"The first multi-stakeholder expert meeting on elaboration of options for synergies among biodiversity-related Multilateral Environmental Agreements"

Interlaken, Switzerland, 26-28 August 2014

"The first multi-stakeholder expert meeting on elaboration of options for synergies among biodiversity-related Multilateral Environmental Agreements"

Interlaken, Switzerland, 26-28 August 2014

Meeting report

Background and objectives of meeting

Over the past decades, a numberof biodiversity-related MEAs have been adopted, which can be difficult at times to implement in a coherent manner at national and international levels. As a result, there have been calls by MEA governing bodies as well as the UNEP Governing Council to explore possible synergies between such MEAs, with the specific aim of making their implementation more coherent, efficient and effective. This call was also reiterated by the Rio+20 Conference in paragraph 89 of its outcome document “The Future We Want”..“We recognize the significant contributions to sustainable development made by the multilateral environmental agreements. We acknowledge the work already undertaken to enhance synergies among the three Conventions in the chemicals and waste cluster [the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions]. We encourage parties to multilateral environmental agreements to consider further measures, in these and other clusters, as appropriate, to promote policy coherence at all relevant levels, improve efficiency, reduce unnecessary overlap and duplication, and enhance coordination and cooperation among MEAs, including the three Rio conventions, as well as with the United Nations system in the field”.

Prior to Rio+20, the Governing Council of UNEP, in paragraphs 2 to 3 of Decision SS.XII/3 on International Environmental Governance (February 2012) instructed the UNEP Secretariat to undertake “activities to improve the effectiveness of and cooperation among multilateral environmental agreements, taking into account the autonomous decision-making authority of the conferences of the parties” and “explore the opportunities for further synergies in the administrative functions of the multilateral environmental agreement secretariats administered by the United Nations Environment Programme and to provide advice on such opportunities to the governing bodies of those multilateral environmental agreements”.

In the biodiversity cluster of MEAs[1] there have already been significant efforts and initiatives aimed at improving their strategic alignment, not least the steps taken by MEA governing bodies to align their respective strategies with the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020. Other examples include the Biodiversity Liaison Group (BLG), the InforMEA portal, the group of the Chairs of Scientific Subsidiary Bodies and a number of MOUs and joint programmes of work. However there are still opportunities for building on this.

The UNEP project “Improvingthe effectiveness of and cooperation among biodiversity-related conventions and exploring opportunities for further synergies” aims to address the above-mentioned mandate from the UNEP Governing Council, and may also help States address the decisions on related issues by the Conferences of the Parties (COPs) to the biodiversity-related MEAs. It will explore options for further synergies at all levels of the major biodiversity-related MEAs, with a view to identifying options for making additional improvements in efficient and effective implementation of the MEAs through enhanced collaboration and cooperation.The ultimate output of this project will be a set of recommendations for the UNEP Executive Director to present to the second session of the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) in 2016, responding directly to the UNEP Governing Council decision above. Based on the outcomes of this expert "Interlaken meeting", a paper outlining draft options for enhanced collaboration and coordination at the global level across the biodiversity-related MEAs will be made available for comment and stakeholder review, providing the basis for discussion at a second expert meeting in the first half of 2015.

According to the workshop agenda the main objectives of this expert meeting were to

  • Review current experience and views relating to building synergies among biodiversity-related MEAs and
  • Identify and explore further some of the most appropriate options for further building such synergies and the next steps to build on these options.

The workshop was held under the Chatham House Rule; therefore opinions expressed at the workshop are not attributed to individual participants.

Day One- Tuesday 26th August

Objective: To review current experiences of past synergies and cooperation and to have an initial discussion on options for enhanced global synergies and cooperation for biodiversity MEAs.

1.Introduction and welcome remarks

After the opening of the meeting by UNEP DELC, a warm welcome to participants was expressedby UNEP DELC, the host government, Switzerland and the European Union.

In opening remarks, it was recalled that over the past decades countries have successfully negotiated a high number of biodiversity-relatedconventions and agreements. The differing obligations under these instruments haveposed significant challenges at times for their coherent and effective implementation. Countries have expressed concerns aboutthe number of obligations, overloaded meetingand working agendas, the possible duplication of tasks emanating from different government bodies, burdensome reporting procedures and compliance and enforcement challenges.Despite these concerns, it was suggested that “all is not lost” yet. Any problematic trends in administrative burden and potentially overlapping tasks can be reversed and relevant aspects of international environmental governance can be reformed. The UN Decade on Biodiversity 2011-2020 was seen a unique opportunity to achieve this.

It was recalled that the UNEP project as well as this expert meeting are a direct response to a call by the UNEP Governing Counciland could also help the governing bodies of different MEAs to further foster synergies at global as well as regional and national levels.

The view was expressed that a lot has already been achieved but that, now that a lot of knowledge has been generated and exchanged, it is necessary to go a step further and to give these discussions and processes a further boost.

The host government Switzerland was thanked for choosing the beautiful venue in the city of Interlaken and expressed thanks to UNEP for convening the workshop as well as to the two other funders- EU and Finland. They expressed expectations that the meeting would achieve a good outcome and an inspiring set of options for enhancing synergies among biodiversity-related MEAs.

2.After the welcomingremarks the two chairs of the meeting were introduced.

The co-chairs also extended their deep thanks to the EU and the Swiss government for supporting the organization of the workshop and to UNEP for the high quality background documents prepared. The review of the synergies debate provided in these documents demonstrated that, not only is this a good and important time to further existing biodiversity synergies, but that a lot of ideas have already been discussed and that the building blocks to carry this further are already there.

The co-chairs elaborated on the objective of the meeting, to identify and explore some of the most promising and credible options, inviting governments to take action - not simply to put nice words on paper- but to help to reduce possible redundancies and to increase the effective use of resources and thereby to enhance the effective implementation of the biodiversity-related conventions on the ground. Recalling the Strategic Plan, its Achi Biodiversity Targets and the goals set for the 2020 vision, the co-chairs called upon participants to work towards the upcoming CBD COP 12 and CMS COP11, where the outcome of the workshop couldhelp inform relevant discussions.

3.Tour de table

Theparticipants of the workshop introduced themselves and briefly outlined their expectations from the meeting.

Participants were generally in agreement that it was a good and important time to move the debate further and thus to convene the expert meeting. It was felt that, even though the issue has been discussed for over a decade, the debate now seems more focused. This was attributed to the positive examples of coordination and collaboration already taking place, including the work of the Biodiversity Liaison Group (BLG) as well as the successful adoption and endorsement across conventions of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020.

Participants praised the high quality of the background documents- they were generally seen as a good reminder of what had already happened, including past workshops on the topic. Participants hoped this meeting would have an impact in feeding current processes at the global level and by coming up with “something to sell to ministers and decision makers”. Participants hoped to develop some realistic and pragmatic options that would result in real gains for the effective implementation of the biodiversity-related conventionsby further enhancing coordination and collaboration among them.

Participants were looking forward to hearingabout the synergies experience within the chemicals and waste cluster and discussingthe lessons learnt.

It was stressed that efforts to enhance synergies at the global level should always be seen as a "means to an end", namely supporting the coherent implementation of the biodiversity-related conventions at the national level.

Lastly, participants also highlighted the current SDG process as a good opportunity for fostering synergies among the biodiversity-related conventions that has not yet been fully explored.

4.Context and orientation of the meeting

The project team presented the UNEP project on “Improving the effectiveness of and cooperation among biodiversity-related conventions and exploring opportunities for further synergies”, briefly explaining the 4different work packages as well as their interlinkages.

  • Work package 1 addresses synergies at the global level. The final output of the project will be a draft paper containing recommendations that the Executive Director of UNEP will present to the next UNEA in 2016. The paper will draw upon two expert meetings – thecurrent expert meeting in Interlaken as well as a second expert meeting in the first half of 2015 – and comprehensive engagement with key stakeholders in between those meetings.
  • Work packages 2 and 3 address synergies at the national and regional level. Work package 3 is funded by the Swiss government, and has a specific focus on resource mobilization. The final output of the two work packages will be a sourcebook of opportunities for enhancing cooperation and collaboration among the biodiversity-related conventions. Building on a national-level questionnaire, a workshop held prior to CBD WGRI-5 in June 2014 in Montreal, Canada as well as engagement with key national stakeholders and experts, the sourcebook is currently being developed and a draft sourcebook will be presented at a half-day workshop in the margins of CBD COP 12 for discussion and final peer review. The sourcebook was described as a “start” and no quick win and therefore as a tool that will need to be further elaborated on.
  • Work package 4 includes further support to States through support to NBSAPs and the NBSAP forum, and includes the communication and dissemination of the sourcebook. The intention is to develop an interactive tool from the sourcebook following its finalization after CBD COP 12, ensuring that the sourcebook stays a living document which further fosters exchange of experience between countries and regions.

The project team highlighted their intention to utilize upcoming processes for further outreach, including forthcoming Conferences of Parties (COPs). The project team expressed their thanks to the two rapporteurs of the meeting.

5.Keynote Presentation 1: How can we build on experiences from existing efforts to enhance collaboration across biodiversity-related MEAs

Starting with the Nordic Symposium held in 2010, a brief overview of efforts to enhance collaboration across biodiversity-related conventions was provided. In this context, the UNEP-WCMC 2012 publication on “Promoting synergies within the cluster of biodiversity-related multilateral environmental agreements” and its recommendations were highlighted as still current and useful.

Briefly outlining the context, the year 2010 was described as an alarm bell and the response- theStrategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and the post-2015 agenda-were mentioned as a great opportunity to further advance the synergies agenda. The speaker also highlighted that a lack of capacity is often named as a reason for the lack of action, whereby in fact the reverse is true: because of the lack of capacity, collaboration and synergies become even more important.

Four key areas were identified for enhancing collaboration across the biodiversity-related conventions:

  1. The Science-Policy interface
  2. The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity
  3. Capacity development and
  4. National reporting

With regard to the science-policy interface, the important role of the scientific advisory bodies of the six biodiversity-related conventions, the Biodiversity Indicator Partnership (BIP) and IPBES were highlighted as great opportunities for continuing work on synergies. On IPBES, the importance of joint convention mandates was highlighted. There was a need for alignment of indicator development.

With regard to the ongoing NBSAP revision processes and NBSAP implementation, the GEF-6 Biodiversity Strategy was highlighted as an important achievement, providing funding opportunities for synergies among the biodiversity-related conventions.The important support role of the UNEP regional focal points for biodiversity-related MEAs was acknowledged and it was thought that the developing sourcebook of opportunities for enhancing cooperation among biodiversity-related conventions at the national and regional level would prove very helpful.Lastly, the creation of an improved biodiversity calendar was suggested.

With regard to capacity developmentit was acknowledged that a wide range of capacity development initiatives exist and that there is a need to streamline activities. The important role of IPBES in capacity development was stressed, and it was questioned how much the Clearing House Mechanism might be able to foster synergies.

On national reporting, it was pointed out that reporting is often the only compliance mechanism available. Nevertheless, and in particular with regard to reporting to the CBD, there is a widely acknowledged frustration about the amount of work that goes into a report because of the lack of feedback received by countries. Serious discussions about reporting are deemed highly necessary.

On a last note, it was acknowledged that a lot is already going on to enhance the coherent implementation of the conventions and the BLG plays an important role in that regard. At the same time it was highlighted that governments are not informed in a timely manner about the BLG’s work program and meetings.

Discussion

In the discussion that followed the following points were raised amongst others:

  • Appreciation of the key practical issues outlined in the presentation
  • Support for the four key areasidentified for enhancing synergies among the biodiversity-related conventions
  • Importance of IPBES and the corresponding emerging options for MEA Secretariats to streamline their interaction with the Multidisciplinary Expert Panel
  • Need for strong cooperation frameworks with UNEP regional focal points for biodiversity-related MEAs- this could ensure that national level processes feed into regional and sub-regional processes
  • All biodiversity-related conventions should foster and support national-level processes to respond to the Aichi Targets and in particular the identification of national targets and indicators.
  • All biodiversity-related conventions should identify strategic entry points to establish tools for mainstreaming
  • Recalling the failure to reach the 2010 biodiversity target, the importance of raising sufficient financial resources as well as proper communication was highlighted
  • Fostering the sharing of best practices will be important in order to build upon the new momentum.
  • Responses eventually need to beat the country level in order to ensure coherent and effective implementation

6.Key note presentation 2: What can we learn from the experience of the Chemicals and Waste cluster of MEAs?

The speaker gave a compelling account of efforts to enhance collaboration among the three conventions of the chemicals and waste cluster (the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions).

Participants heard that the process to enhance synergies across these conventionswas launched " top-town" by the Secretariats. However, the parties took over and it became a country driven process- through an Ad Hoc Joint Working Group on Enhancing Cooperation. This had three co-chairs, each representing one of the three conventions, and a group of 15 members from each convention.

As the guiding two questions that should be addressed in any “synergies-process” the following questions were presented to the workshop participants:

  1. Who should drive the synergies process, and
  2. What is the role of the Secretariats and their host organizations

With regard to the elements of a synergies process, the speaker pointed out that prioritization is the absolute key, because of the need to identify and communicate clear benefits. For the chemicals cluster, discussions focused very much on resource savings, with the aim of redirecting the resources saved towards national implementation. In that regard the aim was to achieve access to GEF funding for all conventions and not just one. Administrative synergies were also a high priority due to the fact that the three Secretariats were already housed in the same building. It was ensured, however, that the process did not encroach on the legal autonomy of the three conventions, the funding sources or the specific objectives of the three conventions. The often expressed fear was that, because of the fact that the process was donor-country-driven, all funding would go to synergies activities.

After outlining the processes as well as some of the challenges faced, the speaker moved on to outline the achievements[as well as what has remained status quo: