No deal on intergovt process for terms on nature-based options

The Lily Beel of bhutia.

Kuala Lumpur, 5 Apr (Mirna Ines Fernandez Pradel) – As Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) set themselves to implement the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, “nature-based solutions” (NbS) continue to be the subject of debate.

Delegates to the sixth session of the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA-6) failed to agree a draft resolution on criteria, norms, standards and guidelines for the implementation of NbS. The failure to reach agreement is reflective of the deep controversies that have dogged the concept since its inception.

UNEA-6 took place in Nairobi, Kenya, from 26 February – 1 March 2024. Delegates had the very challenging mission to discuss and aim for consensus on 19 proposed draft resolutions. The draft resolution on NbS saw some of the most heated discussions.

The concept of NbS has gained a lot of traction in recent years, with a significant increase in the annual finance flows to NbS projects and initiatives. There is also a high political momentum for NbS, especially since its definition at UNEA-5 and its mention in targets 8 and 11 of the CBD’s Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, as well as in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Sharm el-Sheikh Implementation Plan.

UNEA Resolution 5/5, titled ‘Nature-based Solutions for supporting Sustainable Development’, provided the first multilaterally agreed definition of NbS while also giving UNEP the mandate to conduct intergovernmental consultations to compile examples of best practices; assess existing and discuss potential new proposals, criteria, standards and guidelines; and identify options for supporting sustainable investment in NbS.

These intergovernmental consultations took place virtually between May and July 2023 and in-person in October 2023 in Nairobi. The outcomes were not negotiated and several Member States called for a State-driven process to assess further steps in the implementation of NbS (see Concerns & skepticism persist at consultations on nature-based solutions, SUNS #9892).

Therefore, Cameroon on behalf of the African Group, proposed a resolution to be considered at UNEA-6 titled ‘Development of criteria, norms, standards and guidelines for nature-based solutions to support sustainable development’. This draft resolution proposed to establish an experts Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG), largely understood to be a negotiating group, to agree on criteria, norms, standards, and guidelines for the implementation of NbS across the three pillars of sustainable development, in view of their adoption at UNEA-8 at latest.

The draft resolution, among others, requested the UNEP Executive Director to compile existing criteria, norms, standards and guidelines on the implementation of NbS and to convene a proposed Member States-driven process to assess these elements and negotiate global integrated criteria, norms, standards and guidelines for NbS in a transparent, inclusive and regionally-balanced manner, supporting the participation of developing countries and relevant partners and stakeholders.

It also requested the UNEP Executive Director to identify options for supporting sustainable investment in NbS and, in collaboration with other relevant UN agencies, to support the implementation of the resolution in partnership with indigenous peoples, local communities, women and youth.

Subsequent versions of the draft resolution took into account insights from fellow Member States, observers and representatives from the UNEP major groups and were shared in advance of the negotiations. In a second version, a new operative paragraph was added inviting Member States to nominate experts for this process and to engage constructively within the OEWG.

Also added was a mention that such a process should be in line with the obligations and principles of the Rio Declaration and should ensure strong social and environmental safeguards, including safeguards for the financing mechanism. It also included the participation of relevant stakeholders, representatives of indigenous peoples, local communities, women, youth and children in the experts OEWG.

A further version proposed that the OEWG would be established on an ad hoc basis, in line with Rule 63 of the Rules of Procedure of UNEA (dealing with subsidiary organs and expert groups), and extended its participation to members of United Nations (UN) specialized agencies, observers from UN entities, relevant multilateral agreements, other relevant international instruments and intergovernmental bodies.

This version also proposed that the outcomes consensually agreed upon by Member States at the OEWG would be adopted at a UNEA session through a procedural decision without reopening discussions of the negotiated criteria, norms, standards and guidelines.

A week before UNEA-6, Member States convened in Nairobi for the sixth session of the Open-ended Committee of Permanent Representatives (OECPR-6), to discuss the resolutions and decisions to be forwarded to UNEA-6 for final negotiations and adoption.

The revised version of the NbS text considered at OECPR-6 saw reservations recorded from the European Union, India and Saudia Arabia. Argentina and Iran proposed to add “voluntary” in the title to indicate the nature of the criteria, norms, standards and guidelines that such a process would have as outcomes. There was also a clear division among developing and developed countries with regard to the addition of the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR) in the first preambular paragraph.

The first discussions on this resolution at OECPR-6 focused on the first operative paragraph of the resolution, mainly around the nature of the proposed intergovernmental process and its outcomes, the principles upon which it should be based, and if its outcomes would be adopted at UNEA-7 or UNEA-8.

Switzerland expressed its reservation on the OEWG process proposal, as did the United Kingdom, which expressed its preference to leave the process in the hands of the “right institutions” in order for it to not be politicized. The United States expressed concerns over establishing global standards and proposed to focus on the implementation of UNEA Resolution 5/5. Brazil proposed the creation of a repository of good practices on the implementation of NbS instead. Canada did not support the proposal to establish an OEWG either and proposed, alternatively, the convening of an expert workshop.

Stakeholders stressed the negative impacts of the misuse of the NbS concept and called upon Member States to commit to do no harm, in addition to developing strong safeguards that would enable real benefits for communities.

A further revised version from the proponents, discussed at the end of the OECPR-6 week, considered the idea of a multidisciplinary Experts Working Group that would produce harmonized global voluntary facilitative criteria/norms/standards/guidelines. Such a group would be at a technical experts level.

Cameroon explained that they did not want to tie the hands of the experts; that is why the proposal was to let them decide the nature of the outcome according to different national circumstances. They also stressed that this was an expression of great flexibility from the African Group, since they went far beyond their ‘red lines’.

The new version encouraged the establishment of national and regional hubs on NbS, with Member States such as Canada, Russia, Peru, the European Union, the United States and Chile asking for further clarification of the role of these. It also added principles upon which the process should be based, such as transparency, inclusivity, equity, justice, and with a human-centred approach.

Although the consideration of indigenous and local knowledge remained in the proposal of the multidisciplinary Experts Working Group, the participation of relevant stakeholders, representatives of Indigenous peoples, local communities, women, youth and children was dropped. This was questioned by Canada, the European Union, and Chile.

Cameroon clarified that the idea of the multidisciplinary Expert Working Group was inspired by the process of the Global Environment Outlook (GEO), adopted in 2022. This would make the process more easily implementable by UNEP and save time on establishment of rules and procedures, since it would operate under rule 63 of UNEA. South Africa further explained that the idea of national and regional hubs came out of the consultations with Member States.

A further version forwarded by the proponents excluded the term “harmonized” and included the engagement of stakeholders in the paragraph regarding the consultations on the output of the multidisciplinary Experts Working Group.

In the discussion on this version, Cameroon explained with more detail the proposed process, where the nominated experts would be selected by UNEP, according to the Terms of Reference that were proposed in an Annex to the resolution. The experts would prepare a report that would be reviewed by the OECPR before its presentation at UNEA-7.

Russia, Saudi Arabia, Cuba and Brazil still expressed concerns about how national circumstances would be taken into account in a global framework. The United States emphasized its concern about the costs of such a process. Argentina and Indonesia questioned the need of another global process after UNEA Resolution 5/5 and the global consultations, and Argentina reflected on other possibilities to boost implementation on the ground such as workshops for practitioners and training courses. Furthermore, Brazil stressed their proposal for a global repository of best practices, which they found more adaptable, with the support of Argentina and Iran. Colombia agreed to the idea of the repository, but stressed that it should not replace the expert group.

Canada, Switzerland, and the European Union stressed the importance of an inclusive, global process that doesn’t open UNEA Resolution 5/5 but provides guidance to countries implementing NbS. The United Kingdom stressed that such a process should be expert-led, and the European Union highlighted the work of IUCN in their global NbS Standard, as an example of how to adapt local realities to a global standard. The IUCN expanded on the history of the IUCN definition on NbS and the process of development of the IUCN Global Standard for NbS, while expressing their will to follow any outcome process.

The United States reflected on Argentina’s proposal of workshops, wondering if this could be a possible outcome. This was supported by Saudi Arabia, stressing this could be a better outcome than the establishment of an expert group, a motion supported by Russia and Iran.

Cameroon agreed on the need of workshops and trainings at a later stage, but reminded that the objective of the resolution was to propose a commonly agreed framework for NbS given the financial implications and the increasing amount of greenwashing.

Member States asked the Co-facilitator to prepare a paper with elements to guide further discussions at UNEA-6. A non-paper was prepared and the elements identified were the experts Working Group; a workshop to discuss pre-existing criteria, standards, and guidelines on NbS; a repository of best practices; national or regional hubs; workshops and trainings to support NbS implementation, and means of implementation.

As UNEA-6 started, the discussions on this resolution were still stranded on the first operative paragraph establishing the multidisciplinary Expert Working Group. Cameroon was open to accommodate the idea of a repository and the proposed workshops, but stressed that these should come in a different sequence and would not be the main objective of the resolution.

In this sense, the expert group would assess and review standards, guidelines, norms and criteria for the implementation of NbS. After the framework is established, recommendations coming out of it could be disseminated through workshops and webinars. The repository would be established afterwards, when there is enough information to develop a database for best practices.

The European Union welcomed this proposal with some observations such as the need to consider the costs. Peru and Colombia proposed to merge the expert group and the repository.

The United States and Saudi Arabia still expressed concerns on the establishment of an expert group and called for an expert workshop instead, in a similar way in which an expert workshop resulted in the development of the Voluntary Guidelines for the implementation of the Ecosystem-based Approaches for Climate Adaptation and Disaster Risk Reduction.

Cameroon, on behalf of the African Group, called for a strong process as they had envisioned, but accepted they can move forward with the idea of expert workshops in the spirit of compromise, as long as these had a clear mandate. Malawi called upon Member States to not water down the intention of the resolution proposed, which it said responds to the mandate of UNEA resolution 5/5. The European Union noted with appreciation the flexibility of the African Group in this regard, as did Chile and Switzerland.

Moving on with the idea of the expert workshops, the Co-facilitators convened a friends of the chair group to work on its specifics as the terms of reference, with the participation of Cameroon, South Africa, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, the European Union, the United Kingdom, Chile or Peru, the United States and Argentina. Observers and stakeholders were not allowed to participate in these discussions.

The outcome of these discussions included an alternative to the first operative paragraph, with an expert group/workshop to review, assess and consolidate existing standards, guidelines and criteria for implementation of NbS into high-level, evidence-based and voluntary guidelines. This option was supported by the United Kingdom and Australia, and opposed by Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Russia, India and Venezuela.

A second alternative requested the establishment of a repository of best practices and technologies on NbS, supported by Brazil, Iran, Russi, Saudi Arabia, India, Venezuela, Turkey, Philippines, Indonesia and Argentina. Peru and Colombia requested that this option be merged with the first alternative.

The third alternative was an expert workshop to compile and discuss pre-existing criteria, standards and guidelines on NbS and develop guidance to scale up their implementation, taking into account local, regional, and national contexts, circumstances, approaches, and pathways. This was supported by Canada, the United States and Argentina, and opposed by Indonesia.

On the last day of discussions before the UNEA high level segment, the Co-facilitators prepared a non-paper with a first operative paragraph which requested the UNEP Executive Director to prepare a background document based on the Intergovernmental Consultations, and to convene a series of experts workshops to assess and review existing criteria, standards and guidelines, identify gaps and provide elements for voluntary guidance on NbS.

A second operative paragraph encouraged Member States to nominate experts for this workshop, and a third paragraph requested the UNEP Executive Director to develop a repository of best practices of NbS and provide options for sustainable investment in NbS. The last two paragraphs focused on means of implementation and requested a report on the progress of this resolution at the next UNEA session.

However, discussions on the last day did not reach consensus on this resolution and the proponents decided to withdraw it. The potential multilateral spaces where this discussion could take place again could be the CBD COP16, the UNFCCC COP 29 or UNEA-7. At the same time, NbS is being discussed in an increasing number of fora organized by academic groups, funding agencies and private actors.

The failure to reach agreement at UNEA-6 reflects how NbS remains a highly contentious issue in the global discussions, with countries understanding the concept and its implementation in different ways. While there is not a global consensus on the way in which NbS should be implemented, NbS projects and funding are increasing significantly over the years. At the same time, questions from civil society groups and communities on the ground about greenwashing and dangerous distractions from the urgent need to curtail carbon emissions and ecosystem destruction remain unanswered. – Third World Nertwork