The good, the bad and the ugly of mainstreaming in the GBF
Participants handed out a document "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly on mainstreaming biodiversity across all sectors" which explains all the problems related to this topic
The good
Most biodiversity loss is related to the economic activities of the main productive sectors. Biodiversity loss can ́t be halted without thoroughly addressing this driver. Therefore, it is important that the issue of mainstreaming biodiversity is properly addressed in targets 14-16 of the Global Biodiversity Framework, and that there is attention to the work on aligning business impacts to the needs of biodiversity.
The bad
Mainstreaming should mean putting the protection of biodiversity ahead of economic considerations in making decisions across business, government and society. The only way of stopping excessive impacts by corporations on biodiversity and ecosystems is through coordinated national and international regulation to reduce damaging activities to similarly low levels in all countries with the intention of eliminating them as soon as possible.
However, the mainstreaming decisions don't do any of that. To properly address the issue, a new concept and new ways of working would need to be set up.
To understand this better, it is important to realise there are 3 texts on the table:
- The draft SBI decision (CRP16), which proposes to welcome the other 2, and ways to further implement them
- The Long-Term Strategic Plan for Mainstreaming (LTSP), which is in the annex to the CRP
- The Long-Term Action Plan for Mainstreaming (LTAM), which is a separate document. It is this document which COP decision 14.3 called to develop.
Both Long-Term Mainstreaming Plans follow the same structure as draft targets 14-16. The Strategy Plan is really brief, and thus does not allow for insight into the real content. The Action Plan develops all the measures in more detail, so revealing how inadequate and even counterproductive it is to the need to align the actions on economic sectors to biodiversity needs.
The main characteristics of the Long-Term Plans for Mainstreaming are:
• No mention of regulation by governments
• Self-regulation and self-reporting by the business sector, as well as offering opportunities to offset corporate responsibility
• Transfer of responsibility to the individual citizen
None of the proposals included will reduce the aggregate impact of industrial sectors and their supply chains on the environment. On the contrary, they deliberately create the impression that biodiversity is already being mainstreamed across all sectors. This distracts attention from the central issue of continued biodiversity destruction, and the urgent need for real regulation.
These plans clearly reveal the imbalance in power between government, business and society.
Rather than mainstreaming biodiversity across all sectors, they currently mainstream business across the CBD and biodiversity.
The Ugly
How did such a bad proposal come into existence?
The process used to develop it has been a major cause. At COP 19, an informal advisory group (IAG) was set up to prepare a draft on mainstreaming. However, because there were so many candidates eager to participate, an ‘extended consultative network’ (ECN) was also set up, to which all interested organisations and businesses were invited, including Act 4 Nature, the World Bank, the International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association (IPIECA), the International Council on Mining and Minerals (ICMM), and the Swedish Steel Association.
Thus, it can be concluded that the process to develop the LTAM was strongly influenced by a body that did not follow the traditional CBD rules to balance Party and observer membership.
The majority of Parties, on the other hand, have never really had a chance to contribute to the process. CRP16 was discussed only very briefly – and again, mainly regarding process - during the online SBI meeting in May. The Long-Term Action Plan has never been discussed by Parties. Nevertheless, this is the central document for implementation of mainstreaming. CRP16 proposes to set up an Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group (AHTEG), not to discuss or amend the LTAM, but to work out how to take this deeply flawed mainstreaming process forward.
___________________________________________________________________________________
The opinions,commentaries, and articles printed in ECO are the sole opinion of the individual authors or organizations, unless otherwise expressed.