– CBD COP 11 Report

ZAMBIA CBNRM FORUM REPORT ON CONFERENCE OF PARTIES ON THE CONSERVATION OF BIOLOGICAL
RESOURCES

A.   INTRODUCTION

The  eleventh  meeting  of  the  Conference  of  the  Parties  (COP  11)  to  the  Convention  on  Biological
Diversity (CBD) was held from 8-19 October 2012, in Hyderabad, India.  Approximately 6,000 delegates
representing  parties  and  other  governments,  UN  agencies,  intergovernmental,  non-governmental,
indigenous  and  local  community  organizations,  academia  and  the  private  sector  participated  in  the
meeting.

The Zambia Government with the leadership of the Ministry of Lands, Natural resources management
and  Environmental  protection  Minister  Honourable  Wylber  Simuusa  was  represented  by  Ministry  of
Commerce,  Ministry  of  Chiefs  affairs,  Zambia  Environmental  management  Agency,  Zambia  CBNRM
Forum, Zambia Alliance of women, Youth Environment Network (YEN) Zambia, a member of parliament
representing the parliamentary committee on Environment, Zambia National Broadcasting Cooperation,
Lusaka City council and Ministry of Justice.

The Three Civil Society Organisations namely Zambia CBNRM Forum, Zambia Alliance of Women and
Youth Environment Network (YEN) Zambia received support from Civil Society Environment fund as part
of the National delegation as requested by government for support.

B.   ORGANISATION OF THE CONFERENCE AND AGENDA

The conference had several plenary discussions; two working groups that met periodically and various
side meetings of professionals on different topics related to Biodiversity conservation. The Conference
of  the  Parties  also  included  a  high-level  ministerial  segment  organized  by  the  host  country  in
consultation  with  the  Secretariat  and  the  Bureau.    The  high-level  segment  took  place  from  17  to  19
October 2012 at the Hyderabad International Convention Centre.

The agenda of the main discussions in two plenary sessions included the following:

1.   The  status  of  Nagoya  Protocol  on  Access  to  Genetic  Resources  and  the  Fair  and  Equitable
Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization and related developments.

The  Nagoya  Protocol  was  opened  for  signature  in  February  2011and  it  was  envisaged  that  it
would have come into force but only five countries had signed and ratified it at the time of the
preparatory  meeting.  For  the  protocol  to  come  into  force  it  had  to  be  ratified  by  at  least  50
countries.
2.   Implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and progress towards the Aichi
Biodiversity targets.

3.   Financial resources and financial mechanism.

GEF  provided  financial  resources  for  a  period  of  five  years  following  certain  thematic  areas
including Biodiversity.

4.   Article   8(j)   and   related   provisions   that   focused   on   in-situ   conservation   and   traditional
knowledge.

5.   Biodiversity and climate change and related issues

6.   Biodiversity and development

C.   DISCUSSIONS AND KEY AGREEMENTS

C.1. STATUS OF THE NAGOYA PROTOCOL

The conference of Parties (COP) called upon all  parties to expedite their internal processes leading to
ratification of the Nagoya Protocol. The COP invited parties and others to submit information on model
contractual  clauses,  codes  of  conduct,  guidelines  and  best  practices  and/or  standards,  to  be  made
available through the access benefit sharing (ABS) clearing-house.

C.2.  IMPLEMENTATION  OF  THE  STRATEGIC  PLAN  FOR  BIODIVERSITY  AND  PROGRESS  TOWARDS  THE
AICHI TARGETS

The  COP  called  all  parties  to  share information  on,  inter  alia,  results  from  the  monitoring  of  progress
towards  the  Aichi  targets.  On  scientific  and  technical  cooperation  and  technology  transfer,  the  COP
requests  the  Secretariat  to,  inter  alia:  develop  a  coherent,  consistent  and  coordinated  approach  to
technical and scientific cooperation; identify how it can facilitate implementation of the Convention by
acting  as  a  convener  to  build  partnerships  and  capacity  and  collaborate  with  regional  centers  of
excellence in biodiversity to support implementing the Strategic Plan and achieving the Aichi targets in
developing countries.

C.3. MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION, INCLUDING INDICATORS:
The COP requested the Secretariat to, inter alia:
    Develop practical information on the indicators;
    Further develop the global indicators  to ensure that  each Aichi target can be monitored by at
least one global indicator by 2014;     Propose a limited number of simple, easily applicable and cost-effective indicators;
    Promote harmonization of global indicators and their use between the CBD, other conventions,
regional agreements and processes and promote further collaboration;
    Provide information about the indicator framework to assist the process to establish sustainable
development goals;
    Further develop and maintain the online database on indicators for the Strategic Plan; and
    Develop an explanatory practical toolkit on each of the Aichi targets.

C.4. FINANCIAL RESOURCES AND FINANCIAL MECHANISM

The African Group called for doubling resources by 2015 and increasing international financial flows to
developing countries by 20% annually up to 2020. Norway underscored the need to combine efforts on
resource mobilization, track biodiversity funding, and create enabling conditions.
Developing countries stressed that establishment of targets is the main outstanding item since COP 10
and many expressed “extreme disappointment,” underscoring a lack of political will. They proposed a
target of doubling biodiversity financial resource flows from developed to developing countries by 2015,
noting  it  stems  from  the  Organization  for  Economic  Cooperation  and  Development  (OECD)  Creditors
Reporting  System  and  the  Rio  markers,  which  established  a  robust  baseline.  They  also  argued  that
reporting and assessment-related targets should not be a precondition for the target on financial flows.

Algeria, on behalf of G-77/China and Mexico, stressed that developing countries engaged in good faith
and  made  significant  commitments  in  Nagoya  with  the  expectation  that  financial  resources  would  be
forthcoming.  They  underscored  that,  unless  COP  11  address  the  issue  of  targets  for  the  Resource
Mobilization  Strategy,  the  gains  of  Nagoya  will  be  negated  and  the  momentum  towards  realizing  the
Aichi targets lost.
Final  Decision:  The  decision  included  sections  on  target  setting,  review  of  implementation  of  the
Strategy for Resource Mobilization, and a roadmap.
The  COP  urged  parties  to  consider  all  possible  sources  and  means  that  can  help  to  meet  the  level  of
resources  needed.  The  COP  decided  on  an  overall  substantial  increase  of  total  biodiversity-related
funding for the implementation of the Strategic Plan from a variety of sources, and resolved to achieve
the following preliminary targets:
•  double total biodiversity-related international financial resource flows to developing countries
by 2015 and at least maintaining this level until 2020;
• endeavor  for  100%  but  achieve  at  least  75%  of  parties  having  included  biodiversity  in  their
national priorities or development plans by 2015;
•   endeavor  for  100%,  but  achieve  at  least  75%  of  parties  provided  with  adequate  financial
resources  having  reported  domestic  biodiversity  expenditures  and  funding  needs,  gaps  and
priorities by 2015; and
•   endeavor  for  100%,  but  achieve  at  least  75%  provided  with  adequate  financial  resources,
having  prepared  national  financial  plans  for  biodiversity  by  2015,  and  30%  of  those  parties
having assessed biodiversity values.

C.5. GUIDANCE TO THE FINANCIAL MECHANISM:
The African Group recommended that the  Global Environment Fund (GEF) allocate funds dedicated to
Access and benefit sharing (ABS) and the Nagoya Protocol in a separate window under during GEF-6.
The  COP  adopted  the  four-year  outcome-oriented  framework  of  programme  priorities  for  the  period
2014-2018 that included:
1.   Expedite  the  provision  of  financial  support,  based  on  a  flexible  and  national  demand-driven
approach;
2.   Avoid additional and lengthy processes and use existing NBSAPs as the basis for GEF-6 priorities;
3.   Clarify the concept and application of co-financing for biodiversity projects;
4.   Apply co-financing arrangements in ways that do not create unnecessary barriers and costs for
recipient countries; and
5.   Invite developed country parties and others to increase their financial contributions to GEF-6.
6.   It also requests the Secretariat to make the report of the fourth review of the effectiveness of
the financial mechanism available to parties.
7.   On the needs assessment for GEF-6, the COP took note of the range of estimated funding needs
and urges the GEF to consider all aspects of the expert team’s needs assessment report on the
levels of funding for biodiversity. It also requests the Secretariat and invites the GEF to identify
the Aichi targets benefiting the most from synergies with other GEF focal areas.

The COP  recommended  that the GEF make  funds available for activities to support ABS and  the early
entry into force and implementation of the Nagoya Protocol.
The COP also called upon the GEF, donors, parties and others to  consider providing technical support
and financial resources for work on indicators on Traditional Knowledge (TK) and customary sustainable
use.

ARTICLE 8(J)

The African Group and Pacific Islands called for guidelines on developing legislation to respect, protect
and promote sustainable customary use and TK.

The COP requested secretariat to organize one meeting of the Article 8(j) Working Group prior to COP
12 with the in-depth dialogue to be held on: “connecting TK systems and science.
The COP also requested GEF and invited other donors to support: development of community plans and
protocols  by  Indigenous  Local  communities  (ILC);  documentation,  mapping  and  registry  of  their
indigenous  and  community  conserved  areas  (ICCAs)  by  ILCs;  and  preparation  and  implementation  of
their community conservation plans.
On  participatory  mechanisms  for  ILCs  in  the  Convention’s  work,  the  decision  addresses:  capacity
building; CEPA; development of communication, mechanisms and tools; participation including through
the Voluntary Fund for the Participation of ILC representatives; other initiatives; and local communities.  On capacity building, the COP requests the Secretariat to continue convening regional and subregional
capacity-building workshops on the Guidelines on Biodiversity and Tourism Development; and explore
facilitation  of  joint  capacity-building  workshops  with  other  multilateral  environmental  agreements
(MEAs) to promote sustainable use of biodiversity.
On local communities capacity to access conservation Funds, the COP took note with appreciation of the
report of the Expert Group Meeting of Local Communities Representatives and requested Secretariat to
take  practical  steps  to  ensure  that  local  communities’  representatives  have  equitable  access  to  the
Voluntary   Fund   for   the   participation   of   Indigenous   Local   Community   conservation   efforts   and
representatives in Convention meetings.

ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION
The  COP  urged  parties  and  encouraged  other  governments  and  relevant  organizations  to  make
concerted  efforts  to  achieve  Aichi  Targets  14  (ecosystems  and  essential  services  safeguarded)  and  15
(ecosystems  restored  and  resilience  enhanced)  and  to  contribute  to  achievement  of  other  targets
through activities that support ecosystem restoration.

BIODIVERSITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE

The COP requested  the Secretariat to  compile information from parties on initiatives and experiences
regarding  Climate  Change  and  Biodiversity  Durban  outcome  on  long-term  cooperative  action  and
regarding CBD contribution to the UNFCC Convention objectives and submit a progress report prior to
COP 12; and develop advice on REDD+ issues, taking into full account the relevant UNFCCC decisions.

GEO-ENGINEERING:
The definitions and understanding of ongoing work in other fora, including the IPCC, that climate-related
geo-engineering  may  include,  inter  alia,  deliberate  intervention  in  the  planetary  environment  of  a
nature  and  scale  intended  to  counteract  anthropogenic  climate  change  and/or  its  impacts,  with  a
footnote  that  excludes  CCS  at  source  from  fossil  fuels  when  it  captures  carbon  dioxide  before  it  is
released into the atmosphere, and also forest-related activities.

The  COP  noted  the  lack  of  science-based,  global,  transparent  and  effective  control  and  regulatory
mechanisms for climate-related geo-engineering, the need for a precautionary approach, and that such
mechanisms may be most necessary for those geo-engineering activities that have a potential to cause
significant adverse transboundary effects,
The COP also requested the Secretariat, at the appropriate time, to prepare, provide for peer review and
submit  for  consideration  by  a  future  meeting  of  SBSTTA:  an  update  on  the  potential  impacts  of  geo-
engineering  techniques  on  biodiversity  and  on  the  regulatory  framework  of  climate-related  geo-
engineering relevant to CBD, drawing upon scientific relevant reports such as the IPCC Fifth Assessment
Report;  and  an  overview  of  parties’  and  other  stakeholders’  views  on  the  potential  impacts  of  geo-
engineering on biodiversity and associated social, economic and cultural impacts.

PROTECTED AREAS
The  COP  advised  parties  to  work  on  activities  of  protected  areas  that  improve  inter-agency  and
intersectoral   coordination,   especially   for   mainstreaming   protected   areas   and   biodiversity   and
integrating protected areas into wider land- and seascapes;
The  COP  also  advised  strengthening  recognition  of  and  support  for  community-based  approaches  to
conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity; give due attention to the conservation of wild relatives
of cultivated crops and wild edible plants in protected areas and in ICCAs, in accordance with CBD and
national legislation;

BIOFUELS AND BIODIVERSITY
The COP acknowledged that bio fuel technologies may aggravate drivers of biodiversity loss and also bio
fuel’s potential positive contribution to mitigating climate change.
The  COP  Encouraged  continued  initiatives  to  develop  and  apply  tools  and  approaches  to  promote
positive and minimize or avoid negative impacts that affect socioeconomic conditions.
The COP took note of gaps in scientific knowledge, relevant tools and approaches, and of uncertainties
and difficulties measuring and addressing indirect impacts OF Bio fuels.
The COP invited parties to evaluate incentive measures that may drive bio fuel expansion in the context
of the CBD’s cross-cutting issue on incentive measures.
The COP urged parties to monitor the development of the rapidly developing technology and apply the
precautionary  approach;  and  requested  the  Secretariat  to  continue  compiling  information  on  gaps  in
standards and methodologies and compile information on definitions of relevant key terms.

HIGH LEVEL SEGMENT

Held from 16-19 October 2012, the high-level segment heard statements from ministers and high-level
representatives,  and  held  panel  discussions  on:  implementation  of  the  Strategic  Plan;  biodiversity  for
livelihoods and poverty reduction; marine and coastal biodiversity; and implementation of the Nagoya
Protocol on ABS.
The  Minister  of  Lands,  Environmental  protection  and  Natural  resources  management  Honourable
Wylber Simuusa of Zambia gave his speech on 17
th
October 2012 where he announced progress made
by Zambia to  ratification of the Nagoya Protocol and announced the new government committeemen
to  conservation  efforts  by  doubling  Budgets  in  2013  Fiscal  year  to  his  ministry.  The  Minister  further
alluded  to  the  Government  collaboration  with  Mining  companies  in  restoration  of  degraded  areas
through tree planning programmes.

SIDE EVENTS

Zambia  delegates  participated  in  a  number  of  side  events  during  the  conference.  The  noted  events
were:
1.    Indigenous  people  event  organised  by  Asian  Pacific  Indigenous  people  association  by  the
Zambia CBNRM Forum,
2.   Global Youth Biodiversity Network a Youth constituency of the CBD Secretariat
3.   Caucus of women.
The Indigenous people forum provided an opportunity for the Zambia CBNRM Forum to make  a brief
presentation on the progress on article 8(J). A presentation on stocktaking of CBNRM works in Zambia
was  done  and  capacity  building  effort  in  communities  through  monitoring  system  of  indigenous
resources and change. The 30 manuals on the Management oriented monitoring system developed by
WWF were shared to the participants during the forum session.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s