel (STRP) of the Ramsar Convention.²⁹ The World Heritage Convention draws on external scientific advice provided by the

Interna-21 See, generally, <http://www.uncsd2012.org/rio20/index.html>.

22 See Report of the Tenth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diver-sity, UN Doc. UNEP/CBD/COP/10/27 (2010), decision X/2 ‘The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–

202 and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets’.

23 Ibid., Annex, paragraph 17: ‘Partnerships at all levels are required for effective implementation of the Strategic Plan… to find synergies with national implementation of multilateral environmental agree-ments… At the international level, this requires partnerships between the Convention and other conven-tions…’

24 See <http://www.ipbes.net> (visited 28 November 2011).

25 The second session of the plenary meeting on IPBES, in April 2012 in Panama City, Panama, took a decision to establish the IPBES, while a number of institutional and legal issues will be decided at the first session of IPBES, which is likely to take place in 2013. See the summary report of the second plenary session of IPBES by the Earth Negotiations Bulletin, available at <http://www.iisd.ca/download/pdf/en-b16104e.pdf> (visited 6 May 2012).

26 See <http://www.cbd.int/sbstta/>.

27 See <http://www.cites.org/eng/disc/ac_pc.php>.

28 See <http://www.cms.int/bodies/ScC_mainpage.htm>.

29 See <http://www.ramsar.org/cda/en/ramsar-about-bodies-strp/main/ramsar/1-36-71-74_4000_0__>.

99 Peter Herkenrath tional Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM),³⁰ the International Council of Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS)³¹ and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).³² The ITPGRFA col-laborates on scientific issues with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)³³ and the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture.³⁴

The recognition of the need of biodiversity policy for scientific advice is expressed, for example, in CBD decision X/11, which in the first preambular paragraph reaf-firmed ‘that a regular assessment is needed to provide decision-makers with the necessary information base for adaptive management and to promote the necessary political will for action in addressing biodiversity loss’.

Mandated by the Biodiversity Liaison Group,³⁵ the Chairs of the Scientific Advisory Bodies of Biodiversity-related Conventions (CSAB) have, since 2007, discussed areas of coordination and collaboration on the scientific issues of the various convention processes and their translation into policy.³⁶

With the establishment of the IPBES,³⁷ several years of discussion on improving the science – policy interface for biodiversity have come to fruition. All of CBD, CITES, CMS and the Ramsar Convention have passed decisions or resolutions positioning themselves toward the emerging IPBES.³⁸

Assessments and indicators are two areas of particular significance at the science – policy interface for the biodiversity-related conventions. The conventions have drawn on a number of assessments, which include the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment³⁹ and a range of thematic assessments. Biodiversity indicators have become particu-larly important for the CBD, in measuring progress toward the 2010 Biodiversity Target, and are currently being developed for the goals and targets of the Strategic

30 See <http://www.iccrom.org/>.

31 See <http://www.icomos.org/en/>.

32 See <http://www.iucn.org/>.

33 See <http://www.fao.org>.

34 See <http://www.fao.org/nr/cgrfa/en/>.

35 The Liaison Group of Biodiversity-related Conventions (Biodiversity Liaison Group) comprises the ex-ecutive heads of the secretariats of the six biodiversity-related conventions; see <http://www.cbd.int/blg>

(visited 30 March 2012).

36 See the report of the third meeting of CSAB, UN Doc. UNEP/CBD/CSAB/3/3 (2009).

37 Supra note 25.

38 See CBD decisions IX/15 ‘Follow-up to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment’ (2008) and X/11 ‘Sci-ence-policy interface on biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being and consideration of the outcome of the intergovernmental meetings’ (2010); CITES decision 15.12 ‘Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)’ (2010); CMS resolution 10.8 ‘Coop-eration between Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) and CMS’ (2011); and Ramsar Scientific and Technical Review Panel (STRP) decision 16-15 (2011).

39 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Biodiversity Synthesis, (World Re-sources Institute, 2005).

100

How Biodiversity Synergies Support and Facilitate National Implementation of Multilateral Environmental Agreements to Halt Biodiversity Loss

Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020. CITES, CMS, Ramsar and World Heritage Con-vention also make use of indicators or envisage doing so; while several of the conven-tions cooperate on indicators through the Biodiversity Indicators Partnership.⁴⁰ In addition, traditional knowledge, as recognized by the CBD in Article 8(j)⁴¹ and held by indigenous peoples and local communities, is an important area offering options for collaboration and coordination between the conventions.

The following are some options for further synergies between the biodiversity-relat-ed conventions in the area of the science – policy interface:

• While the working arrangements of the IPBES (at the time of writing) are only evolving, this body is expected to present an opportunity for MEAs to speak with one voice and to develop an integrated, coherent approach to the science – policy interface. CSAB could support this approach.

• Through IPBES, the conventions could devise a coordinated mandate for future global and regional as well as thematic assessments that could be used to provide coherent and coordinated scientific advice to the convention-related decision-making processes.

• The relevant conventions could also cooperate in taking a joint approach to the Regular Process for the Global Reporting and Assessment of the State of the Ma-rine Environment.⁴²

• An integrated approach to scientific advice at the regional and national level, in particular through sub-global assessments, would supplement the global process.

• With the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020, an opportunity is provided better to align indicator development between conventions at the global, but also regional and national, level. IPBES could play a supportive role in this regard.

• Another area for collaboration between the conventions lies in recognition and involvement of traditional knowledge and the holders of such knowledge, facili-tated and supported by the work of IPBES.

40 2010 Biodiversity Indicators Partnership, Biodiversity Indicators and the 2010 Biodiversity Target: Experi-ences and Lessons Learned from the 2010 Biodiversity Indicators Partnership, (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2010).

41 Article 8(j) provides that: Each contracting Party shall, as far as possible and as appropriate:

Subject to national legislation, respect, preserve and maintain knowledge, innovations and practices of indig-enous and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and promote their wider application with the approval and involvement of the holders of such knowledge, innovations and practices and encourage the equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the utilization of such knowledge innovations and practices.

42 This process, mandated by the United Nations General Assembly is coordinated by the Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea; see <http://www.un.org/depts/los/global_reporting/global_reporting.htm>

(visited 10 January 2012).

101 Peter Herkenrath

4 The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and National