Marina von Weissenberg 1
5 The Aichi Biodiversity Targets and opportunities for synergies
5.2 Relevant areas for enhancing cooperation within a biodiversity cluster
There are a number of areas in which it might be possible to enhance cooperation within a biodiversity-related MEA cluster. Some of these include, firstly, the identi-fication and addressing of national needs with a view to enhancing the implementa-tion of MEAs by parties. This should be at the core of any process which aims to enhance cooperation, coordination and synergies.42 Secondly, it can be argued that synergies should ‘start at home’ – meaning that national governments should coor-dinate their own activities in order to develop coherent positions for negotiations and decision-making which take place under MEAs.43
Thirdly, without a coordinated approach to enhancing synergies, there is a risk of initiatives competing and inefficient duplicative solutions resulting. An initiative for synergies could bring together and improve current initiatives; and could identify many unexplored areas for synergies in a step-by-step manner.44 Fourthly, efforts should focus, at least initially, on synergies and cooperation on issues of substance rather than on administrative matters. This is mainly because the conventions grouped in the biodiversity cluster are hosted by different organizations, are geo-graphically dispersed and have different reporting lines. This contrasts markedly with the approach that has been taken in the synergies process for the chemicals and wastes conventions.45
40 Parker and Cranford, The Little Biodiversity Finance Book, supra note 4, at 111.
41 Ibid. at 107.
42 Ministry of the Environment of Finland/Nordic Council of Ministers, ‘Report from a Nordic Symposium:
“Synergies in the biodiversity cluster” held in Helsinki, Finland, 8 to 9 April 2010’, available at <http://
www.biodivcluster.fi/pdf/Synergies%20report%20final.pdf> (visited 10 December 2012), ‘Relevant ar-eas for enhancing cooperation and coordination within a biodiversity cluster’, at 6, para. 13.
43 Ibid. at 6, para. 14.
44 Ibid. at 6, para. 16.
45 Ibid. at 6, para. 17. On the chemicals and wastes cluster, see Kerstin Stendahl, ‘Clustering of MEAs – Les-sons Learned, Rio+20, and Beyond’, in Part II of the present Review; and Kerstin Stendahl, ‘Enhancing Cooperation and Coordination among the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions’ in Tuula Kolari and Ed Couzens (eds), International Environmental Law-making and Diplomacy Review 2007 University of Joensuu – UNEP Course Series 7 (University of Joensuu, 2008) 127–141.
132
Opportunities and Challenges for Establishing Synergies and Areas for Enhanced Cooperation in the Biodiversity Cluster
Fifthly, a number of programmatic areas provide possible areas for joint action. These include the science-policy interface (for instance, the Intergovernmental Science – Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)46); the harmoniza-tion of reporting; the streamlining of meeting agendas; joint informaharmoniza-tion manage-ment and awareness-raising, which integrates TEMATEA47 with newer knowledge management initiatives; and capacity-building, compliance, funding and review mechanisms.48
In addition, national needs and assessment procedures require strengthening. Needs-driven approaches for monitoring trends must be tailored for the biodiversity family as well as communicated more effectively to relevant decision-makers, both now and in the future.
6 Conclusions
Responses to the challenges of biodiversity loss and weakened ecosystem services at the international level need to be made through the biodiversity-related conventions.
The real benefits of biodiversity, and the costs of its loss, need to become better re-flected within the world’s economic systems and markets.
It would appear that success in this regard has to date been limited, and it needs to be asked what the challenges are and where opportunities might be. There is ongoing work from which lessons can be learned. Synergies are being, and some already have been, created amongst biodiversity-related multilateral environmental agreements, mostly in the areas of national reporting and information management. Current initiatives are, however, limited primarily to bilateral approaches and are steered through ad hoc processes. Significant challenges include coordinating the structure, timing and forms of decision-making within different MEAs. Also, there is the ‘hu-man dimension’ which must be taken into consideration – this including factors such as lack of leadership, limited capacity, and weak administration at the national level.
A thematic approach to synergies could also be undertaken. Under such an approach, a multilateral environmental agreement would be selected to act in cooperation with other instruments and agencies. The development of joint work programmes be-tween MEAs could be an effective way of building strong links, promoting synergies and simplifying national obligations.
46 See <http://www.ipbes.net>.
47 See <http://www.tematea.org> ; and see Ines Verleye and Jorge Ventocilla, ‘Biodiversity Conventions and the IEG Agenda – The Need for an Integrated Approach Both Bottom-up and Top-down: A Case Study of TEMATEA’ in Tuula Honkonen and Ed Couzens, International Environmental Law-making and Di-plomacy Review 2009 University of Eastern Finland – UNEP Course Series 9 (University of Eastern Finland, 2010) 89–99.
48 Ministry of the Environment of Finland/Nordic Council of Ministers, supra note 42, at 6, para. 18.
133 Marina von Weissenberg It must be recognized that achieving effective cooperation is not easy, particularly because any process to enhance synergies amongst MEAs needs to be party-driven and can, therefore, only be pursued by parties to the MEAs, but acting with the sup-port of MEA secretariats. Applying a step-by-step approach, whereby national needs are addressed in an efficient and coordinated manner, would therefore seem to be a useful way forward.
More efficient synergies can certainly be achieved amongst the biodiversity-related MEAs. Ultimately, achieving this will require a multitude of factors – including improved education; significant political will; the willingness to learn from experi-ence; and the finding of innovative diplomatic solutions.
135