COP16: A Disappointment, As Expected – OpEd

By Anusa Karki and Simone Galimberti

The recently concluded COP 16 on Biodiversity held in Cali, Colombia, (21 October to 1 November) was largely a disappointment. Unsurprisingly, it was largely expected to end up in this way.

Yet, despite the gloom, in Cali, an important new conversation was started, bringing biodiversity and climate negotiations closer and this should a process led by young people, especially from indigenous communities.

On the downsides of the COP, first of all, no ground was made on the thorniest of the issues, the financing of the Kunming Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework approved two years.

The new funds pledged by a small number of developed nations, were, considering the challenges posed by the global biodiversity crisis, just symbolic and, in no way, close enough to match the gap in resources that we face for biodiversity’s preservation.

There were some positive developments on the fronts of digital sequence information but, at the end, the mechanism that would propel multinational company to contribute out of their profits stemming from using genetic data from nature plants, will be only voluntary.

Bridging the gap between climate and biodiversity 

The only ray of hope is the endorsement of a key agenda raised for years by indigenous people, the creation of a new body, within the framework of the Biodiversity Convention, that would fully represent them.

It will take a lot more efforts in the coming years to define the contours and details of such body and turn it into something truly meaningful and empowering.

But, before focusing on ways to make this new body strong and truly meaningful, perhaps the most important element of the COP is the fact that, the Colombian presidency was instrumental in bridging the gap between climate and biodiversity.

At least, a long due discussion on converging the two, has been initiated, building on some promising developments that had happened at the COP 28 on Climate last year in Dubai.

Young people, starting from youths from indigenous communities, have a special role in trying to forge ahead with this conversation on the linkages between biodiversity and climate.

The long-term goal could be a radical re-design of how biodiversity and climate negotiations unfold. What we have now are two totally separated negotiating tables representing the worst of the so called “silos approach” that, instead of unifying policy issues, it separates and divides climate discussions from the biodiversity ones.

Focusing on new bottom up, democratic practices will be key factors in both securing a strong indigenous body and a new closer climate and biodiversity framework.

A unified Planet Earth Convention?

These are, as the President of the COP 16, Susana Muhamad, the Minister of Environment and Sustainable Development of Colombia, two sides of the same coin. Why not daring to think that one day, we will have a unified Planet Earth Convention, rather than two and, consequentially, have only one COP?

Besides, we cannot forget two other important intergovernmental processes that are rarely talked about: on one hand, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)and, on the other hand, the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD).

We believe that young people, especially youths from indigenous communities, should lead this radical rethinking through an extensive campaigning and policy making. But it is essential to invest at grassroots level in the capacity of youths. In this process, it is paramount that we must ensure that youths from indigenous communities are fully empowered so that their voices will be heard.

For all this to happen, capacity building is essential. More and more young people must be fully knowledgeable of the multiple dimensions of the crisis affecting planet Earth.

Effective capacity building through cutting edge technical knowledge, public speaking and advocacy, negotiations, leadership and strategic planning are essential but opportunities must be spread and accessible.

The experience of creating Communities of Practitioners among youths, an experience that both authors have been involved with in Nepal, can also be a very powerful tool, where youths interested to know more, come together to develop their expertise.

In addition, inclusive mentorship programs for women, youth and marginalized communities, starting from indigenous youths should be promoted. Such programs can foster a new understanding of the complex dynamics at play, in terms of policies, finance and networking.

More funding availability is also crucial. Organizing programs mainly for youth, women and indigenous participants, providing orientation sessions and workshops, what it is really a long educational journey, will increase their understanding of complex issues.

At the same time, sponsorship for attending the COPs is vital for these group as most of them couldn’t afford due to financial and logistical barriers. Without sufficient funding, such participation becomes a privilege that excludes more inclusive and diverse voices and knowledge that are decisive to better shape the global decision making.

If young people, women, starting from those from indigenous communities, understand the COPs procedures and related international frameworks, they will be in a position to turn themselves in policy makers if allowed a chance that deliberative innovations can provide.

We could also have what we call “Planet Earth Youth Councils”, where local youths, with interests on biodiversity and climate and in endangered species, can come together.

We do not need a climate council or a biodiversity council but rather we need a united platform that should also collaborate with the local governments by basically aligning both climate and biodiversity with the agenda of localizing the SDGs.

But how to start to allocate the resources to enhance youths ‘meaningful engagement? We need tons of creativity to promote and encourage grassroots based exercises in which young people, on the one hand, can really gain the needed cross cutting know-how and on the other hand, have local platforms to deliberate.

Bottom up and participatory democracy

On this regard, we believe that the ongoing wave of exercises of bottom up and participatory democracy that are being implemented throughout the world, could be useful to re-think the way power is shared not only throughout the complexity of the COP processes but also at local levels where action often lacks.

There have been already many climate assemblies in which citizens talk about how to tackle the warming of the planet and its devastating effects. The problem is that, oftentimes, youths involved in climate and biodiversity campaigning and advocacy, are not aware of them.

Reinventing the way democracy works seems eluding them: it is still not well understood that, only better forms of democracy, can help generate the needed consensus to ensure the viability of our planet and the one of our own species.

But perhaps there is also another way. The upcoming negotiations for new body within the Biodiversity Convention, officially called the Subsidiary Body for Indigenous Populations based on article 8.J of the same Convention, could also inspire a youths led democracy awakening.

In this case, to start with, what will count, is to truly have indigenous leaders, the real guardians of the most precious biodiversity still remaining on planet Earth, enabled in the decision making.

Hardly the international community will seize the chance to innovate in terms of participatory governance, enabling indigenous people, especially women and young leaders, to lead.

Yet, despite the odds, this new mechanism could, potentially, become a forum in which indigenous people, especially young indigenous leaders, have not only a voice but also a power, perhaps even a veto one.

Such possible scenario should all premised on the principle, often forgotten, of free, prior and informed consent or FPIC, a pillar of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).

Indigenous people must lead regarding the future of our planet

As non-indigenous persons, we believe that indigenous people must lead in any negotiations regarding the future of our planet. The latest developments from deliberative democracy, whatever its shapes and forms, could also support young indigenous leaders to propose bold ideas on how this body should work.

We should keep in mind that the origins of many deliberative practices, now being exercised all over the world, are not at all alien to the cultures of indigenous people with their own unique forms of governance based on a culture of consensus.

But such deliberative efforts could not only help with the future debate on reshaping the ways the Kunming Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework is pursued. The potential of more democratic practices centered on biodiversity and climate, is much bigger.

Let’s imagine an exercise that will end with indigenous people, especially women and youths, able to flex their influence within the Biodiversity Convention but also, a process that can also inspire changes in other different and yet complementary dimensions.

First, it could engender similar discussions on rethinking the whole governance of both the biodiversity and climate negotiations, bringing them closer. Second, it could reinvigorate local bottom-up practices of decision making by injecting doses of fresh energies embedded by youths.

On this, we need to be clear that local governance will be more and more centered on how we deal with climate change and biodiversity losses.

Indigenous youths, by having a chance at making this new body truthfully powerful, can embolden a new generations of biodiversity leaders, in exercising power.

The end outcome, we hope, would be a more coherent, unified “Earth Commons Governance”, internationally and locally that is co-led by youths.

• Anusa Karki is a co-founder of Planet Pulse; Simone Galimberti is the co-Founder of The Good Leadership. Both are based in Kathmandu.