Climate Change Talks shaping up: From Copenhagen, Bonn, Tianjin to Cancun and onwards

The frustrations and disappointments of the previous climate change talks in Copenhagen have reverberated in the opening until the last day of the succeeding Bonn and Tianjin climate talks.

What happened in Copenhagen last year?

With much anticipation, the Copenhagen’s 15th Session of the Conference of Parties (COP15) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) finally presented its conference output, the Copenhagen Accord. Supposedly, the output would be the successor of the Kyoto Protocol which is set to expire on 2012. But the Copenhagen Accord appears to have the elements of an agreement on virtual and conceptual generalities, to the dismay of the developing countries which will be most affected and vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. The group of developing countries wanted a definitive and concrete goals and pledges to arrest the worsening climate change and help them cope with the impacts of it by providing technology and funding.

Two years ago, the Bali Action Plan set the 2-year roadmap and process of finalizing a binding agreement which is now the Copenhagen Accord. Back then, the expectation was high to be able to achieve such goal of reducing greenhouse gases emissions which cause global warming.

Even lowering the expectation could not calm down the dissatisfaction on the process the Accord was drafted in its current form. Delegates to the COP15 from the industrializing countries were marginalized from the basic decision-making of an accord that was deemed too important for the current and future generations.

The Bonn talks tried to set things in perspective, taking on the experiences and progress of the previous talks. It attempted to draw a framework of acceptable points by all parties. It recognized that the process and output must be owned by countries involved, not by the few which can set the roadmap of the world based on their interests, and not for the common good of all.

The Tianjin talks placed China, said to be the largest greenhouse-gas emitter,  in the global stage to showcase its efforts to cut emissions. It was reported that much of the blame on the collapse of talks in Copenhagen was of China's doing due to its disagreement on having mechanism to verify emission cuts. Its hosting of the talks was seen as taking on the challenge of being a global important player by leading the world in the investments on renewable energy projects, and of cutting emissions by closing thousands of polluting old factories.

And the Cancun talks at the end of this year will make the progress more pronounced by having a draft of a general framework of acceptable points where negotiation of details can start. Yes, there are already common and accepted points of the draft, such as that emissions have to be cut, developed countries will help technologically and financially developing countries to mitigate and adapt to impacts of climate change, and the urgency of the need to have a binding agreement to succeed Kyoto Protocol. The devilish details which again can hold the talks hostage are on what year levels should be the benchmark of emission cuts, what acceptable mechanisms can verify these cuts, and the sustainability of technological and financial assistance to developing countries.

Let us not forget that we are doing this more for the future generations and poor who will carry the brunt of our decisions and actions today. Let us not fail them. They are looking up on us. This is our opportunity to show our sincerity and responsibility to care and compassion for one Earth we have and will pass on to the next generations.

Debt-for-Nature Swap: Costa Rica leading the way

"Money does not grow on trees," as a popular saying goes. However, we know that there is money in trees. I am not talking about logging. Now the value of trees is not only measured when they are cut and felled; trees are now valued by maintaining and conserving them through the debt-for-nature swap.

There are two kinds of debt-for-nature swaps. One is bilateral swap wherein one country forgives a fraction of the debt of another country in favor of forest conservation or reduction of deforestation. Another kind is mediated and facilitated by a third party like non-government organizations to help broker the transaction between two countries.

One of the leading and active debt-for-nature swap policy is the 1998 Tropical Forest Conservation Act (TFCA) of the US. It is giving values to the trees when they are kept standing through the debt-for-nature debt swap between the US government and low and middle income countries. It would be noted that most tropical forests are found in low and middle income countries such as Costa Rica, Guatemala, Belize, the Philippines, Jamaica, Bangladesh, Panama, Indonesia, Botswana, Brazil, etc.. These countries have availed of the debt-for-nature swaps with the support and help of non-government organizations such as Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund, and Conservation International.

One country is leading the way on the debt-for-nature swaps. Costa Rica is becoming a model and favorite recipient of this innovative method of helping financially developing countries and conserving biodiversity. Recently, Costa Rica received nearly $56 million in debt write-offs from TFCA and donations from Linden Trust for Conservation, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, and the Walton Family Foundation. Costa Rica will use the money for expanding its forest and marine protection and conservation projects. Right now, the country has 25% of its national territory as protected areas. Costa Rica is on its way to meeting the Millennium Development Goals on biodiversity conservation in 2015. This achievement is another first for the army-less country of   more than 4 million people and first in the developing countries to be on target of the MDG on environmental sustainability. (Click here to see how Costa Rica is leading the campaign to meet the MDGs by cutting military budgets and putting those savings on social services)

If Costa Rica could do it, then other countries with remaining forest cover yet threatened by deforestation can consider the debt-for-nature swaps. Let us urge our governments to try this.

Now, money is growing on trees. Let us keep our trees standing for us and the next generations.

An Action Plan for Harmonization of Reporting to Biodiversity-related Conventions in the ASEAN Region

 The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) encourages members of the Conference of the Parties (COP) to harmonize the gathering and management of data for the biodiversity-related conventions (Paragraph 15 of decision VIII/14 of the CBD). The COP encouraged the Liaison Group of the Biodiversity-related Conventions to give further consideration to issues of harmonization of reporting among the biodiversity-related conventions, and to develop proposals thereon (Paragraph 14 of decision VIII/14 of the CBD). In response, the Liaison Group discussed about relevant issues related to harmonization in February 2008.

The COP requested for collaboration with other biodiversity-related secretariats to develop proposals for streamlining reporting and reducing reporting burdens on Parties, and encouraged the Executive Secretary of the CBD to participate in the ongoing efforts in this regard. In the decisions relating to forest, dry land and inland waters biodiversity, the COPencouraged harmonization or synergies of reporting with other related conventions and forums. The CBD and Ramsar Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar), with the support of United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre
(WCMC), are collaborating on the development of a joint reporting framework. Under the Committee for Review of Implementation of United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), a coordination team involving various related multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) has started to look at options for harmonizing reporting related to dry land. For many years, the Collaborative Partnership on Forests (CPF) has been addressing forest-related reporting under various conventions and mechanisms
through its task force on streamlining forest-related reporting.

The Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) has requested its Secretariat to continue its collaboration with the secretariats of other biodiversity-related conventions, UNEP and other bodies, in order to facilitate the harmonization of national reporting.The Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) has invited its Executive Secretary, in collaboration with the Biodiversity Liaison Group and UNEP, to advance the harmonization of reporting both within the UNEP-CMS ‘family’ of Agreements and between relevant
conventions.

The Conference of the Contracting Parties to the Ramsar Convention, through Resolution IX.5, requested its Secretary General to continue working with the UNEP Division of Environmental Law and Conventions and the secretariats of other biodiversity-related conventions and agreements concerning more effective convention implementation, with topics including, inter alia, harmonization of national reporting. In Resolution X.11, the COP of the Ramsar Convention requested its Secretariat and the Scientific and Technical Review
Panel (STRP) to continue to cooperate with the CBD Secretariat, UNEP, and UNEP-WCMC in the development of a framework for harmonized reporting on implementation on inland waters for the CBD and the Ramsar Convention.

ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity’s Initiatives
The ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity (ACB) is a regional centre that facilitates cooperation and coordination among ASEAN Member States (AMS). It also provides technical assistance to AMS in the preparation of national reports in compliance to their obligations to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). To provide a venue to develop a framework to harmonize reporting to biodiversity-related conventions from national, regional to global levels, ACB conducted the ASEAN Workshop on Harmonization of Reporting to Biodiversity-related Conventions in Hanoi, Vietnam on 15-17 April 2009. The workshop brought about
discussions and exchanges of national experiences, efforts and plans on harmonization of reporting. It also produced recommendations to various biodiversity-related secretariats and national agencies tasked to prepare, consolidate and harmonize reports.

OBJECTIVES OF THIS DOCUMENT
This document presents the outputs of the workshop in the form of observations and recommendations that call for actions from the AMS and convention secretariats. Specifically, this document aims to:
• Summarize discussions and recommendations arising from the workshop into two levels, national and global
• Outline key messages that will stimulate interest among convention secretariats, AMS, organizations, and donors enthused in harmonization of reporting to biodiversity-related conventions
• Demonstrate an action plan that will provide support to countries in their efforts to implement activities relevant to the harmonization of reporting to biodiversity-related conventions

NATIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON HARMONIZATION OF REPORTING
TO BIODIVERSITY-RELATED CONVENTIONS
The following observations and recommendations regarding the national level are mainly the areas of concern of countries in the ASEAN region. Since the task of reporting lies heavily on the individual country, the contents under this section are directed to the country level.

General Observations
There is a consensus among AMS that there is no single model for improved information management, collaboration, and harmonization as national circumstances vary between countries. Although AMS shared their own national efforts and experiences perceived to be valuable for other AMS to draw lessons from, they were not inclined to put forward a model for harmonization of reporting. For example, Thailand and the Philippines have one umbrella agency/bureau handling the national reporting tasks to biodiversity-related conventions. This kind of set up centralizes the preparations leading to reporting to conventions. This system,
however, does not exist for the entire region. In the majority of AMS, reporting is decentralized into two or more agencies, which at times do not have coordinated efforts for reporting to the convention secretariats.

Among the purposes of national reporting to conventions are: (1) to demonstrate compliance to and implementation of provisions of the conventions and (2) to assess the effectiveness of the compliance and implementation processes. Thus, underlying any improvements for harmonization of reporting is the understanding that reporting is an output of information management of national implementation of the conventions. The national reporting aims to enable the decision-making of Parties to take stock of what they have done, what they are doing, and what they plan to do in accordance with the provisions of conventions. At the national level, convention secretariats encourage agencies involved in the reporting process to be cognizant of the importance of the need to obtain, gather, assemble, and report information.

Information Management for National Reporting
National reports contain information on the status and trends of the environment and natural resources in general and biodiversity in particular. Because of the value of this information in setting the tone for the national reports, it is important to establish a mechanism to ensure the accuracy and smooth flow of information to the national agency/bureau organizing the national reports. A well-organized information management system plays a key role in ensuring that reports contain updated and accurate information.

Depending on national circumstances, a fully operational (meta) data warehouse such as the Clearing House Mechanism (CHM) or National Biodiversity Information Network (NBIN) covering all biodiversity-related conventions could be established to facilitate national collaboration and sharing of information among and between national stakeholders. Another function of this (meta) data warehouse would be to develop information modules on a regular basis, independent from the national reporting process, in order to provide
information that national focal points of each convention can call upon at any time for producing the national reports. This is the national modular approach to harmonization, as reviewed by a UNEP pilot project on harmonization of reporting in Indonesia.

It should be noted that vital information necessary for national reporting can come from credible sources outside of the government agencies in charge of organizing and submitting the national reports. Thus, there is a need to involve stakeholders (e.g. non-governmental organizations, universities, private think tanks) that hold such information. In some cases, Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) will be helpful to clarify issues of data ownership and use for purposes of national reporting. AMS agree that the inclusionary and extensive method of information-gathering from relevant stakeholders is essential to the output of national reporting.

In this information age, online tools can help shape national reports. These tools are useful to inform and guide users in the preparation of national reports. In a huge way, these online tools lessen the reporting burden of Parties. They also facilitate standardization of outputs and information sharing if these outputs become available online. However, these tools are yet to be popularized and maximized. Besides, the capacity to use these online tools remains to be developed in many countries as member states in the region are at different
levels of technological advancement. Some countries are well-advanced and at par with far developed Western states, whereas some countries are still at their infancy stages in terms of internet and communication technology.

Collaboration between National Focal Points and Agencies
Institutional and Administrative Framework
Each AMS has its own structure and system related to implementing and reporting. In view of this, AMS should keep under review the institutional and administrative arrangements for implementing and reporting to the biodiversity-related conventions to check the effectiveness of such arrangements. Well-structured and coordinated institutional and administrative frameworks provide solid ground for individuals and organizations involved in the reporting process.

At times, national focal points of different conventions work independently of each other in organizing their national reports. Some of these national focal points hardly know each other. For those in close contact with one another, they seldom meet to talk about what they are doing relative to national reporting. In recognition of this concern, it is important for national focal points to share information between and among themselves on a regular basis.

Information-sharing can be in the form of informal and formal meetings, and enhanced online communication (e.g. e-mails, blog, forum, or an intranet). By knowing each other personally, these national focal points can help immensely in establishing formal and informal interactions between and among themselves.

Legal Framework
Dependent on national circumstances, a national (biodiversity) policy or relevant legal framework can help in establishing a national reporting system which will define the roles and responsibilities of concerned agencies/organizations and other stakeholders. This system can be useful for evaluation and accountability of those agencies/organizations and other stakeholders. By having this legal framework, the national reporting process would have a uniform basis which stakeholders can use as they collect, organize, analyze, and report information.

Collaborative Mechanism
Another useful option to facilitate reporting is setting up of formal collaborative mechanisms such as a steering committee for all relevant conventions. Such collaborative mechanisms require agreement on a lead ministry, agency, or institution to centrally coordinate collaboration of work. Such a lead ministry/agency/institution might also be identified for specific aspects of implementation and reporting themes (e.g. wetlands, forests, agriculture, sustainable use, etc). A complementary option is to identify overlapping issues between different conventions (e.g. inland waters/wetlands for Ramsar and CBD and CBD Global Strategy for Plant  Conservation targets and CITES) and strengthen cooperation between the relevant focal points on these specific issues.

Cooperation and collaboration between and among stakeholders play a key role in the harmonization of reporting to biodiversity-related conventions. AMS agree that there is a need to enhance cooperation, be it bilateral, sub-regional and regional, between and among focal points. The presence of an existing regional cooperation through regional organizations such as ACB and ASEAN Secretariat and international cooperation through the convention secretariats can encourage and guide collaboration in the harmonization of reporting to biodiversity-related conventions. Giving a high-level authority on these organizations can be
explored to assist and persuade countries to collaborate.

Supplementary Strokes of Action from Donor Agencies and Institutions
Despite the technological development that each AMS is going through, the importance of human interaction in the harmonization of reporting to biodiversity-related conventions is irreplaceable. Thus, regular  consultations/dialogues with counterparts and stakeholders (e.g. vertical-horizontal consultations) are essential in the harmonization of reporting to biodiversity-related conventions. Integrating information and awareness campaigns into regular activities of stakeholders will build up the effectiveness of national reporting and efforts for the harmonization of reporting to biodiversity-related conventions.

Donor agencies and institutions with special interest in the harmonization of reporting to biodiversity-related conventions should be informed about the efforts in the AMS. The contents of this output document will be useful to communicate to these agencies and institutions the need by the AMS to enhance its collaborative mechanisms and the engagement of technical assistance as well as the establishment and long-term maintenance of the national data warehouse (e.g. the CHM). The usefulness of existing tools for reporting and harmonization cannot and should not be understated. However, there is an underutilization of these  implementation support tools such as the Tematea (http://www.tematea.org/). Opportunities for training in the use of these tools should be explored and promoted.

GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES ON HARMONIZATION: BEYOND THE AMS BORDERS
Harmonization at the global level, to a large extent, is the concern of convention bodies. Although countries set and implement supporting policies for the different conventions, the direction for reporting to conventions and its harmonization is shaped by COPs, Standing Committees, Secretariats and other convention bodies, as appropriate. Hence, it is important to recognize that concerted efforts at the national and international levels should be established.

Drawing from the rich experiences and constructive efforts of countries, convention secretariats can strive to simulate models for harmonization of national reporting between the biodiversity-related conventions. The simulation of models can be further explored, including the following approaches:
• Standardization of reporting formats including standardization of definition such as those for species taxonomy and common terminologies
• Complementarity between reporting formats (e.g. Ramsar report covers aspects of the CBD programmes of work, with CBD not requesting that information through their report)
• Modular reporting which entails a set of themes/categories in which information and data will be collected in line with those themes/categories from relevant agencies and focal points that provide the information and data as required in the reporting
• Core reporting which requires identification of common themes in biodiversity-related conventions to comprise the template of the common core document

AMS also agree that there is a need for clear and practical guidance from the convention secretariats to the Parties for the preparation of national reporting and harmonization of reporting to conventions. It should be pointed out that the harmonization of reporting processes helps minimize time and resources because of streamlining of reporting and avoidance of duplication of data gathering. Furthermore, harmonization of reporting fosters teambuilding and teamwork among focal points and agencies.

Online reporting systems for global biodiversity-related conventions appears to be very helpful but the lack of reliable technological access and capacity to use online tools in many countries currently do not allow for full utilization of online reporting. Tools such as Tematea are encouraged to include clear linkages between implementation activities and national report commitments.

GENERAL PLAN OF ACTION
This section identifies and summarizes the steps the AMS intend to take over the next one to five years to assist governments, convention secretariats, and interested institutions in establishing national priorities on the area of harmonization of reporting to biodiversity-related conventions. The plan of action for harmonization of reporting to biodiversity-related conventions with national and global perspectives proceeds with calls for immediate and short-term actions directed to AMS, convention secretariats, regional organizations such as
ACB, the ASEAN Secretariat, and other relevant institutions.

Short-Term Action
For immediate actions, recognizing the usefulness of this document, it is imperative for those who took part in the discussion resulting to and drafting of this document to:

National Level
• Disseminate the workshop results as widely as possible to governments/institutions/ agencies/donors/individuals involved and interested in the work of harmonization of reporting to biodiversity-related conventions.
• Assess usefulness of readily available online tools such as Tematea to the national needs and pilot implementation of the online tools for countries with adequate technological capacity and facilities.
• Discuss between and among national focal points and agencies the establishment of collaborative mechanisms including operational data warehouse.
• Review the effectiveness of current institutional and administrative arrangements of agencies tasked for national reporting.

Secretariat Level
• Provide clear and practical guidance to countries with backlogs of reporting obligations.

Long-Term Action
For long-term actions, considering the challenges of harmonization of reporting, the following can be undertaken:

National Level
• Review existing enabling policies that will expedite institutionalization of the harmonization process i.e. institutionalization of national policy that defines national reporting system and roles and accountabilities of agencies/organizations and other stakeholders in the reporting obligations.
• Inform and invite organizations and institutions with regional or international mandates to take an active part of the endeavor to harmonize reporting.
• Place a petition to the relevant governmental bodies such as the ASEAN Working Group on MEA to have special interest in the biodiversity cluster of MEAs.

Secretariat Level
• Pursue the standardization of reporting formats.
• Assist in developing national capacity including technological facilities and skills to demonstrate compliance to convention requirements.
• Evaluate and review on a regular basis the impact and effectiveness of actions taken on harmonization. ACB may take the lead at the regional level with support from the secretariats, countries, and donor/funding institutions


Source: http://www.unep-wcmc.org/conventions/harmonization/ActionPlan.pdf

COP10 in Nagoya, Japan: Towards an International Regime on Environmental Governance

We, the more than 6.8 billion people, are so blessed to have a rich biological diversity or biodiversity which means the variety of life on earth. Biodiversity sustains the lives and well-being of these 6.8 billion people. As blessed as such, what are we doing with and for it?

Are we taking good care of biodiversity or exploiting it too much? The continuum from one extreme to another is where do we put ourselves. Are we contributing to the taking care or exploiting? We know that our activities have certain impacts on biodiversity. And our activities are informed and shaped by our values. Thus, should we take care of biodiversity or exploit it? The continuum is neither that nor this. The phenomenon of climate change is a clear indication of human activities exploiting too much the biodiversity, and not taking care of it.

The governments must rein on these human activities to reduce the negative impacts on biodiversity and promote conservation efforts for future generations. They can motivate and direct corporations, communities, groups, and individuals to help contribute in the solution of biodiversity conservation efforts, and not in the problem of biodiversity loss.

In 1993 with more than 168 signatures of States, the Convention for Biological Diversity (CBD) was ratified and put into force. Now, there are 193 parties to the Convention which has three main objectives: the conservation of biological diversity, sustainable use of the components of biological diversity, and fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources.

The governing body of the Convention is the Conference of Parties (COP) that will have its tenth meeting in Nagoya, Japan on 18-29 Octobe 2010. It is particularly significant because 2010 is declared as International Year of Biodiversity. It is the year that everyone is encouraged to have greater awareness and understanding of our place and role in the larger scheme of nature of which we are all part.

The COP10 or tenth meeting of COP has a theme and logo made up of truly Japanese-style origami, "Life in harmony, into the future."The meeting is aimed to assess the 2010 targets for the reduction of biodiversity loss worldwide. How do parties or governments fare in their targets? For example, are we able to reduce the threats on or halt the extinction rates of endangered species?

Another very important activity in the meeting is the adoption of the international regime on access and benefit-sharing (ABS) of genetic resources. It is high time to establish an international regime on ABS. Each party to the Convention has the power to determine the access of genetic resources within their territories. It is also bound to share the benefits derived from the access to and utilization of these resources. In other words, developing countries with rich biodiversity which is a source of raw materials will have a say on the access to their resources and will benefit from the utilization of their resources by developed/industrialized countries. Through the international regime on ABS, this arrangement will become institutionalized in the relations among parties to the Convention.

As the theme of COP10 reads "Life in harmony, into the future," heads of States, policy-makers, and decision-makers are going to agree and disagree on certain things in the meeting that will matter to us. However, our common future on one earth is at stake. Let us urge them to take the bold steps in confronting their differences and finding common grounds to push for biodiversity conservation efforts and responsible and sustainable use of resources.

Let us make them put actions on the provisions of the Convention and their decisions. Let us not allow another missed opportunity.