Faraway, So Close: A Legal Analysis of the Increasing Interactions between the Convention on Biological Diversity and Climate Change Law

Climate change refers to future fluctuations of temperature, precipitation, wind and alternative components of Earth’s climate system. Global climate change within the style of higher temperature, reduced downfall, and inflated downfall variability reduces crop yield and threatens food security in low financial gain and agriculture primarily based economies. Ethiopia is one of the most vulnerable countries experiencing drought and floods as a result of climate variability and change. The general objective of this review is to administer and summary on adaptation and mitigation measures initiative in Ethiopia in response to climate change. In Ethiopia the foremost vulnerable sectors to global climate change and variability are agriculture, road, water energy and health. Thus Mitigation and adaptation measures pursued to effectively address climate change. In Ethiopian farming communities have important indigenous knowledge, skills and technologies that are essential for tackling hazardous environmental conditions including climate variability and change. They employ a number of short- and long-term climate change mitigation and adaptation measures to cope with and overcome the impacts of climate variability and change. On the opposite hand, Ethiopia has shown both conservation and policy responses to combat climate change. Protected area systems, a forestation and reforestation programmes, renewable energy sources and energy efficiency, ecological agriculture, flexible livestock production, agro forestry systems, harvesting and climate change education, are all feasible strategies for mitigating and adapting climate change.

Post-2020 aspirations for biodiversity

The ecosystem approach—as endorsed by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CDB) in 2000—is a strategy for holistic, sustainable, and equitable natural resource management, to be implemented via the 12 Malawi Principles. These principles describe the need to manage nature in terms of dynamic ecosystems, while fully engaging with local peoples. It is an ambitious concept. Today, the term is common throughout the research and policy literature on environmental management. However, multiple meanings have been attached to the term, resulting in confusion. We reviewed references to the ecosystem approach from 1957 to 2012 and identified 3 primary uses: as an alternative to ecosystem management or ecosystem-based management; in reference to an integrated and equitable approach to resource management as per the CBD; and as a term signifying a focus on understanding and valuing ecosystem services. Although uses of this term and its variants may overlap in meaning, typically, they do not entirely reflect the ethos of the ecosystem approach as defined by the CBD. For example, there is presently an increasing emphasis on ecosystem services, but focusing on these alone does not promote decentralization of management or use of all forms of knowledge, both of which are integral to the CBD’s concept. We highlight that the Malawi Principles are at risk of being forgotten. To better understand these principles, more effort to implement them is required. Such efforts should be evaluated, ideally with comparative approaches, before allowing the CBD’s concept of holistic and socially engaged management to be abandoned or superseded. It is possible that attempts to implement all 12 principles together will face many challenges, but they may also offer a unique way to promote holistic and equitable governance of natural resources. Therefore, we believe that the CBD’s concept of the ecosystem approach demands more attention.La Necesidad de Desenredar Conceptos Clave del Argot Ambiente-EstrategiaResumenLa estrategia ambiental – como es promocionada por la Convención Biológica sobre Diversidad en 2000 – es una estrategia para un manejo holístico, sustentable y equitativo de recursos naturales, que habrá de implementarse por vía de los 12 Principios de Malawi. Estos principios describen la necesidad de manejar la naturaleza en términos de ecosistemas dinámicos, mientras se compromete totalmente con las personas locales. Es un concepto ambicioso. Hoy en día, el término es común en la investigación y la literatura de políticas sobre el manejo ambiente. Sin embargo, se han relacionado múltiples significados con el término, lo que resulta en confusión. Revisamos referencias a la estrategia ambiental de 1957 a 2012 e identificamos tres usos principales: como una alternativa para manejo ambiental o basado en ecosistemas; en referencia a una estrategia integrada y equitativa para el manejo de recursos según la CBD; y como un término que indica un enfoque en el entendimiento y la valuación de los servicios ambientales. Aunque los usos de este término y sus variantes pueden traslaparse en su significado, típicamente no reflejan en su totalidad los valores de la estrategia ambiental como fue definida por la CBD. Por ejemplo, actualmente hay un énfasis creciente en los servicios ambientales, pero enfocarse solamente en estos no promueve la descentralización del manejo o el uso de todas las formas de conocimiento, siendo ambas integrales para el concepto de la CBD. Resaltamos que los Principios de Malawi están en riesgo de ser olvidados. Para entender mejor estos principios, se requiere de más esfuerzo para implementarlos. Dichos esfuerzos deben ser evaluados, idóneamente con estrategias comparativas, antes de permitir que el concepto de la CBD de manejo holístico y comprometido socialmente sea abandonado o reemplazado. Es posible que los intentos por implementar los 12 principios juntos enfrentarán muchos obstáculos, pero también pueden ofrecer una forma única de promover el gobierno holístico y equitativo de los recursos naturales. Así, creemos que el concepto de estrategia ambiental de la CBD exige mayor atención.

By way of introduction, this chapter briefly illustrates the effects of climate change on biological diversity in the Arctic, taking into account the findings of the Biodiversity Working Group of the Arctic Council (CAFF). Focusing on the Arctic’s particular vulnerability, the chapter raises the question whether and how the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is able to address the interface between climate change and biodiversity. On the basis of a textual analysis of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Kyoto Protocol and the CBD, the author demonstrates that the CBD has recognised the “biodiversity – climate change” interface much better than the other two agreements have done. The chapter goes on to explain some of the steps taken by the CBD’s organisational backbone towards further developing this interface. Eventually, the chapter concludes that the CBD is not in a position to strongly contribute to mitigation efforts under the UNFCCC. Rather, the CBD regime will have to develop instruments strengthening the adaptive capacity of the Arctic. Supporting the role of secretariats in improving coordination between the CBD and the UNFCCC, the author finally argues in favour of a coherent management of environmental regimes in the Arctic.

The objective and scope of this paper are to present how an Oil&Gas Company (the Company) has furthered its biodiversity ambition by joining the Act4Nature initiative. This initiative is led by a French multi-sectorial and CEO lead industry association called Enterprises for the Environment (Entreprises pour l'Environnement, EPE). In 2017, EPE's biodiversity commission launched the Act4Nature initiative, which offers a ‘frame of reference’ for a biodiversity ambition through a combined generic and specific set of biodiversity commitments for businesses. One of the key aims of Act4Nature, is to provide a contribution towards the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) efforts to combat global biodiversity loss. The 2018-2020 period are important years for global biodiversity strategic protection efforts as the CBD has set itself the short-term goal of developing a post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), building on its 2010-2020 Targets (said the "Aichi" targets) and as a stepping-stone towards its 2050 Vision Living in Harmony with Nature. However, the CBD has indicated that the Aichi targets will likely not be met in their entirety. This was echoed by the United Nation Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) 2019 report indicating that global biodiversity loss is occurring at unprecedented levels. In this context, the need for voluntary Business biodiversity commitments is even more pressing, relevant and expected from stakeholders. Importantly, the CBD recognises the important role of business, including oil and gas, in combating biodiversity loss. In terms of methods, the Act4Nature biodiversity commitments were developed through an intense nine months stakeholder engagement process, involving Company staff, EPE members and partners, which included Biodiversity Foundations, NGO and key French governmental authorities responsible for biodiversity. The Act4Nature initiative includes 10 key common, generic and aspirational, commitments that were developed through a consensus-based approach of EPE members, including the Company. These members represent very diverse business activities, including utilities, agro-food industry, luxury apparel, glass products, energy, automotive etc., which poses an understandable challenge for reaching a consensus. In addition, to the common commitments each member company was requested to submit company specific commitments. The Company provided six such commitments, both operational and aspirational, some of which existed before the initiative. The opportunity arose, as part of the Company's engagement contributions, to mainstream the Ipieca-IOGP Biodiversity & Ecosystem Services (BES) Fundamental Management Practices in the Act4Nature common commitments. Thus, this allowed for alignment with the O&G industry's biodiversity & ecosystem services fundamental practices concerning biodiversity governance, stakeholder engagement, baselines, impact assessment, the Mitigation Hierarchy and reporting. In parallel to this external engagement process, the Company conducted an impact analysis of the commitments on its business strategy and governance during which the Company CEO was fully engaged. The impact analysis ensured the feasibility of this new ambition whilst offering the Company the opportunity to further its biodiversity related management to additional domains such as the supply chain, nature-based solutions and climate change impacts to biodiversity. The paper provides some early examples of operational implications, both challenges and benefits, deriving from the implementation of these commitments at business segment and site level, to move away from the business as usual scenario. In terms of outcomes and results, the Company's CEO adhered to the Act4Nature initiative on the 10th of July 2018, accelerating biodiversity good practices mainstreaming across the Company, improved integration of biodiversity into the Group's environmental road map and upgrading of its dedicated biodiversity action plan. The new biodiversity aspiration allows reducing biodiversity related risks and increasing benefits, improving employee and external stakeholder perception and improve opportunities such as attracting new partners. The Group may also benefit from differentiating itself from its competitors and improving its business opportunities whilst creating shared value for Society as a whole. This paper is providing guidance and return on experience on developing public biodiversity commitments for Oil &Gas Companies.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Ecological restoration, when implemented effectively and sustainably, contributes to protecting biodiversity; improving human health and wellbeing; increasing food and water security; delivering goods, services, and economic prosperity; and supporting climate change mitigation, resilience, and adaptation. It is a solutions-based approach that engages communities, scientists, policymakers, and land managers to repair ecological damage and rebuild a healthier relationship between people and the rest of nature. When combined with conservation and sustainable use, ecological restoration is the link needed to move local, regional, and global environmental conditions from a state of continued degradation, to one of net positive improvement. The second edition of the International Principles and Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration (the Standards) presents a robust framework for restoration projects to achieve intended goals, while addressing challenges including effective design and implementation, accounting for complex ecosystem dynamics (especially in the context of climate change), and navigating trade-offs associated with land management priorities and decisions. The Standards establish eight principles that underpin ecological restoration. Principles 1 and 2 articulate important foundations that guide ecological restoration: effectively engaging a wide range of stakeholders, and fully utilizing available scientific, traditional, and local knowledge, respectively. Principles 3 and 4 summarize the central approach to ecological restoration, by highlighting ecologically appropriate reference ecosystems as the target of restoration and clarifying the imperative for restoration activities to support ecosystem recovery processes. Principle 5 underscores the use of measurable indicators to assess progress toward restoration objectives. Principle 6 lays out the mandate for ecological restoration to seek the highest attainable recovery. Tools are provided to identify the levels of recovery aspired to and to track progress. Principle 7 highlights the importance of restoration at large spatial scales for cumulative gains. Finally, ecological restoration is one of several approaches that address damage to ecosystems and Principle 8 clarifies its relationships to allied approaches on a “Restorative Continuum”. The Standards highlight the role of ecological restoration in connecting social, community, productivity, and sustainability goals. The Standards also provide recommended performance measures for restorative activities for industries, communities, and governments to consider. In addition, the Standards enhance the list of practices and actions that guide practitioners in planning, implementation, and monitoring activities. The leading practices and guidance include discussion on appropriate approaches to site assessment and identification of reference ecosystems, different restoration approaches including natural regeneration, consideration of genetic diversity under climate change, and the role of ecological restoration in global restoration initiatives. This edition also includes an expanded glossary of restoration terminology. SER and its international partners produced the Standards for adoption by communities, industries, governments, educators, and land managers to improve ecological restoration practice across all sectors and in all ecosystems, terrestrial and aquatic. The Standards support development of ecological restoration plans, contracts, consent conditions, and monitoring and auditing criteria. Generic in nature, the Standards framework can be adapted to particular ecosystems, biomes, or landscapes; individual countries; or traditional cultures. The Standards are aspirational and provide tools that are intended to improve outcomes, promote best practices, and deliver net global environmental and social benefits. As the world enters the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration (2021–2030), the Standards provide a blueprint for ensuring ecological restoration achieves its full potential in delivering social and environmental equity and, ultimately, economic benefits and outcomes.

A chapter on the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) fits perfectly in an edited volume dedicated to multilateral institutions. Indeed, the CBD is not an international organization, if one defines international organizations strictly as demonstrating autonomy and permanence. It rather follows the definition of an international regime, organized around a core framework convention. More precisely, the CBD was adopted during the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio, as the sister convention to the climate convention (see Chapter 13, this volume). While the CBD is not, strictly speaking, an international organization, it presents at least three features that are of particular interest and places the CBD in the category of noteworthy multilateral institutions. Firstly, while in theory just a treaty, the CBD has gained autonomy over time, with a small but active secretariat based in Montreal (and consequently distant from UNEP headquarters) described as a “lean shark” (Siebenhuner, 2009). Secondly, the CBD is one of the most dynamic global environmental treaties (with nearly universal membership, a notable exception being the United States), in contrast to the climate convention. Indeed, the CBD has deepened its work on biodiversity and regularly adopted new protocols, such as the Cartagena Protocol in 2000 or the Nagoya Protocol in 2010, one of the latest multilateral environmental agreements to have been adopted worldwide. Thirdly, the CBD demonstrates dynamism by also recently engaging in the estab-lishment of its own policy-science platform (following the model of the IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) that was created in April 2012 as the IPBES (Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services).

It has become increasingly inaccurate to refer to a “mismatch” between biodiversity law and climate change law,1 at least in as far as the Convention on Biological Diversity2 is concerned. The legal and policy implications of the impacts of climate change on biodiversity, as well as of mitigation and adaptation measures, have been progressively addressed by the CBD. This process experienced a steep acceleration at the tenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the CBD (COP 10, held from 18 to 29 October 2010, in Nagoya, Japan)3 that resulted in a host of

In November 2011, botanists on a remote island off Papua New Guinea discovered a new species of orchid—uniquely and mysteriously night-flowering [1]. New to science, and with so much more to understand, this flower is threatened by deforestation [2]. Also in November 2011, a survey of 583 conservation scientists reported a unanimous (99.5%) view that 'it is likely a serious loss of biological diversity is underway at a global extent' and that, for scientists, 'protection of biological diversity for its cultural and spiritual values and because of its usefulness to humans were low priorities, which suggests that many scientists do not fully support the utilitarian concept of ecosystem services' [3]. In terms of management, some scientists now advocate controversial conservation strategies such as triage (prioritization of species that provide unique or necessary functions to ecosystems) [4, 5].

2010 is the United Nation's International Year of Biodiversity (IYB). This is the year for biodiversity to be raised in the public conscience and to strengthen national and international policies to protect biodiversity....

This chapter argues that the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) has made in time, and against all odds, a significant conceptual and normative contribution on the linkage between human rights and the environment. In particular, the development of the legal concept of benefit-sharing has provided a solid and innovative bridge between international environmental law and human rights law, and has surpassed in conceptual sophistication parallel discussions within international human rights processes. The chapter develops this argument by looking at several areas of international law and policy where the CBD has contributed to strengthening the link between environment and human rights, namely: the substantive rights of indigenous peoples and local communities to genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge; the substantive rights of indigenous peoples and local communities concerned by conservation and sustainable use of biological resources; corporate accountability; and climate change. Keywords: biological resources; Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD); international environmental law; international human rights law; international policy

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) was an outcome of the ‘Earth Summit’ held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. In 2002 the Convention committed the European Union (EU) and (currently) 192 other countries ‘‘to achieve by 2010 a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss at the global, regional and national level’’ (Anonymous 2010). The EU set an even more ambitious target: ‘‘...to protect and restore habitats and natural systems and halt the loss of biodiversity by 2010...’’ (Anonymous 2001). In March 2010, Butterfly Conservation held its 6th International Symposium on the topic, ‘The 2010 Target and Beyond for Lepidoptera’, to assess progress towards the target, report advances in conservation science, and look to the future. This volume presents a collection of papers from that meeting. Evidence presented at the Symposium from across the world was bleak, with no evidence that the EU and CBD target had been met (Asher et al. 2011; Brereton et al. 2011; Caritg et al. 2011; Fox et al. 2011; Groenendijk and Ellis 2011; Lewis and Senior 2011; Nakamura 2011; Safian et al. 2011; Stefanescu et al. 2011). At the global scale the general trend for Lepidoptera is one of decline, and the overall trend for biodiversity is of a continuous and accelerating decline. In May 2010 the CBD published its overall assessment of progress towards the 2010 target and reported failure (Anonymous 2010). The 2002 CBD and EU targets were ambitious, and, despite not being met, they did manage to place conservation and biodiversity firmly on global and national political and development agendas and provided mechanisms for raising public awareness. Failure can be a powerful stimulus to renewed action, especially if the reasons for failure are identified. New CBD 2020 targets are now being formulated (Djoghlaf 2010) alongside a vision for 2050. Initial progress suggests there will be a much closer integration of biodiversity with climate change adaptation/mitigation, ecosystem services, human health and the economic benefits of biodiversity (Djoghlaf 2010). Papers in this collection examine some of the likely impacts of climate change on Lepidoptera (e.g. de Vries et al. 2011; Wilson and Maclean 2011). Whilst climate change is an issue and will become an even bigger issue in the future, biodiversity loss is already a problem and likely to become worse unless measures are taken now. For some Lepidoptera there is a real and imminent threat of local, regional and global extinction. For such species, urgent action is needed now and climate change is a distant threat. The papers here outline the issues, and some demonstrate how approaches based on sound conservation science can improve the status of species, both preventing imminent extinction and making populations more resilient to future climate change (e.g. Ellis et al. 2011; Porter and Ellis 2011). Meeting the new CBD targets, will require well researched solutions and this volume contains contributions to the challenges ahead under the broad headings of the Science of Conservation Management and Landscape-scale Conservation. Jeremy Thomas, for example, distills a lifetime of experience working with endangered species to identify key factors of importance in butterfly conservation J. W. Dover (&) Institute for Environment, Sustainability and Regeneration, Staffordshire University, College Road, Stoke-on-Trent ST4 2DE, UK e-mail: j.w.dover@staffs.ac.uk

Underprotected Marine Protected Areas in a Global Biodiversity Hotspot

Biological resources and associated traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples have long been exploited by multinational corporations for their profits with little or no acknowledgement of and compensation for them and it is called ‘ biopiracy ’. Not just their natural resources and associated knowledge but their own genetic information or genes in their bodies have also been the target of the scientists who are seeking to trace human history or cure disease by investigating human genes. Thus, to combat biopiracy, a number of international agreements such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) have been adopted and benefit sharing agreements between users and providers of the resources including indigenous peoples in some biopiracy cases have shown how benefits can be shared with indigenous peoples. However, in biomedical field while plenty of piracies of genetic information of indigenous peoples have happened, no international legal binding convention has been adopted and few benefit sharing agreements have been reported, which makes it difficult to protect their rights in a coherent manner. Thus, this paper would like to argue that a global convention in the biomedical field or the ‘Global Biomedical Convention’ which contains some provisions for the protection of the rights of indigenous peoples to their genetic information should be adopted and international biodiversity laws such as the CBD could provide some lessons in this regard . For instance, while the CBD (and Nagoya Protocol adopted under the Convention) ensures the rights of indigenous peoples to benefit sharing, few benefit sharing provisions have been provided in international biomedical laws. [1] In addition, as some biopiracy cases such as Hoodia case provide a good benefit sharing experience, such biopiracy cases could provide useful practical lessons for the protection of the rights of indigenous peoples to their genetic information. Therefore, this paper would like to suggest some key components of the provisions of the ‘Global Biomedical Convention’ regarding the protection of the rights of indigenous peoples to their genes especially focusing on their rights to prior informed consent and benefit sharing in respect of medical interventions or scientific research based on the analysis of some international biodiversity laws as well as some existing international biomedical laws. At the same time, an important biopiracy case, Hoodia case, will also be analyzed to show how indigenous peoples successfully fought against the exploitation of their natural resources because it could provide some practical lessons for the protection of the rights of indigenous peoples to their genetic information. [1] In this paper, although there are some international biodiversity and biomedical laws, this paper would like to focus on the CBD and its Nagoya Protocol for international biodiversity law and the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights , the Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights and, the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine for international biomedical law because they are the most comprehensive (and representative) international laws in each field.

The global climate and biodiversity crises are closely intertwined, yet no policy instrument currently tackles both jointly. This is problematic, as the lack of international platforms for designing coordinated and coherent policy frameworks that align targets across the nexus of biodiversity and climate change poses risks to nature and people. Here, we argue that the successful implementation of both the Paris Agreement and the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) requires a joint work programme between the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Such a joint work programme could fill the current global governance vacuum and address critical implementation gaps, while fostering innovation and synergies in climate and biodiversity action. Based on a review of existing work programmes under the UNFCCC and interagency and joint work programmes established with the CBD, we provide a concept of how this joint programme could be set up, ideas on the type of issues it should tackle and recommendations for successful implementation. Policy implications: The UNFCCC and CBD are unique platforms for providing the evidence to, and guiding the way through the changes we need, but higher levels of integration between the biodiversity and climate change agendas are needed to plug the implementation gap between the GBF and the Paris Agreement. The upcoming Conference of the Parties (COP) for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP29) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP16) present a clear policy window for the two conventions to introduce a formal governance structure, such as the one proposed in this contribution, that brings together ideas, people, organizations and processes necessary for joining the dots on how to both stabilize our climate and recover our nature.