Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 07:34:35 +0000
Subject: @IISDRS Summary & Analysis from #CMSCOP11
Eleventh meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP11) of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS)
3-9 November 2014 | Quito, Ecuador
The eleventh meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP11) of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS) met from 4-9 November 2014, in Quito, Ecuador. More than 900 participants attended the meeting.
During the week, COP11 adopted 35 resolutions, including on: the Asiatic lion that, inter alia, will work towards an Appendix II listing proposal to be presented at COP12; the Strategic Plan for Migratory Species 2015-2023; the Programme of Work on Climate Change and Migratory Species; the Central Asian Mammals Initiative; renewable energy and migratory species; enhancing the relationship between the CMS family and civil society; the Action Plan for Migratory Landbirds in the African-Eurasian Region; management of marine debris; the Single Species Action Plan for the Loggerhead Turtle in the South Pacific Ocean; fighting wildlife crime and offenses within and beyond borders; and enhancing synergies and common services among CMS family of instruments. After considering proposals submitted by parties to amend the appendices of the Convention, the COP decided to list 31 new species.
More than 27 side-events also took place, including on: CMS and CITES: Advancing the conservation of key species together; Renewable energy, powerlines and migratory species; Marine Debris – the cruel and silent killer; Preventing Poisoning: Time for Action; Central Asian Mammals Initiative: Saving the last Migrations; ICARUS – a new global satellite system to observe small animals; and Falconry and Conservation.
In closing the meeting, Ecuador Minister of Environment Lorena Tapia highlighted that COP11 participants "made borders disappear" by making firm decisions and commitments for action.
The Summary of this meeting is now available in PDF format
at http://www.iisd.ca/download/pdf/enb1859e.pdf and in HTML format at
http://www.iisd.ca/vol18/enb1859e.html
Like us on Facebook and Follow us on Twitter
A BRIEF ANALYSIS OF CMS COP11
"Time for action" was the motto of the eleventh meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Migratory Species, and parties responded accordingly. The record number of migratory species listing proposals at COP 11 (32 in total, with 31 adopted) points to an increasing commitment among CMS parties and signatories to address transboundary biodiversity loss. Parties also established the Central Asian Mammals Initiative (CAMI), which offers new models of cooperation among range states to protect migratory species. Other adopted resolutions at COP11 emphasize the benefits of exploring synergies, both internally and externally, such as the resolution on wildlife crime and the resolution on partnerships and synergies.
Nevertheless, all these actions and initiatives are ineffective without adequate implementation, and this is where the call for action faltered at COP11. CMS is one of the few multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) without a formal review process and compliance mechanism. The proposal at COP11 to establish an intersessional process and working group to investigate the modalities of such a mechanism and its establishment, however, met with what one participant called a "surprising" amount of debate, with a few parties digging in their heels and refusing to establish such a group.
This brief analysis reviews the CMS COP 11 discussions on synergies and species, with an eye to how these discussions will evolve in the future, and assesses the debate on a compliance and review mechanism.
SYNERGIES COP
At the beginning of COP11, some delegates highlighted the potential for this COP to become the "Synergies COP." The Strategic Plan 2006-2014 calls on the Secretariat to "enter into cooperative activities in pursuit of shared targets with relevant MEAs and key partners increased." It also urges enhancing effectiveness through reviewing and enhancing its own institutions. The Strategic Plan 2015-2023 extends this sentiment.
In carrying out the mandate of the Strategic Plan 2006-2014, both "internal" and "external" synergies have been pursued, to lesser or greater effect. Internally, there has been greater cooperation between agreements and instruments within the CMS family. Arising from Decision 10.9 (Future Structure and Strategies of the CMS and the CMS Family) and a proposal by the ninth meeting of the AEWA Standing Committee to merge common services between the two Secretariats, an analysis of the potential for merging common services was conducted. While some aspects of shared services between the two instruments have been piloted, namely communications and outreach, others, such as a joint Executive Secretary position, are still to be discussed at CMS COP12 as well as at the upcoming Ninth Meeting of the Parties to AEWA.
The discussions in the CMS COP11 drafting group on governance issues, established on the first day, reflected a concern that discussions on synergies should focus less on those within the CMS family and rather address synergies "on the ground," particularly in light of the importance of implementation. Some noted that achieving synergies at the implementation level is a lot harder than it seems. Others, however, pointed out that seeking synergies within the CMS family, including through the use of common services between the instruments, is an obvious "low-hanging fruit" to grab. This type of synergy is especially relevant in times where budgetary constraints are becoming an increasingly important issue.
The resolution on wildlife crime urges continued collaboration between CMS and CITES, which builds on the CMS-CITES Joint Work Programme 2015-2020, exemplifies an external synergy. As both conventions encourage the listing of animals, coordination between the two is critical to ensure that action under one convention is consistent with action under the other. The CITES Secretariat reminded delegates of this point frequently during the discussions on listing proposals, as some parties proposed CMS listings that were inconsistent with current CITES listings. For example, the Reef Manta Ray is listed under CMS Appendix I, which prohibits any taking of the animal or specimens. Under CITES, the Reef Manta Ray is listed under Appendix II, which allows specimens to be taken for research. These listings conflict, presenting parties with implementation challenges, and underscoring the importance of coordinating positions across relevant conventions to achieve greater effectiveness and coherence.
SPECIES AND SPECIES INITIATIVES
CMS COP11 was a watershed moment for species listings. Delegates easily reached agreement on an unprecedented amount of listing proposals, with 31 new species being listed in the CMS appendices. This achievement indicates an increased political willingness among parties to address species conservation.
CMS also agreed on the establishment of the Central Asian Mammals Initiative (CAMI). The CAMI offers insight into the potential synergies that can be achieved through close stakeholder collaboration, and also serves as an example of how single species action plans can be brought into the conversation. The Initiative has been developed to include 14 countries, eight of which are parties to the Convention, as a way for CMS to support efforts in those countries. It also addresses 15 species, 11 of which are CMS-listed species. More significantly, the Central Asia region initiated the CAMI, which sets a remarkable precedent as the first regionally-driven collaboration for species protection under CMS.
The development of the CAMI illustrates how parties can take steps to bring together all stakeholders and link single species action plans that are likely to benefit from more holistic management. In this case, countries in the region came together to address species conservation irrespective of their status as parties to the Convention. Another benefit of the Initiative is that it includes species not currently listed in the CMS appendices. This could further advance the potential of on-the-ground synergies that may otherwise be difficult to realize. Further, CAMI also provides for more cost-effective cross-border protection of species.
For any initiative to prove successful, much less become the model for future regional cooperation under the CMS, it needs buy-in from all stakeholders. As the stakeholders themselves agreed on the CAMI Programme of Work, it seems likely that action taken under the Initiative will benefit migratory species conservation in Central Asia.
COMPLIANCE
Many have recognized that MEAs are, in general, strengthened through having a review and compliance mechanism. While CMS has a national reporting mechanism, it lacks other aspects of a compliance mechanism, such as procedures to settle disputes and to consider and respond to parties' difficulties in implementation. The original draft resolution (UNEP/CMS/COP11/Doc.18.3) proposed establishing an intersessional process to consider approaches to such a mechanism and establish a working group to provide a draft review process for consideration at COP12.
Several participants expressed opposition to the establishment of the intersessional process. A few parties, members of the Secretariat and NGOs expressed surprise at the opposition; as some noted, a compliance mechanism is "not about punishment," but rather about identifying gaps in implementation and building capacity. Objections raised by parties primarily centered on resource concerns. Given that the budget debate focused on discussions of zero nominal growth versus zero real growth, it was not surprising that participants voiced concerns regarding resource constraints and additional burdens on the Secretariat. However, the consideration of establishing a mechanism and presenting a draft to COP12 would not have resulted in additional increases in parties' contributions. In addition, a few parties volunteered funding for exploring possible avenues for a review mechanism, potentially eliminating such concerns. One party, however, explained that its concerns did not stem solely from an unwillingness to commit any additional funding. Instead, the party concerned said it was unwilling to commit resources without seeing a clear breakdown of the cost of such a mechanism versus its potential benefits.
On Saturday night, before the last day of the COP, a coalition of NGOs circulated an email to all participants expressing their "extreme disappointment" in the potential and, in their view, likely, delay of establishing a review mechanism. They emphasized the detrimental effect it could have on the conservation of migratory species and urged parties to take more concrete action to establish a compliance mechanism.
The eventually agreed-on resolution (UNEP/CMS/COP11/CRP24) offers a less concrete and less effective way forward that places no obligation on parties and organizations to contribute to this intersessional process. Delegates reached a compromise that instructs the Secretariat to propose terms of reference for a working group to be considered for adoption at the 44th meeting of the CMS Standing Committee. It also asks the Standing Committee to review progress on this issue and report back to COP12. As one resigned party said, this compromise delays the establishment of a compliance mechanism as a draft review process by several years. If the Standing Committee does not present a draft at COP12, in three years' time, the mechanism's establishment will be delayed by at least six years.
TIME FOR ACTION?
Was it truly "time for action" at COP11? The answer is both yes and no. Three major aspects of COP11—species listings and initiatives, exploiting synergies and a potential compliance mechanism—sought to strengthen the Convention and support its unique position of dealing with migratory species conservation. CMS COP11 did strengthen implementation through the CAMI's establishment as well as through seeking potential synergies within the CMS family and with other conventions.
At the same time, the inability of parties to agree on a more defined intersessional process to establish a compliance mechanism calls into question their willingness to genuinely strengthen CMS, hinting that political will for migratory species' conservation and management may be weakening. For CMS to tackle the real and urgent threats facing migratory species, parties need to take additional steps and demonstrate their commitments, whether through agreement on a compliance mechanism, ensuring that decisions taken at CMS complement existing CITES listings (or, conversely, proposing complementary listings at the next CITES COP), or through regionally driven agreements such as the CAMI. Although "time for some action" might better summarize the spirit of CMS COP11, solid and promising foundations for progress were established in Ecuador, paving the way for synergies, regional cooperation and more action down the road.
This analysis, taken from the summary issue of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin © enb@iisd.org, is written and edited by Kate Harris, Kate Louw, Tanya Rosen, Asterios Tsioumanis, Ph.D., and Catherine Wahlén, Ph.D. The Digital Editor is Diego Noguera. The Editor is Pamela Chasek, Ph.D. <pam@iisd.org>. The Director of IISD Reporting Services is Langston James "Kimo" Goree VI <kimo@iisd.org>. The Sustaining Donors of the Bulletin are the European Commission (DG-ENV and DG-CLIMATE) and the Government of Switzerland (the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) and the Swiss Agency for Development Cooperation (SDC)). General Support for the Bulletin during 2014 is provided by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB), the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, SWAN International, the Finnish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, the Japanese Ministry of Environment (through the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies - IGES), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and the International Development Research Centre (IDRC). Specific funding for coverage of this meeting has been provided by the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN). Funding for translation of the Bulletin into French has been provided by the Government of France, Wallonia, Québec, and the International Organization of La Francophonie/Institute for Sustainable Development of La Francophonie (IOF/IFDD). The opinions expressed in the Bulletin are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of IISD or other donors. Excerpts from the Bulletin may be used in non-commercial publications with appropriate academic citation. For information on the Bulletin, including requests to provide reporting services, contact the Director of IISD Reporting Services at <kimo@iisd.org>, +1-646-536-7556 or 300 East 56th St., 11D, New York, NY 10022 USA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Langston James "Kimo" Goree VI
Vice President, Reporting Services and United Nations Liaison
International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) -- United Nations Office
300 E 56th St. Apt. 11D - New York, NY 10022 USA
Direct Line: +1 973 273 5860 Plaxo public business card: http://kimogoree.myplaxo.com
Email: kimo@iisd.org Mobile phone: +12128107701 Skype: kimogoree
Where: 13-14 November Nairobi, 15-16 Joburg, 17-18 Paris
Notice:This email and any attachments may contain information that is personal, confidential, legally privileged
and/or copyright. No part of it should be reproduced, adapted or communicated without the prior written consent of the author.
No comments:
Post a Comment