Reef Check Malaysia will be attending COP 16

Representing Biodiversity at COP 16

So this is exciting news: I will be representing Reef Check Malaysia at COP 16 in Cali, Colombia from 21st October to 1st November!

I will join our partners, Pacific Environment and the other ASEAN team members from Thailand, Vietnam and the Philippines.

The regional team has been working together for nearly three years, supported by Pacific Environment, to advocate for greater protection of marine ecosystems. Specifically, we have been calling on our various national governments to support Target 3 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF, or just GBF)

I feel privileged to have this opportunity to meet with and learn from, some of the leading thinkers in biodiversity conservation. The link between global warming, climate change and biodiversity loss is increasingly being acknowledged; you only have to look at the current bleaching event affecting coral reefs in the Indo-Pacific – which is caused by greenhouse gas-linked ocean warming – to see the connection.

Reef Check Malaysia will be representing biodiversity at COP 16

What is COP 16?

Yeah, let’s deal with some of the jargon. “COP” simply stands for “Conference of the Parties" - in itself a bit of UN jargon that means a meeting of the signatories (or parties) to a given convention (or treaty).

The 16? That’s just the number of the meetings – they are held every 2 years.

So, at COP 16, the parties to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (UNCBD) will gather to discuss a variety of issues related to global efforts to protect and conserve biological diversity.

Not to be confused with…

There’s another COP happening soon which is COP 29, which will be held in Baku, Azerbaijan, in November. That COP is the Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Different topic – related, but different!!

History of the Convention on Biological Diversity

The Convention was adopted by the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for a Convention on Biological Diversity in Nairobi in 1992. The Convention was open for signature during the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED – more commonly known as the “Earth Summit”) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in June 1992.

The Earth Summit, held on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the first Human Environment Conference (HEC), brought together political leaders, diplomats, scientists, media, and NGOs from 179 countries to respond to the impact of human socio-economic activities on the environment. We can date many of our current concerns about “the environment” to that Earth Summit.

Photo credit: United Nations

So, if you thought all this stuff was new…it isn’t!

It has a long history, going back to 1972. I was 11 years old! 52 years after the first HEC, and 32 years after the Earth Summit…what have we achieved?

Have a look at this website for more information on the Earth Summit, and the important discussions on sustainability.

Why am I going to COP 16?

Those of you who follow these issues will know that two years ago, at COP 15 in Montreal, parties agreed to a new set of biodiversity conservation targets.

One of the most contentious is Target 3, which sets a target to protect 30% of land and marine areas by the year 2030, the so-called “30x30 target”. Other targets cover the rights of indigenous people and local communities and funding for biodiversity conservation.

So, we have some targets. But how to achieve them? What programmes need to be implemented at the national level to make the targets real?

The National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans

That’s where the so-called NBSAPs come in. The National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans are national-level policies for achieving the GBF targets.

In Malaysia, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Sustainability (NRES) is responsible for the National Policy on Biological Diversity, which essentially is Malaysia’s NBSAP.

We had the pleasure of meeting with YB Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad recently.

COP 16 Is About Taking Actions

If COP 15 was about setting the targets, COP 16 will be about how to achieve those targets. From The Nature Conservancy's website:

“The goal [of COP 16] is to transform the commitments of the 2022 GBF into actionable plans. Implementing the GBF demands global cooperation, recognizing biodiversity’s critical role in our economy, food security, climate stability, and planetary health. Ultimately, the decisions made at COP 16 will shape our planet’s future.”

And that’s why I am looking forward to attending, to understand what is going on at the policy level, and maybe even bring some ideas back to Malaysia.

I particularly want to learn more about how countries are going to fund biodiversity protection. Malaysia has made a good start with the annual Ecological Fiscal Transfers (EFTs), funds paid to States to help them protect their biodiversity.

But, much more funding is required if we are to address the imbalance in funding for biodiversity protection. As one of the "mega-biodiverse" countries, Malaysia has a lot to lose.

What about all that carbon?

As my brother is fond of reminding me, it seems somewhat ironic that a bunch of people professing to be interested in protecting the environment…are flying all over the world emitting carbon!!

I have no defence.

It is, in my opinion, a perfectly good argument. So, how do I justify it? That also has a pretty simple response.

Sometimes, more things get done if people get together to discuss issues. Sure, we all learned during COVID-19 that much can be achieved via virtual meetings and calls. But at the end of the day, sometimes you have to meet face to face…and given the importance of the topic, I think this is one of those times.

Follow along my journey at COP 16 soon!

______________________________________________________________________________________

If you'd like to support us, you can follow our social media pages for any updates on our work and volunteering opportunities, or you could also donate towards our cause.

The 30x30 Target - The Forgotten Bit

In my previous post, I talked about the recent signing of the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, and tried to describe the treaty in its entirety. Now it’s time to look at some of the details – and how we implement the treaty.

That’s where the devil lies.

The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework

In December 2022, Montreal, Canada, was the setting for the 15th Conference of Parties (COP 15) of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Presided over by China but held in Montreal (hence the name), the nations of the world finally agreed a package of measures to address what many scientists consider to be the dangerous loss of biodiversity that we are living through, not to mention the associated ecosystem services that biodiversity bestows upon society that we could not live without. Some even call it the “sixth great extinction” – the last one being 65.5 million years ago that saw the end of the dinosaurs…and nothing was ever the same again.

The vision of the framework is a world of living in harmony with nature where:

“By 2050, biodiversity is valued, conserved, restored and wisely used, maintaining ecosystem services, sustaining a healthy planet and delivering benefits essential for all people.”

The mission of the framework for the period up to 2030, towards the 2050 vision is: To take urgent action to halt and reverse biodiversity loss to put nature on a path to recovery for the benefit of people and planet by conserving and sustainably using biodiversity, and ensuring the fair and equitable sharing of benefits from the use of genetic resources while providing the necessary means of implementation.

Profound words. But what do they mean in practice? The treaty has four goals and 23 targets, each of which will have indicators, means of verification, etc. But how do we go about implementing such a complex treaty – with topics ranging from protected area expansion through to financing mechanisms.

Let’s start with one target – perhaps the most divisive of them all – target 3, the so-called 30 by 30 target.

Target 3: 30x30

The first thing to note is…it’s long! In the original text, it runs to 8 lines…and it’s all one sentence! To simplify (and any errors in “interpretation” are mine alone), target 3 commits nations to:

• Ensure and enable that by 2030 at least 30 percent of terrestrial, inland water, and of coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services, are effectively conserved and managed.

This target has attracted international attention, with NGOs, civil society, academics and other institutions fiercely lobbying for the need to protect more of our natural areas, so as to conserve them in their native state and ensure we continue to benefit from those important ecosystem services. Such as food, clean water, climate regulation…

Just on the marine side, two global coalitions have formed to advocate for adopting this target:

• The High Ambition Coalition (HAC) for Nature and People is an intergovernmental group of more than 100 countries co-chaired by Costa Rica and France and by the United Kingdom as Ocean co-chair. Its central goal is to protect at least 30 percent of the world’s land and ocean by 2030 with the aim of halting the accelerating loss of species and protecting vital ecosystems that are the source of our economic security.

• The Global Ocean Alliance (GOA) is a 73-country strong alliance, led by the UK. It champions ambitious ocean action within the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). In particular, the GOA supports the target to protect at least 30% of the global ocean in Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and Other Effective area-based Conservation Measures (OECMs) by 2030. This is known as the ’30 by 30 target’.

Remind me…30% of what?

If you have read my earlier posts you will already know that for a time during negotiations of the GBF there was a lack of clarity on just what the target meant. The timescale is clear – by 2030.

But… 30% of what?

Which ecosystems? Did it mean 30% of a participating country’s EEZ? Or 30% of the global oceans?

The 30% is scientifically justifiable: there are plenty of studies out there that suggest that protecting 30% of a particular ecosystem (or set of ecosystems) in a certain geographical area is a good idea (I’m not going to reference them all here…that’s what Google is for). One might call it prudent – like farmers used to put aside one-third of their land; let’s set aside a third of our ecosystems to protect them from harm, so they continue to supply those ecosystem services.

Imagine a cluster of islands off the East coast of Peninsular Malaysia. There are coastal mangroves, intertidal and tidal seagrass meadows, and coral reefs; all in a defined geographical area. Collectively they support community food security and livelihoods, as well as jobs in tourism, coastal protection, and so on. What the science says is that it is prudent to protect one-third of each of those three ecosystems. Hence, 30%. 

What about the scope? 30% of what area, precisely?

In the end, it became clear that the intention of the target was to protect 30% of the global oceans, and that it is a “global ambition”, not a national target. Which is a good thing for Malaysia because as I have argued previously much of our EEZ doesn’t have much in the way of ecosystems, so how much protection should we afford those areas? Surely for a highly biodiverse country like Malaysia, with limited resources, the focus should be on the “areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services”.

And that’s how we arrived at our strategy to map the important coastal ecosystems and then identify which 30% we might want to protect, and then implement management systems to look after them.

30x30…the forgotten bit

And this is where – for me – we come to the crux of target 3. Because most people focus on the bit that talks about the area to protect – the 30%…and miss out on the incredibly important part of the target where it says “effectively conserved and managed...equitably governed…protected areas”. I’m paraphrasing, but that’s the gist of it.

Ah. There’s a thing in the conservation world called a “Paper Park” – the legislation is in place, the Park is accordingly recognised by the government, there’s a management agency…but somehow the protected area, or Park, isn’t managed well.

It exists purely on paper. And it is a problem throughout the world. Review the literature and one comes across all sorts of studies on this topic. I’m not saying all Parks are “Paper Parks”, I’m questioning whether we are achieving that important bit of the target: effectively and equitably managed and governed.

Establishing protected areas tends to be the preserve of national governments, or regional collaborations – or even international agreements. And, in most cases, governments are in charge of setting up their protected area estate.

So, it’s difficult for a small NGO like Reef Check Malaysia to talk about establishing Protected Areas ourselves – it’s just not realistic. But where organisations like us can make a difference is in helping to optimise how a Protected Area is managed.

Why?

Because we work with the communities living in these places and, I would be bold enough to suggest, perhaps understand their challenges and needs better than a bureaucratic organisation like a Protected Area management body – particularly if that body is geographically distant with limited local resources.

Full disclosure: we work closely with the managers of Malaysia’s Marine Parks (as they call MPAs here). In Peninsular Malaysia, that’s the Marine Parks Section of the Department of Fisheries; in the State of Sabah it’s Sabah Parks, and the Sarawak Forestry Corporation in the State of Sarawak.

We work with the communities living in the Protected Areas

We are also starting to work with management agencies at state level in Peninsular Malaysia (I know, it’s complicated!) including Terengganu, Johor and Perak. We have teams working on several islands – both inside and outside Marine Parks. This is not intended to be a criticism of those agencies – quite the opposite: given the size of the challenges they face; they’re doing a good job.

But…things could be better.

Every year we survey over 200 coral reef sites around Malaysia (reports are available on-line at www.reefcheck.org.my). Our data over the last few years show a gradual decline in reef health across Malaysia. Local impacts such as marine tourism, coastal development, pollution from sewage and other run-off are all damaging these critical ecosystems

So: this is a plea to strengthen the management of these important ecosystems. And more importantly – to recognise and involve an important stakeholder that has largely been side lined to date – the local communities on the islands. These so called “IPLCs” (Indigenous People and Local Communities) have been strongly recognised by the new treaty, and they are taking a more central role in management.

Next: how to make this actually happen!

Overview of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework

So that just happened, back before the holidays. After all the waiting, months – in fact, years – of delays, numerous rounds of meetings, political wrangling (and probably a bit of Machiavellian intrigue and plotting, thrown in for good measure too!!)…at the 11th hour, on the 19th December 2022, the world’s nations finally signed a new treaty to protect and conserve biodiversity for the period 2021-2030.

Now that the dust has settled, and setting aside some suggestions that some nations were unhappy with certain aspects of how the conference was managed and targets were pushed through, I think it appropriate to look at the treaty in its entirety – and in context, to assess what it means for biodiversity in general and Malaysia in particular.

Biodiversity is important to our survival

Say what?

I sometimes get the feeling that many people have the view that “biodiversity” is the preserve of brainiac scientists in white lab coats. Admittedly, for some people it’s a difficult concept to get your head around – I mean, look at the definition of biodiversity:

…the variety of plant and animal life in the world or in a particular habitat, a high level of which is usually considered to be important and desirable.

Wow. Exciting, not. Doesn’t exactly spark a strong emotional reaction – not in the way that, say,  “Save The Tigers” might.

Let’s try again:

Biodiversity is essential for the processes that support all life on Earth, including humans. Without a wide range of animals, plants and microorganisms, we cannot have the healthy ecosystems that we rely on to provide us with the air we breathe and the food we eat. And people also value nature of itself.

Better?

Let’s put it this way: whether we really understand it or not, biodiversity – the very diversity of life on earth – is important to our survival, and we need to get better at protecting it.

So…what’s going wrong?

I’ve used the analogy before, but…Conservation researchers Paul R. and Anne Ehrlich posited in the 1980s that species are to ecosystems what rivets are to a plane’s wing. Losing one might not be a disaster, but each loss adds to the likelihood of a serious problem.

The Living Planet Index looks at over 38,000 populations of more than 5,200 animal species across the globe. In the most comprehensive index to date, tracking the health of nature over 50 years, the data show an average of 69% decline in wildlife populations around the world between 1970 and 2018.

Source: Living Planet Index (https://www.livingplanetindex.org/latest_results)

Quite a lot of rivets going missing…

How important is this treaty?

Conservation International lists 5 reasons why biodiversity is important:

1.       Wildlife support the healthy ecosystems that we rely on.

2.       Keeping biodiverse ecosystems intact helps humans stay healthy.

3.       Biodiversity is an essential part of the solution to climate change.

4.       Biodiversity is good for the economy.

5.       Biodiversity is an integral part of culture and identity.

Could it be any clearer?

Given current rates of biodiversity loss – this treaty is critical. Setting aside delays caused by the Covid pandemic, the post 2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) is intended to pick up from where the previous treaty left off.

The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 was adopted in October 2010 by the 10th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP 10) to the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD). The Aichi Biodiversity Targets (named after the Japanese prefecture hosting the meeting) were part of that treaty and represented an earlier effort to set meaningful targets for biodiversity conservation, ranging from protected areas, through local impacts to biodiversity and on to funding mechanisms.

While most of the targets were not achieved, progress was made in all areas. The Post 2020 Global Biodiversity Framework aims to build on the earlier targets.

The Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework – key points

The framework has four over-arching global goals

1. Maintaining the integrity and connectivity of ecosystems while reducing extinctions and safeguarding genetic diversity

2. Sustainably using, managing and restoring biodiversity and nature’s contribution to people, to support sustainable development by 2050

3. Ensuring the equitable sharing of the benefits of genetic resources, including protecting traditional knowledge

4. Making available adequate resources to implement the goals including finance, capacity building, technical and scientific cooperation and technology.

The specific targets cover a wide range of topics, including:

-          Area-based targets for protecting and restoring ecosystems

-          Reducing biodiversity loss

-          Addressing human impacts such as food waste, pollution and alien invasive species

-          Phasing out harmful subsidies

-          Mobilising capital and increasing financial flows.

Two themes emerged from the negotiations and the eventual treaty that I find particularly encouraging:

-          A greatly increased role in conservation for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs).

We have long advocated for local communities to be more engaged in marine conservation here in Malaysia; the treaty and its various clauses puts IPLCs front and centre in the fight to conserve biodiversity, which is where they should be.

To IPLCs front and centre in the fight to conserve biodiversity

-          Also where they should be – the private sector.

For the first time, companies (specifically large and transnational companies) are required to identify their impacts on biodiversity. Hopefully this will generate momentum similar to that we have seen with companies taking action to reduce their climate exposure. Biodiversity’s next!!

But…

We have a treaty. But…it needs to be implemented.

There is a lack of clarity with some of the targets (30% of what?) that needs to be determined at national level by national agencies. We don’t have all the data we need. There are challenges ahead.

But for sure, we now have something of a roadmap. We look forward to working with local stakeholders to put detail onto that roadmap and making progress.

Malaysia is recognised as one of the 12 “mega-biodiverse countries” in the world. We need to protect our natural capital. Maybe this sounds like hyperbole…but it’s our future we are protecting.

How? I will look at what RCM considers some of the more important targets for marine conservation over the coming weeks and months.

The Post 2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) – Where Are We?

Those of you following the news on biodiversity will already be aware of the snail’s pace progress of negotiations for a new Post 2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF). Meetings in Geneva, Switzerland in March achieved little except to make the situation more complex.

A special session of the working groups was hastily arranged and was held in Nairobi, Kenya just two weeks ago (21-26 June).

But sadly progress remains slow.

From what I have heard, it is coming down to arguing about words – and that is never going to work. Different languages interpret a given word in different ways; so when you end up in an argument about whether the word “protected” or “conserved” should be used, just imagine translating those English words into the native language of the hundred-plus nations involved in the negotiation. And think about how those words will be interpreted in a local context and culture.

You can see the problem.

As my friend Richard is keen to relate, some Western nations are adopting the practice of defining their personal pronouns on things like LinkedIn profiles. Nothing wrong with that. But when you bring that mindset into a region that doesn’t really use personal pronouns…can you see the potential for confusion?

And I think that’s what is happening.

One target seems to be attracting more attention than some of the others. That’s target 3, the so-called “30x30 target”. It calls for protecting (or conserving?) 30% of the world’s land and marine areas (I’m paraphrasing!).

The original target was three lines of text long; it ended up about 20 lines long at the end of the Geneva meetings because so many nations intervened and wanted their own little spin put on it.

Not good

It seems as though the negotiation process has lost sight of its goal: a treaty that can drive biodiversity conservation over the next decade. This is something we are increasingly told is crucial, to avoid further mass extinctions.

I’m not going to get into the details of that, but if – as I am told – the talks are now arguing terminology – do we use the word “oceans” or the word “seas”? – then clearly something is wrong.

The talks are now arguing terminology – do we use the word “oceans” or the word “seas”?

That’s why we are suggesting a different approach to marine conservation in Malaysia. And this will work for other countries, too.

Our proposal has two broad parts:

- First, acknowledge the validity of the target of 30% of land and marine areas in protected areas.

This 30% is scientifically sound there’s plenty of published research suggesting that we should protect at least 30% of our various ecosystems – and some papers suggest it should be more. So as a global aspiration, let’s agree that protecting 30% of …well, pretty much everything, is a good thing.

Let’s just stop having that fight – it’s sucking up energy that is needed elsewhere.

- Second, make a clear statement about what Malaysia (or any other country) will do to contribute to this target being achieved.

We can’t do it on our own, obviously; and different nations have different abilities, needs, capacities…not to mention areas of land and sea. So each has to proceed unto his own.

We recommend a three-stage process:

o 2022-2024: develop a comprehensive map of key marine biodiversity areas

o 2024-2025: identify important areas for protection equivalent to 30% of the total

o 2025-2030: put in place a management system that effectively conserves (or protects) these areas.

Let’s agree that protecting 30% of everything is a good thing.

Why does this work? For two reasons.

First – it is locally appropriate. A good argument can be made that much of Malaysia’s EEZ does not really need much protection because there is not much habitat there. Yes, fisheries need to be managed; but protected areas for habitat conservation? Not so clear.

Secondly – it is achievable. Finding out the important habitats that support livelihoods and food security; then protecting a scientifically valid 30% of those – what’s not to like? These areas will largely be coastal, so easily accessible; and they will have local stakeholders with a vested interest in looking after them, so natural stewards to strengthen management agencies.

Perhaps it’s time for the negotiation process to take a step back and develop a clearer view. At the moment, they don’t seem to be able to see the forest for all the trees in the way.