Saturday, November 9, 2024
HomeTopicsEnvironmentCOP16 and biodiversity markets: Indigenous peoples meaningfully included?

COP16 and biodiversity markets: Indigenous peoples meaningfully included?

SourceLAB

-

Today, 21 October 2024, in Cali Colombia, the COP16 conference begins. This is not the ‘Climate COP’ familiar to most people but the 16th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. This international meeting will be a platform for promoting the concept of biodiversity credits and biodiversity markets. But what do these terms mean, and what is at stake, especially for Indigenous peoples and local communities? 

Read the follow-on article, ‘COP16: is biodiversity offsetting a false solution?’, here.


‘In international spaces like COP it is essential to recognize that territories are inhabited by populations, often of Indigenous peoples, who have the right to be consulted, to be heard, and for their needs to be recognized,’ youth leader America Olguin reports from the Ka’tikunsi ‘chiva’. The bus is on its way from the Cumbal Indigenous reserve in Nariño to COP16 in Cali, stopping off along the way in eight Colombian Indigenous territories to connect the voices of Indigenous people with the global biodiversity agenda.

Powered by an overhead solar panel, the bus functions as a mobile radio station bringing information about COP16 to Indigenous communities and also amplifying, through an on-board team of Indigenous and international journalists, the environmental contributions of local communities, the challenges they face, and their demands. As one of the organizers of the coalition states: ‘These meetings reinforce the need for [Indigenous peoples’] voices to be heard and valued at COP16, as without their participation, biodiversity protection is incomplete.’

What is COP16 in Cali about?

This international meeting, bringing over 15,000 delegates and visitors from around the world, and costing around $24 million USD, has been called in order to work on the ‘new global action plan for biodiversity’. The primary goal? To halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030. 

Stakeholders such as governments, Indigenous communities, NGOs, and private sector representatives will gather over 12 days to discuss how to implement the framework, how to secure financial resources for biodiversity protection, and how to monitor and report the progress of each member country.

Apart from negotiations on biodiversity policies, there will be opportunities for the public to engage with culture, art, and science and to get informed through research presentations, workshops, capacity building sessions, and exhibitions. COP16 will also offer a space for governments, businesses, and NGOs to network.

National parks are the single biggest threat to Indigenous lands and Indigenous peoples’ rights.

What are the goals of the action plan for biodiversity?

The Convention on Biological Diversity, a multilateral treaty signed by almost every country in the world to ‘preserve and sustainably use’ biodiversity, sets specific targets for biodiversity protection. For example, it ambitiously aims to protect 30 per cent of the Earth’s land and waters by 2030. This will be achieved through biodiversity protection projects carried out in each member country, using funding from the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund. 

The treaty claims to achieve its goals through balancing conservation with economic development whilst safeguarding the rights of Indigenous and local communities. This will be no simple feat.

The 30 by 30 target aims to manage land and water conservation through systems of zonification and protection, like national parks. However, national parks are the single biggest threat to Indigenous lands and Indigenous peoples’ rights. Doubling the current expansion of protected areas, as planned, will also exacerbate problems related to national parks, such as the eviction of Indigenous peoples, restrictions on residents’ livelihoods, and failure to respect Indigenous rights. 

Simon Counsell, former head of Rainforest Foundation UK, reported in a Survival International webinar that although the 30 by 30 objective explicitly calls for the respect of Indigenous peoples and local communities and their territories, there is nothing in the monitoring plan to ensure this. Advocacy groups say the lack of clarity makes this goal ‘prone to conflict’

Carbon credit projects already have an adverse impact on Indigenous rights, because they aim to minimize or stop human impact in protected areas. Local communities, e.g. those who use slash and burn farming or keep cattle grazing on their land – both dubbed as activities destructive to nature and affecting carbon in soil and grass – are targeted to enable project managers to achieve conservation goals. Under this logic, removing these people from the land ‘protects’ the area. But ‘protecting’ these zones thus threatens people’s livelihoods, territorial rights, and can even end whole cultures and communities. (Not to mention, sympathetic slash and burn can in fact both benefit soils and reduce risk of larger wildfires; ‘removing people’ may remove only the most beneficial users while opening the way for illegal land-grabbers, miners, and others who are better able to navigate bureaucracies, evade regulation, and falsify records.)

Brazilian Quilombola leader Jhonny Martins told Mongabay that he hopes the Convention will begin to recognize Afro-descendant peoples and their land rights following talks at COP16. Currently, they are not addressed in the Framework.

Counsell envisages that members will rush towards meeting conservation targets without protecting the rights of Indigenous and Quilombola peoples. He does, however, say he would expect an international governance body to be created in order to monitor implementation. ‘We are to see in a few weeks by whom or how, but big lobbies are pushing for this.’ 

The role of ‘cutting-edge’ AI in biodiversity monitoring will also be assessed during COP-16, looking at sensors and smartphones for capturing real-time data and insights being drawn from AI algorithms. It is yet to be seen how this could strengthen or conflict with Indigenous guardianship of their territories. 

How can organizations get funding for their projects?

So far, $250 million USD has been raised for the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund, mostly coming from Canada, Germany, and the UK. But access to the cash has been approved for only 18 organizations, which are mostly UN agencies and large conservation corporations. 

In 2023, the controversial body which controls the Fund (the Global Environment Facility, made up of international banks and UN agencies) set an ‘aspirational target’ for 20 percent of its funding to go to Indigenous People and Local Communities. However, given these groups already live in and manage most of the world’s most biodiverse areas (a fact which the World Bank recognizes), the target seems illogically low. 

This article is funded by readers like you

Only with regular support can we maintain our website, publish LAB books and support campaigns for social justice across Latin America. You can help by becoming a LAB Subscriber or a Friend of LAB. Or you can make a one-off donation. Click the link below to learn about the details.

Support LAB

Shockingly, the Global Environment Facility does not require that Indigenous and local communities have the right to Free, Prior, and Informed Consent over any projects it funds which may affect their lives, territories, and rights. This makes the Fund non-compliant with numerous international agreements (including the ILO Convention No. 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples). 

The whole scheme reinforces a failed top-down model of ‘fortress conservation’. 

Of the four full projects that have already been approved for funding, all of them either explicitly or potentially affect Indigenous lands but none have obtained Free, Prior, and Informed Consent from Indigenous and local communities. This means the Biodiversity Framework is falling extremely far short of its aspiration to fund Indigenous peoples and respect their rights.

Are Indigenous organizations being excluded from the funding?

At present, applications for funding can only come from the 18 approved agencies, none of which are Indigenous-led. This means that other organizations do not even have the opportunity to apply right now. 

Over two decades of carbon offsetting projects, it has been consistently proven that the practicalities of getting involved in or running projects are almost insurmountable for Indigenous communities. Applicants must meet a draconian set of criteria. The application forms are immensely complicated, including sections requiring confusing mathematical equations and specialist scientific knowledge. They require reams of specialist documents that even expert project developers tend not to understand and everything must be submitted in English. Hence almost all of the applications are designed and put together by (expensive) independent consultants, likely to be too expensive for Indigenous Peoples to hire and too technocratic for them to manage.

In any case, Indigenous peoples may not want to take part in projects which commodify nature in ways fundamentally contrary to many Indigenous cosmologies, worldviews, and values. Counsell stresses that this is a system which places monetary value on nature and ignores Indigenous peoples’ entire existence. ‘Even where they are being promised inducements to get involved, they are often simply saying no.’

Indigenous peoples may not want to take part in projects which commodify nature in ways fundamentally contrary to many Indigenous cosmologies, worldviews, and values.

Although Indigenous peoples and local communities can do the most work and achieve it at a lower cost than an international NGO, only about 7 percent of the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund money has been allocated for work merely ‘related to’ Indigenous peoples, according to Survival International’s findings. By comparison, just four large organizations account for around 85 percent of the projects and funding approved with more than 50 percent of all the cash allocated so far going to WWF and Conservation International (and agency fees covering a quarter of the entire approved funding). 

Money funnelled into the pockets of rights abusers?

It is worth noting that funds are being pocketed by multinational corporations and US agencies who face serious allegations of human rights abuses in biodiversity protection schemes. 

Citing the example of a project in the Sangha Tri-National area in the Congo basin (which will supposedly cost $7 million USD), Counsell concludes that the projects being approved are failing to uphold the ‘rights-based implementation’ they claim to adhere to, that they are not achieving anywhere close to their target of 20 percent of funding going to Indigenous peoples, and they have serious problems with due diligence. He adds that ‘there is a lack of transparency for safeguarding measures for Indigenous peoples’ and explains that the whole scheme reinforces a failed top-down model of ‘fortress conservation’. 

The most illogical part? The root causes of biodiversity loss seem to have been completely overlooked. Projects addressing the underlying causes of biodiversity loss account for only 6 percent of the funding. So what can be done to ensure that real solutions are investigated and that Indigenous people’s rights are respected? 

Indigenous representation at COP16

Many Indigenous people will take part in the COP16 negotiations and activities. Their challenge is to push for Indigenous peoples and local communities to be integrated into national plans for biodiversity protection, to ensure they get fair access to funding, and an equitable share of the benefits. 

Colombian Wayuu filmmaker David Palmar Hernández, who will attend the conference, states: ‘Access for our communities to resources, decisions, and FPIC around it are fundamental to the protection of species and ecosystems.’

Palmar, who works with If Not Us Then Who, is co-organizing the ‘Our Village’ Entertainment and Culture Pavillion at COP16 as part of a coalition of Indigenous-led and international organizations. The stage will focus on amplifying Indigenous and Afro-descendant voices with activities each day inviting Indigenous and Afrodescendent leaders to speak on issues like the importance of storytelling and gender and intersectional environmentalism.

GARN, an NGO which seeks to advance the rights of nature, will participate in the ‘Blue Zone’ (pushing for recognition of the Amazon as a legal entity and promoting Indigenous-led solutions for environmental justice). However, it has also organized independent events in Cali in parallel to the official talks. GARN will hold an independent meeting with their Indigenous Council around ensuring ancestral knowledge is included in official documents; and another welcoming Indigenous leaders from Guatemala, Ecuador, and the USA to focus on finding a balance between Indigenous Rights and the Rights of Nature.

Although various Indigenous leaders and organizations will participate in the official talks, according to Fernando Lezama, a Pijao tribal leader from Colombia and co-founder of fair-trade biodiversity credits business Savimbo, a number of Indigenous leaders have faced ‘significant obstacles’ in gaining access to the meeting. He claims many have not been invited, others have faced logistical issues, and some haven’t been able to meet bureaucratic requirements. Lezama reported to Mongabay how leaders from different communities applied to enter the ‘Blue Zone’ formal conference space, but that they never heard back from the organizers. These issues – which were raised by multiple representatives from Indigenous groups – must be addressed for Indigenous participation to be accounted for. 

For this reason, the Ka’tikunsi ‘chiva’ bus is a great example of Indigenous coalitions demanding a seat at the table to engage in international negotiations, whilst also building their own channels of communication to ensure public participation in the stakes of our planet. As the CNTI, Colombia’s National Commission for Indigenous Territories, states, without the participation of Indigenous peoples, ‘biodiversity protection is incomplete.’

Although their rights have so far been overlooked in the planning for biodiversity markets, Indigenous people will be present at the conference and, through their own initiatives, they are making sure that their voices will be heard and that actions will be taken to safeguard their territorial control.

Republishing: You are free to republish this article on your website, but please follow our guidelines.