This report published by the United Nations' Environment Management Group, with a foreword by Secretary-General António Guterres, is the UN's response to the CBD Parties' request (made in Nairobi in August 2019) to plan for a UN institutions' contribution to the development and implementation of the post-2020 framework.
Aleksandar Rankovic, Damien Barchiche, Lucien Chabason, Alexandra Deprez, Marcel Jouve, and Fiona Kinniburgh (Bavarian School of Public Policy, Technical University of Munich) are among the main contributors of the report.
IDDRI contributed to the different parts of the report, and more specifically on the synergies between action on climate change and biodiversity, the connections with Agenda 2030 and the HLPF, and working with the chemical conventions to address drivers of biodiversity loss (see Box 3, below).
Box 3. Working with the chemical conventions and initiatives to address drivers of biodiversity loss: the case of pesticides
Pesticides can have a significant impact on biodiversity. For example, pesticides, particularly insecticides, have been demonstrated to have a broad range of lethal and sublethal effects on pollinators under controlled experimental conditions (IPBES, 2016). The governance of pesticides falls within the governance of chemicals more broadly. The Basel, Rotterdam, Stockholm and Minamata Conventions are central global instruments in the international governance of chemicals and wastes. In addition, the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer controls the production and consumption of methyl bromide, a pesticide that is a powerful ozone-depleting substance. The international multi-stakeholder chemical initiative Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM) also plays a critical role in chemicals’ governance by engaging governments, the chemical industry and other civil society actors, such as NGOs, with the potential to work on issues beyond those in the conventions’ own mandates reached by consensus in multilateral negotiations.
The post-2020 global biodiversity framework will address pollution as a major driver of biodiversity loss, as well as the sustainable management of production landscapes and seascapes, as being essential to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. To strengthen the implementation of the new framework, a stronger synergy between the biodiversity and the chemicals conventions will be critical to achieve success. For pesticides, this mostly concerns the Stockholm and Rotterdam Conventions and SAICM. To accomplish this, several pathways and initiatives can be envisaged, for example:
1. At the level of the conventions, joint action plans could be developed, with dedicated processes and accountability to their respective COPs. This approach could be explored through the work of Parties in the relevant bodies of the respective conventions and by their secretariats within the mandates provided to them.
2. At the national level, the focal points and authorities responsible for the CBD, other biodiversity-related conventions, the chemicals conventions and other relevant conventions and organizations including the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA), could collaborate more closely to bring attention to the importance of adding pesticides to the chemicals conventions’ annexes and to coordinate work on finding safer alternatives, particularly for highly hazardous pesticides. In this regard, they can also work on coordinating their respective national policy instruments (such as agricultural subsidies) to reflect these synergies, and coordinate national planning, reporting and review mechanisms to increase efficiencies and improve coherence.
3. The multi-stakeholder platforms associated with the chemicals and biodiversity agendas provide an opportunity to enhance synergies, since actors of civil society also tend to work separately on these issues. Having biodiversity actors more actively engage with SAICM discussions, and chemicals actors engage in the CBD agenda and its discussions, could help in sharing of experiences and in building similar expectations for change (Kinniburgh and Rankovic, 2019).