Are the Rio Conventions stuck on a treadmill?
· 11 min read
John E Scanlon AO (1)
Executive President, International Council of Environmental Law
Over 30 years ago three major multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) were adopted on biodiversity, climate change, and desertification[ii]. These three conventions are often referred to as the ‘Rio Conventions’ given their association with the UN Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 1992.
Between October and December of this year over 100,000 people are expected to attend the Conference of the Parties (CoPs) of these three conventions; the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) CoP16 in Cali, Colombia, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) CoP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, and the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) CoP16 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Each of the Rio Conventions has an impressive history of CoPs, high-level events, and side-events, and have adopted a vast array of decisions, protocols, goals and targets.
We need the Rio Conventions[iii]. Through them we agree what needs to be done, monitor our progress, or lack thereof, and mobilise financial resources. They also catalyse action, such as national plans, legislation, and research, and improve cross-border cooperation.
But the Rio Conventions also have their limits, as is becoming increasingly apparent.
If success were measured by these achievements then each of the Rio Conventions may be seen as having an impressive record. But is this the right measure of success?
Or is a more accurate measure of success of these conventions the state of our biodiversity, our climate, and our land? If measured by these environmental outcomes then are the Rio Conventions failing?
Despite all of the external indicators of declining biodiversity, accelerating climate change, and the area of degraded land increasing, the Rio Conventions[iv] persist with the longstanding model of ever-expanding CoPs, a never-ending pipeline of decisions, as well as a steep increase in the number of pavilions and side events.
But is any serious thought being given to whether this approach is serving to achieve the Rio Conventions’ objectives? De we need to consider a radical shift in how the Rio Conventions are being implemented?
While similar observations can be made in relation to all of the Rio Conventions, especially the UNFCCC, I will take the CBD as an example, given that over 20,000 people have just attended the CBD CoP16 in Cali, the largest CBD CoP ever.
A single biodiversity target for 2010 was adopted in 2002 at CBD CoP6 in The Hague, the Netherlands. It was not met. Then, in 2010, a set of 20 biodiversity targets for 2020, known as the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, were subsequently adopted at CBD CoP10 in Nagoya, Japan through the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity. They were not met either. At CBD CoP15 in Montreal, Canada in 2022, the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) adopted a bold set of 23 biodiversity targets for 2030, based largely on the 2020 model.
Will it be a case of third time lucky? We all hope so.
In its analysis of CoP16 the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) Earth Negotiation Bulletin concluded: ‘As the first COP since the landmark adoption of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) in December 2022, COP 16 was dubbed by some as the intended “implementation COP.”’
CBD CoP16 had some notable successes but it failed to agree upon several key issues, including financing, and how this decade’s targets would be monitored. We are just six years away from the deadline for achieving the GBF targets, yet commentators have observed that CoP16 fell short of what was needed to halt the crisis in the natural world and lacked a sense of urgency.
In this context, it is worth recalling that the CBD has no compliance mechanism or compliance measures, as we see with some other conventions. Moreover, the GBF is not a hard law agreement and there are no legal consequences under the CBD for a failure to comply.
When I cast my mind back to CBD CoP11 in 2012 in Hyderabad, India, I well recall “Implementation, implementation, implementation” being the catch cry of the then Executive Secretary of the CBD, Braulio Dias, when he took over the reins of the Secretariat following the CBD CoP10 in Nagoya, where the 2020 targets were adopted.
It seems not much has changed.
It is 50 years since the Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment, and 32 years since the CBD was adopted. In 2019 the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) told us that one million species will become extinct over the coming decade unless we change course. And just over the past few weeks, updated reports coming from International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), Planetary Boundaries, and the WWF found:
In this context, we should also look at the other biodiversity-related conventions. We’ve had a convention on international wetlands since 1972, yet approximately 35% of the world’s wetlands were lost between 1970 and 2015. We’ve had a convention on migratory species since 1979, yet 44% of listed species are undergoing population declines.
Each of the biodiversity related conventions have their own CoPs.
A common exclamation that is repeated just about every time a new report is released, including those referred to above, is ‘this is a wake up call!’ Yet the sad reality is we are continuously hitting the snooze button. So what is needed to rouse us?
Despite all of the facts about our rapidly declining biodiversity, have we seen any material change in how we go about implementing the CBD?
Are we stuck on a treadmill?
Failure is met with more of the same – even bigger CoPs, more attendees, more decisions, more high-level events, and more pavilions and side events.
Do we now have CoPs that resemble a travelling circus moving across continents? CoPs have become an industry, with their own vested interests; and this applies not only to the CBD but to all of the Rio Conventions.
The CBD is a critically important convention – as are all of the Rio and biodiversity related conventions. But given the scale of biodiversity loss, is it time to reassess our methods?
Here are a few brief, non-exhaustive, questions that are posed to stimulate some thinking.
Do we need biannual biodiversity CoPs, more recently called the UN Biodiversity Summits, and all of the associated preparatory meetings? CITES (the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) has CoPs on a three yearly cycle, which is often enough. Can the CBD meet less frequently and instead spend that time and those resources focussed on action?
Do we need to continually debate and negotiate new decisions on so many topics? Might it be possible to limit negotiations to critical issues? CoP16 ran out of time, after two full weeks, to finalise decisions on key issues, most notably on financing and monitoring.
We know that we need to influence the food, energy, and finance worlds. Can we hold CBD CoPs in direct partnership with the global entities responsible for leading on these issues, and preferably bringing the three Rio Conventions together for this purpose?
The GBF followed the same pattern as its predecessor, the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity. Should we have considered a different model? Possibly yes, but as it was mid-Covid-19 and there were challenges in convening Parties, we basically stayed with the 2010 model. If it is not a case of ‘third time lucky’, do we need to think of another way forward?
And other questions concerning consensus decision making, compliance processes, and the multilateral financial institutions, most particularly the Global Environment Facility, amongst many others, could all be added to the mix.
In part, the CBD could be seen as setting itself up for failure, by setting CBD targets that lie outside of the remit of ministers responsible for biodiversity. The GBF tries to overcome this gap by calling for a ‘whole of government and the whole of society’ approach.
Should the CBD just set targets for what falls within its clear biodiversity remit[v]. Other issues that may impact achieving these biodiversity targets could still be captured, but be expressed in other ways, including through transmitting specific recommendations for action to other fora, such as on subsidies to the relevant global and regional bodies.
Given that Ministries of Environment routinely take the lead in CBD CoP delegations, it’s not surprising that out of the 20 Aichi Targets to 2020, the most progress was made with the target on the geographic area to be covered by protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures.
The CBD has progressively expanded its reach beyond the global biodiversity community, which was apparent as far back as CoP10, and has continued ever since. While some express concerns about the influence of business and industry participation at CoPs; it is essential to influence these sectors. While we should welcome this progress, the CBD is not yet resonating widely enough with the agencies and sectors that will determine the fate of biodiversity.
There is an old expression that 'the tail does not wag the dog'. The biodiversity agenda has not (yet) shaped the development agenda. Perhaps there are other ways to exert more influence?
Moving back to look more broadly at all three of the three Rio Conventions[vi], there is the critical issue of the UN Environment Program (UNEP). UNEP was created in 1972 with an ambitious mandate; as the global environmental authority in the UN. UNEP has had a number of notable successes but some see its influence as having waned and feel it has more to do.
There is a convergence in the challenges we face; biodiversity, climate, land and more. There is an increasing recognition of the need for well-coordinated responses.
For decades UNEP has put energy into convening all of the MEA secretariats, and to discuss and produce publications on convention-related synergies. Its governing body, the UN Environment Assembly (UNEA), has adopted Resolutions on the matter, which is a positive step. Yet such action is not yet moving the needle.
The creation of the UNEA in 2013 was significant as a much-needed body for global environmental governance. UNEA could adopt a powerful biannual ‘State of the Planet Report’, as a comprehensive, global, authoritative report on the state of the world’s environment.
This action by UNEA could include embarking on a process of continual review of the effectiveness of, and compliance with, MEAs, starting with the Rio Conventions – drawing upon the experience gained through UNEP’s Emissions Gap Reports. Such reviews could include identifying the level of compliance, implementation gaps and how to fill them, and what needs to be done to better implement the Conventions in a more coherent manner.
UNEA with UNEP is the best forum to critically review MEAs, including the Rio Conventions. Perhaps it's time for the UNEA and UNEP to step up and be more ambitious and impactful.
The situation is bleak, though it is not all bad news. Over the past 50 years, we have developed a comprehensive body of international and national environmental policies and laws. They continue to evolve and are underpinned by a strong and improving scientific base.
Progress has not been fast enough, effective enough, or adequately financed – but despite these shortcomings, we are better positioned to try to tackle these inter-related challenges today because of them.
Yet, for all of this effort, we are still not reversing the trends, although we may be slowing some of them down.
This is a crucial time for our biodiversity, climate and land, and our planet’s overall health. It is also time to make a shift at a scale that will reverse current trends.
Over recent years we heard calls from within the UN and elsewhere for transformative change. However, amongst the Rio Conventions[vii] what we tend to see is more of the same, and it does not appear to be working when measured against the environmental outcomes.
Has the time come to rethink the path we are on, to get off the treadmill, and find a more effective, efficient, and rapid path to successfully implementing the Rio Conventions?[viii]
illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability & Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.
[i] With sincere thanks to Charles E. Di Leva , Olivia Pasini, Daniel Kachelriess and Ana Motamayor for their comments on an earlier draft of this article. All opinions expressed are the authors alone.
[ii] More recently referred to as land and drought.
[iii] As well as the other MEAs.
[iv] And the other MEAs.
[v] The CBD three objectives; the conservation of biological diversity; the sustainable use of the components of biological diversity, and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources.
[vi] And other MEAs.
[vii] And in fact most MEAs.
[viii] As well as other MEAs.
illuminem briefings
Carbon Capture & Storage · Biodiversity
illuminem briefings
Carbon Capture & Storage · Biodiversity
illuminem briefings
Biodiversity · Nature
Phys.org
Nature · Biodiversity
Mongabay
Biodiversity · Nature
earth.com
Carbon Capture & Storage · Biodiversity