As negotiations continue within the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) process, it is important for the small-scale fisheries subsector to remain continuously engaged – and noticed
This article is by Ronald Rodriguez (rrodriguez.icsf@gmail.com), Programme Officer, ICSF
Living up to its theme, the 16th meeting of the Conference of Parties (COP16) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), held in Cali, Colombia from 16 October to 2 November 2024, “the People’s COP” highlighted the role of indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLC) in conserving biological diversity through small-scale fisheries stewardship. In the lead-up to COP16, the Subsidiary Body on Implementation (SBI-5) held its fifth meeting from 16 to 18 October to review the progress of the National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) of the Parties. The meeting also introduced informal and more inclusive sessions for sharing of the experiences and key strategies adopted by the Parties in developing their national targets.
The proposals from the SBI-4, SBI-5 and the 26th meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA-26) were then taken up by COP16 from 21 October to 2 November 2024. Due to the large number of decision texts that was left bracketed and requiring further negotiation, the work of COP16 is yet to be completed.
During the proceedings of COP16, small-scale fisheries (SSF) of IPLC were made known at the Blue Zone where the COP16 negotiations took place. Fifteen indigenous and artisanal fishers issued statements and shared their positions during a press conference, and they participated in various side events. A press conference, titled “Fisher Peoples in Action: A Human Rights-Based Approach to achieve Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF) Targets in Coastal and Marine Conservation” was held on 23 of October, coinciding with the first week of the COP16 negotiations.
SSF and IPLC’s leaders from Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Colombia, Panama and Thailand made their statements, including Zoila Bustamante from Chile representing World Forum of Fish Harvesters & Fish Workers (WFF) and Latin American Union of Artisanal Fishers (ULAPA). The press conference was covered by the COP16 media through the UN Web TV.
The meeting also introduced informal and more inclusive sessions for sharing of the experiences and key strategies adopted by the Parties in developing their national targets
In discussions moderated by Vivienne Solis-Rivera of CoopeSoliDar R.L./ICSF, the key role of artisanal/small-scale fishers in the context of IPLC was emphasized. The SSF leaders highlighted how conservation of aquatic biodiversity is a consequence of the sustainable resource management practices employed by IPLC, with SSF contributing to such conservation through their traditional practices. The importance of recognizing the rights of these communities in conservation efforts was stressed, with calls made to include fishers in decision-making processes and to prevent limiting their access to resources.
The link between conservation and food security was underscored, with the understanding that conservation cannot be achieved without addressing the basic needs of people. SSF was presented as essential for the food security of fishing communities and beyond. Concerns were raised about the negative impacts of large-scale projects and infrastructure on fishing communities and the environment. The fishers argued for prioritizing local management practices as other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) over the establishment of protected areas to ensure a balance between conservation and sustainable use of aquatic biodiversity.
Informed by the Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-scale Fisheries in the Context of Food Security and Poverty Eradication (the SSF Guidelines) and decades of community-led conservation efforts, the SSF community called for recognition of their rights and role in managing inland, marine and coastal biodiversity.
Although there were limited opportunities for direct engagement in the closed negotiation sessions, the presence of SSF community members served as a reminder of the need to address gaps in targets concerning aquatic biodiversity. Target 3 or the 30×30 target, for example, represents a convergence point for SSF delegates.
The caucus of the IPLC recognized the current gaps in the inland, coastal and marine components of the KMGBF targets. As the primary implementation mechanism of the CBD, the KMGBF is meant to guide the development of the NBSAPs of Parties to the Convention. Therefore, gaps in Target 1 on Spatial Planning, Target 2 on Restoration, Target 3 on Protected Areas and OECMs, and Target 5 on Sustainable Use, present opportunities for SSF community representation.
These targets require the participation of coastal communities as both field experts and partners in local implementation and supported by Target 22 on balanced representation. This is especially true for most of the developing countries where governments have limited capacity and resources. Community-based resource management experiences in Southeast Asia (e.g. Indonesia and the Philippines), for instance, can be leveraged and replicated in the implementation of these targets.
While many of the decisions do not explicitly mention SSF or artisanal fisheries, key decisions adopted by the Parties have created more opportunities for SSF participation. Notably, a decision was made at COP16 to establish a more permanent body for IPLC, reflecting the growing recognition of their crucial role in biodiversity conservation and sustainable use of natural resources. The establishment of the Subsidiary Body on Article 8j institutionalizes the participation of IPLC within the Convention and in its implementation.
This opens up an opportunity for the SSF subsector to be better represented in the CBD process as it transitions to its implementation phase. The call for better inclusion of coastal communities within the Convention was further supported by the adoption of a decision on formally recognizing the role of people of African descent, and the inclusion of the text “embodying traditional lifestyles.” Sustainable traditional fishing practices of inland and coastal communities can be promoted and supported within this body.
The fisheries sector was only included in discussions under Target 18 on Harmful Subsidies. Discussions and development of actions cannot be separated from the fisheries subsidies decisions and negotiations at the World Trade Organization (WTO). Nonetheless, COP16 agreed to move all references to fisheries under this Target and in related decisions to a footnote or an Annex. In previous and current CBD decisions, fisheries, however, is directly referenced only to draw attention to negative impacts of human activities on biodiversity. The discussion on repurposing incentives can be guided towards supporting community-based resources management initiatives.
Financial transfers in the form of direct support to community-based resource management activities and social protection are to be explored as both a means to repurpose harmful subsidies and to enhance positive incentives. The traditional knowledge and traditional fishing practices of inland and coastal communities can serve as guide to ensuring that incentives contribute to biodiversity protection and restoration. The current financing mechanism does not specify how the SSF can access funding and resources within the CBD. Therefore, the representation and membership of the SSF within the IPLC caucus is needed.
To maximize engagement with the CBD as a Party-driven process, a deeper understanding of its negotiation context is needed. Balancing a Party-driven process with a whole-of-society approach requires considering the positions and motivations of the Parties to the Convention. The negotiations are not simply driven by the issues or decisions being considered by the COP. Rather, Parties come to the meeting under certain conditions that limit or motivate their positions.
Commitment with Flexibility
Parties are given the flexibility to make commitments and retain the option to interpret these commitments consistent with their national sovereignty. Although the negotiated language restricts the ability of the agreements to bind the Parties to specific actions, the continued participation of Parties creates opportunities for other actors to engage them in other venues for collaboration. After all, countries tend to maintain a sense of consistency in their positions and previous agreements.
Contribution to Current Workload and Burden on Resources
Parties are motivated to limit any additional burden or workload associated with complying with new biodiversity commitments. They seek to balance their international obligations with domestic priorities and resource constraints. The provision and allocation of financial and other resources is an ongoing point of discussion, reflecting the underlying equity concerns within the biodiversity framework. Parties must navigate the tensions between “providing” and “receiving” resources.
… Parties from Africa and the Asia-Pacific region would argue that equity requires greater financial commitment from the developed world…
Russia and Indonesia initially opposed the proposal for a Subsidiary Body on Article 8j due to concerns about its potential implications for their respective countries, including increased representation at CBD meetings and the need for more resources. Furthermore, this could have increased the financial burden on the CBD. However, after extensive negotiations, the Parties reached a compromise that will establish the body and define its mandate and scope.
Geopolitical Context and Resource Mobilization
The nuances of Target 19 of the KMGBF on financial mechanism and resource mobilization reflect these dynamics in the negotiation. Parties from the developing world are generally willing to commit to additional or increased actions on current biodiversity commitments in exchange for financial, technical and technological support.
Within the context of extraction of benefits from biodiversity resources, Parties from Africa and Asia-Pacific region would argue that equity requires greater financial commitment from the developed world that has benefited and continues to benefit from extraction of natural resources from the developing world. This stance guided the arguments of Parties during the negotiations on financial mechanisms and resource mobilizations.
It also allowed the least developed countries (LDCs), developing countries and small island developing States (SIDS) to leverage their incomplete National Targets and NBSAPs to gaining greater financial support from the developed world. Parties called for provisions for an enhanced support and implementation mechanism that would encourage developed countries to comply with their commitments on achieving the target funding for implementation.
Parties from the developed world aim to maintain current policy instruments and mechanisms, developed over the course of the negotiations. However, they are open to committing to changes, provided they can retain a significant level of control over the process that could affect their levels of resource commitments. Commitments under Target 19 would limit access to natural resources and would put pressure not only on the Parties’ governments but also on their local economies and the private sector. Both Parties and non-Party actors need to take these into consideration in developing proposals towards increasing recognition, participation and direct involvement in implementation.
To maximize the negotiation process and to achieve meaningful outcomes, it is crucial to:
Engaging through IPLC serves as a primary avenue for SSF communities to directly and effectively participate in the biodiversity negotiations. However, it is important not to overlook the potential for conflicts due to the diversity of interests, knowledge systems and power dynamics within this stakeholder group. While it is crucial for the SSF to create a space for recognition of the subsector’s concerns and interests, it should not introduce or encourage division amongst the IPLC.
This issue became apparent during the negotiation on Conference Room Paper #9, where the AU spoke against the recommendation of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Peoples and introduced the possibility of separating the Indigenous peoples from local communities. With support from Asia and the Pacific, the Parties highlighted the need to maintain the recognized collective identity and to avoid further fragmentation.
Opportunities to Further the Engagement of SSF within the CBD
Engaging in planning, implementation, monitoring and review, as well as accessing resources need to be guided by the CBD process and current areas of interest. Inclusion of areas that overlap with the territories of SSF is crucial (for example, mangrove areas and seagrass beds in the context of biodiversity and climate change), as it ensures the recognition and integration of this important subsector into the broader biodiversity conservation and management efforts. The participation of SSF communities in key platforms such as SBI, SBSTTA, the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group (AHTEG), Advisory Committees and the new Subsidiary Body on Article 8(j) and Related Provisions will provide a valuable opportunity for their voices, knowledge and perspectives to be heard and incorporated into decision-making processes.
Their meetings occur in between the COPs and, therefore, set the initial language to guide decision making and adoption of agreements by the Parties. Within these processes, the SSF need to convince Parties and the major groups that its traditional inland, coastal and marine fishing practices can offer ways to sustainably use inland, coastal and marine resources while promoting the conservation of aquatic biodiversity. There is a need to balance its demand for support within the Convention with a commitment to serve as local partners to protect and restore biological diversity.
Furthermore, the recognition of the role of regional, subnational and local entities in biodiversity conservation and sustainable use is essential, as these entities often have a more intimate understanding of the local contexts and can facilitate the effective implementation of biodiversity policies and programmes. The exploration of alternative financing mechanisms can also help unlock additional resources to support the participation and inclusion of SSF communities in the CBD processes.
To ensure meaningful representation and engagement, it is important to secure membership for SSF communities in the IPLC, women, and youth groups, as well as ensure their active participation in SBI and SBSTTA. Fishworker organizations are to be supported to send representatives to meetings, with a particular emphasis on ensuring regional representation from Latin America, Africa and Asia. This approach can help bring the SSF Guidelines and the Call to Action for consideration, while also contributing to the development of complementary indicators. Where the Parties are not too keen on making changes to the established language, it is important to work within this practice by ensuring links to adopted languages such as “embodying traditional lifestyles”, which is seen inclusive of SSF communities’ relationship with inland, coastal or marine biodiversity.
Addressing Target 18 of the KMGBF, which focuses on eliminating or reforming incentives, including subsidies, harmful for biodiversity and to scale up positive incentives for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.
Crucial aspect
The HRBA is another crucial aspect, and the guidance provided by AHTEG on Section C on monitoring can be a valuable resource for ensuring the needs and rights of SSF. However, the subsector must also recognize that Parties are currently very restrictive on proposals that could bind them to this commitment. Further work is needed to identify key allies among the Parties.
At present, the Parties have limited the use of “human rights-based approach” and only maintains the references to Section C to highlight the whole-of-society approach in the current decision texts. Nonetheless, the SSF Guidelines, as an instrument promoting the HRBA, and the National Plan of Action-SSF (NPOA-SSF) as developed by several countries, provide an opportunity to showcase the subsector’s efforts in both promoting the HRBA and contributing to the targets on biodiversity and climate change.
Within the biodiversity and climate-change nexus, the direct reference to mangroves and seagrass beds as critical areas that contribute to climate-change mitigation and adaptation provides an additional opportunity to highlight the role of coastal communities that are present and actively contribute to the protection and restoration of these areas. This will also require increased representation and participation of SSF in the climate change Convention.
However, the future merits of SSF engagement with the CBD process will depend on whether the Convention will be able to secure the financial resources required to implement its targets. According to the Global Environment Facility (GEF), a total of USD383 million has been pledged under the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund (GBFF) as of 2024. Although the COP16 was able to secure USD163 million during its pledging conference, the current total GBFF at USD383 million’ and ‘well below’ and the USD200 billion target per year by 2030, as set by the Convention. According to the GEF, the 2024 selection round of GBFF targets aims at having a portfolio with 26% allocation to small island developing states (SIDS) and least developed countries (LDCs) and 35% allocation to support actions by IPLC.
As of September 2024, the GBFF has allocated a total of USD110 million for projects in 24 countries, 13 of which are SIDS/LDCs. Consistent with the targets of the KMGBF, the Fund will support projects that focus on a range of key action areas, including biodiversity conservation and restoration, land and sea-use planning, supporting the stewardship and governance of lands, territories, and waters by IPLC, policy alignment and development, resource mobilization, sustainable use of biodiversity, biodiversity mainstreaming in production sectors, addressing invasive alien species, and capacity building and implementation support for the Cartagena and Nagoya protocols.
While the establishment of a dedicated biodiversity fund is considered by Parties from the developing world as necessary, Parties from the developed world prefer the conventional GEF funding mechanism. Parties and major groups within the Convention have called for political will and equity in establishing the fund. Parties express varying views, with some supporting the fund and others raising concerns about its potential impact on resource mobilization. Although implementation remains limited, further exclusion of SSF in the process is expected to lead to exclusion from access to the resources being generated by the CBD.
Recognizing that the fisheries sector is most often not under the environment ministry, it is likely that the SSF will also be excluded in the development and implementation of biodiversity programmes and projects. This calls for greater participation from the SSF within the CBD. The CBD’s areas of concern overlap with the inland, coastal and marine territories where SSF are actively present. Therefore, decisions made by the Convention without the SSF will further limit their access to biodiversity resources in these areas. Continued engagement with the CBD processes will ensure that SSF are recognized as active participants in the negotiation and implementation of the agreements.
The COP16 negotiations have not concluded, and these issues remain open. For the SSF subsector, participation through IPLC will help secure access to these resources and technical and technological support when they become available. Therefore, it is important to continuously engage with the ongoing CBD process.
For more
Statement at COP16: Call for Inclusion of Small-scale Fishers as Partners in the Implementation and Monitoring of the Biodiversity Targets
https://icsf.net/resources/icsfs-statement-at-press-conference-fisher-peoples-in-action-23-october-2024/
Summary of Proceeding: Subsidiary Body on Implementation, SBI-05 Meeting (Day-1), COP16, Cali, Colombia, 16 October 2024 by Ronald Rodriguez, ICSF
https://icsf.net/resources/summary-of-proceeding-subsidiary-body-on-implementationsbi-05-meeting-day-1-cop16-cali-colombia-16-october-2024-by-ronald-rodriguez-icsf/
Press Conference: Fisher Peoples in Action – United Nations Biodiversity Conference 2024, 23 October 2024
https://icsf.net/resources/press-conference-fisher-peoples-in-action-united-nations-biodiversity-conference-2024-23-october-2024/
Summary of the 2024 UN Biodiversity Conference: 21 October – 1 November 2024 by IISD, ENB, 2024
https://icsf.net/resources/summary-of-the-2024-un-biodiversity-conference-21-october-1-november-2024-by-iisd-enb-2024/
Sixteenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP 16), 21 October–1 November 2024 – Cali, Colombia
https://www.cbd.int/conferences/2024
