Skip to main content

Integrating biodiversity for poverty removal still not binding for this UN body

Reacting to a statement of the executive secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), United Nations, Elizabeth Maruma Mrema, on the occasion of the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty, which fell on October 17, well-known Thiruvananthapuram-based ecologist S Faizi has objected to the CBD’s plan for “effective integration of biodiversity for poverty eradication”.

***
I compliment you for issuing this statement. However, I am disappointed to see that the CBD COP's output on poverty and biodiversity, namely the Chennai Guidance is not even referred to in your statement, particularly so since the 12th COP has asked the Executive Secretary to "continue the work requested by the Conference of the Parties in decisions X/6 and XI/22, for the effective integration of biodiversity for poverty eradication and development, taking into account also the related decisions of the Conference of the Parties at its twelfth meeting" and to promote the Chennai Guidance. This only reflects the Secretariat's conventional relegation of the issues of particular concern to the developing countries.
I had been a member of the Expert Group on Biodiversity for Poverty Eradication and Development that prepared drafts of the Dehradun Declaration and the Chennai Guidance for the COP (the former was subsumed into the latter by COP 12), this all important debate happened in CBD after two decades of the treaty. And this happened quite reluctantly, and was subsequently relegated to not just the margins but to oblivion, although your predecessor Mr Braulio Dias had promised me on record that the he would provide adequate importance to the Chennai Guidance and to the issue of poverty/biodiversity in the work of the Secretariat.
As a negotiator in the INC CBD that formulated the treaty, I found several amusing things in the conduct of the Secretariat in the proceedings of the Expert Group, I take the liberty of sharing a couple of them here. There was a Secretariat document that mentioned that CBD was 'not legally binding', it was tragic that I was the only delegate shocked by this, but when I raised the issue the Secretariat discreetly removed that sentence without an apology, they feigned ignorant of it when the Co-Chair (India) referred to my email on the subject in his inaugural speech itself.
It was I who prepared the first draft of the Dehradun Declaration, as requested by the Secretariat (Mr Ravi Sharma) after our first round of discussion, we had focussed discussion on it and a near final version was prepared when the meeting ended. But the version the secretariat sent to the COP had points we didn’t discuss or actually rejected. The reports of the proceedings also had similar additions and deletions that are procedurally unacceptable.
Some delegates have even attempted to confuse the objective of the Expert Group as something to deal with the protection of biodiversity in poverty eradication programs and projects, rather than the real objective of sustainably using biodiversity in the efforts to eradicate poverty (I would also forewarn that this attempt to invert the objective will also happen in the case of Target 14, unless it is put in a language that doesn’t allow such a wrong interpretation).
Without meaning to dampen your enthusiasm for the anticipated adoption of the GBF at the December COP, may I respectfully submit that CBD is meant for enforcement, every article of it, and not meant for generating further documents. Nowhere does the treaty calls for the creation of a series of strategic plans. What is actually happening through these mace of documents and chain of conferences that the CBD process has been generating after the first few years of enforcement is a virtual unmaking of the hard negotiated treaty. Virtually amending a finely balanced treaty by carefully ignoring those provisions that are important for the developing countries, the GBF process is also a victim of that.
Let me ask you for example where is the substance of the all important Article 16 and its crucial subsections on access to technology in the GBF draft. The US had made it clear that they were opposed this and such provisions in the treaty, the reason why they have refused to ratify the treaty, and that is an honest position. Their western partners are also opposed to such provisions but they have ratified the treaty and succeeded in silencing those 'difficult' articles through Strategic Plans and by guarding the COP from performing its statutory mission of reviewing the progress in the implementation of the treaty, meaning reviewing the cases of infractions and non-compliances.
***
Response from UN CBD secretariat:
Please rest assured that the Secretariat attaches great importance to the linkages between biodiversity and poverty alleviation, as well as sustainable development more generally. The very fact that we issued this statement is testimony to this. In this context we also continue to promote the Chennai Guidance whenever appropriate (see e.g. here: https://www.cbd.int/development/sdg1/ ).
However please also understand that this statement of the Executive Secretary is intended for the general public and not geared to an expert audience, and it is therefore general practice in our communications to prioritize the general scientific facts and associated messaging as rooted in the top objectives of the Convention over more detailed institutional information on the many work streams under the Convention and its resulting policy guidance documents. Even while the latter would perhaps be more satisfactory to the experts, it would make for a very dry read indeed for the vast majority of people. And, as you point out yourself, over-emphasizing this institutional information may actually risk taking away from the Convention itself and its overall objectives and key messages.
Thanks again for your continued interest in the work of the Convention.
-- David Ainsworth

Comments

TRENDING

हिंदी आलोचना जैसे पिछड़ चुके अनुशासन की जगह हिंदी वैचारिकी का विकास जरूरी

- प्रमोद रंजन*   भारतीय राजनीति में सांप्रदायिक व प्रतिक्रियावादी ताकतों को सत्ता तक पहुंचाने में हिंदी पट्टी का सबसे बड़ा योगदान है। इसका मुख्य कारण हिंदी-पट्टी में कार्यरत समाजवादी व जनपक्षधर हिरावल दस्ते का विचारहीन, अनैतिक और  प्रतिक्रियावादी होते जाना है। अगर हम उपरोक्त बातों को स्वीकार करते हैं, तो कुछ रोचक निष्कर्ष निकलते हैं। हिंदी-जनता और उसके हिरावल दस्ते को विचारहीन और प्रतिक्रियावादी बनने से रोकने की मुख्य ज़िम्मेदारी किसकी थी?

साहित्य बोध में परिवर्तन: सत्तर के दशक में विचारधारा का महत्व बहुत अधिक था

- अजय तिवारी   सत्तर के बाद वाले दशक में जब हम लोग साहित्य में प्रवेश कर रहे थे तब दाढ़ी रखने, बेतरतीबी से कपड़े पहनने और फक्कड़पन का जीवन जीने वाले लोग बेहतर लेखक हुआ करते थे या बेहतर समझे जाते थे। नयी सदी में चिकने-चुपड़े, बने-ठने और खर्चीला जीवन बिताने वाले सम्मान के हक़दार हो चले हैं। यह फ़र्क़ जनवादी उभार और भूमण्डलीय उदारीकरण के बीच का सांस्कृतिक अंतर उजागर करता है। 

How Mahakavi Sri Sri defined political and cultural metamorphosis of Telugu society

By Harsh Thakor  Srirangam Srinivasarao, popularly known as Sri Sri, or called Mahakavi (The Great Poet), held a reputation like no other Telugu poet. Today, on June 15th, we commemorate his 40th death anniversary. Sri Sri transcended heights in revolutionary creativity or exploration, unparalleled, in Telegu poetry, giving it a new dimension. His poems projected the theme or plight of the oppressed people at a scale, rarely penetrated by poets, giving revolutionary poetry it’s soul.

Laxmanpur Bathe massacre: Perfect example of proto-fascist Brahmanical social order

By Harsh Thakor  The massacre at Laxmanpur-Bathe of Jehanabad in Bihar on the night of 1 December in 1997 was a landmark event with distinguishing features .The genocide rightly shook the conscience of the nation in the 50th year of Indian independence. The scale of the carnage was unparalleled in any caste massacre. It was a perfect manifestation of how in essence the so called neo-liberal state was in essence most autocratic. 

एनडीए सरकार में हिन्दू राष्ट्रवाद की दिशा: मुसलमानों का हाशियाकरण जारी रहेगा

- राम पुनियानी*  लोकसभा आमचुनाव में भाजपा के 272 सीटें हासिल करने में विफल रहने के बाद एनडीए एक बार फिर नेपथ्य से मंच के केंद्र में आ गया है. सन 1998 में अटलबिहारी वाजपेई एनडीए सरकार के प्रधानमंत्री बने थे. उस सरकार के कार्यकलापों पर भी भाजपा की राजनीति का ठप्पा था. उस सरकार ने हिंदुत्व के एजेंडे के अनुरूप संविधान की समीक्षा के लिए वेंकटचलैया आयोग नियुक्त किया, पाठ्यपुस्तकों का भगवाकरण किया और ज्योतिषशास्त्र व पौरोहित्य को विषय के रूप में पाठ्यक्रम में जोड़ा. सन 2014 और 2019 में बनी मोदी सरकारें तकनीकी दृष्टि से भले ही एनडीए की सरकारें रही हों मगर चूँकि भाजपा को अपने दम पर बहुमत हासिल था इसलिए अन्य घटक दल साइलेंट मोड में बने रहे और भाजपा ने बिना रोकटोक अपना आक्रामक हिन्दू राष्ट्रवादी एजेंडा लागू किया. इसमें शामिल था राममंदिर का निर्माण और अनुच्छेद 370 का कश्मीर से हटाया जाना. इसके अलावा सरकार की मौन सहमति से गाय और बीफ के नाम पर मुसलमानों की लिंचिंग की गयी और लव जिहाद और न जाने कितने अन्य किस्मों के जिहादों की बातें की गईं.

सदन की सबसे उंची गद्दी पर बैठे यह शख्स मर्यादाओं को अनदेखा कर मुंह फेरता रहा

- मनीष सिंह*   ओम बिड़ला को जब याद किया जाएगा, तो लोगों के जेहन मे भावहीन सूरत उभरेगी। सदन के सबसे उंची गद्दी पर बैठा शख्स, जो संसदीय मर्यादाओं को तार तार होते सदन मे अनजान बनकर  मुंह फेरता रहा।  मावलंकर, आयंगर, सोमनाथ चटर्जी और रवि राय ने जिस कुर्सी की शोभा बढाई, उसे उंचा मयार दिया.. वहीं ओम बिड़ला इस सदन की गरिमा की रक्षा मे अक्षम स्पीकर के रूप मे याद किये जाऐंगे। 

नरेन्द्र मोदी देवत्व की ओर? 1923 में हिटलर ने अपनी तुलना भी ईसा मसीह से की थी

- राम पुनियानी*  समाज के संचालन की प्रजातान्त्रिक प्रणाली को मानव जाति ने एक लम्बे और कठिन संघर्ष के बाद हासिल किया. प्रजातंत्र के आगाज़ के पूर्व के समाजों में राजशाही थी. राजशाही में राजा-सामंतों और पुरोहित वर्ग का गठबंधन हुआ करता था. पुरोहित वर्ग, धर्म की ताकत का प्रतिनिधित्व करता था. राजा को ईश्वर का प्रतिरूप बताया जाता था और उसकी कथनी-करनी को पुरोहित वर्ग हमेशा उचित, न्यायपूर्ण और सही ठहराता था. पुरोहित वर्ग ने बड़ी चतुराई से स्वर्ग (हैवन, जन्नत) और नर्क (हैल, जहन्नुम) के मिथक रचे. राजा-पुरोहित कॉम्बो के आदेशों को सिर-आँखों पर रखने वाला पुण्य (सबाब) करता है और इससे उसे पॉजिटिव पॉइंट मिलते हैं. दूसरी ओर, जो इनके आदेशों का उल्लंघन करता है वह पाप (गुनाह) करता है और उसे नेगेटिव पॉइंट मिलते हैं. व्यक्ति की मृत्यु के बाद नेगेटिव और पॉजिटिव पॉइंटों को जोड़ कर यह तय किया जाता है कि वह नर्क में सड़ेगा या स्वर्ग में आनंद करेगा.