Press Conference: Close the Justice Gap: Youth Demands for Transformative and Equitable Biodiversity Implementation at COP17, UN Convention on Biodiversity

Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Roa. I'm part of the GIBN policy team and will be your moderator for today's press conference. So briefly about what will happen in the next one hour. This is a press conference organized by GIBN, the Global Use Biodiversity Network, bringing diverse use voices from all around the world to the international policy arena. We'll present a use assessment of the progress of the COP17 negotiation. take a stock of which demand had been met, which didn't advance and also what challenges continue to hinder significant progress for the just and equitable implementation of the KMGBF. Briefly about us, Global Youth Biodiversity Network is a global coalition of youth organization and individual committed to halting the biodiversity loss. At the use of the constituency in the CBD, given advocate for the meaningful involvement of young people in decision making processes at all level. With over 80 national and regional chapter, given mission to empower youth to act for biodiversity and to influence policy that ensure transformative change and social ecological justice, toward a future where we live in harmony with nature. JIPEN wants to draw attention to how space for meaningful participation of right holder group, including indigenous people, local community, women and youth, are shrinking across multiple interconnected dimension, from global to the national level. We are here to advocate for and to defend the right for the meaningful participation in decision making, the space to voice our concern from ground, ensuring that the power is shared between older and younger generation, and that future generation to be not going to be disproportionate consequences of decision made by other today. So in today's panel, we're going to discuss the different negotiation track. And we have here our policy team who are following different area. So maybe we can start with education with my colleague, Aurora. Over to you.

Hello, everyone. Basically talking to our community, education was really relevant because it's one of the main objectives of GIVN, transformative education. But also in the last COP was recognized as one of the key elements to actually ensure the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. because this transformative change requirement of change visions, change views, change structures, and this is fostering different values than the ones that rule the world today. So since the beginning, from the last COP to now, we were pushing to have a global education plan for this framework. actually could foster these values and not just bring biodiversity to the curricula. That was our main objective. At the beginning of the year, we have a draft that was developed by a consultancy process, and this was not the draft we will want to. And then we make some different proposals as part of the committee for the education, the SEPA IAC. I'm representative of youth on that committee. We were able to make some comments and proposals in a few window that it's one of the things we want to address here. We hope have more open processes so we can actually engage more the community to these consultations. But actually, the proposals we bring was already addressed in Nairobi, in the last SEPT and SBI. So we came here to this COP with a really good document, and our main issues was in para 7 that has specifically to the One was, this part was about who is going to get funds to develop projects for education. And this objective of talking about education is not just informal education, it's formal, non-formal, and informal. And that is actually what GIVN does, non-formal education. So it was really important for us to be there, and we get it. In some point of this COP, that part of the para where mentioned youth and women was deleted, but then GIVN do this effort with his different allies in different governments. Everyone who was part of that process, thank you so much, because actually we do something that usually is not seen in this space. A document that was closed, who was already taking that work, and now we bring it back. We open a document that was already closed. We also was given the floor, but after the document was closed. So for us was just the opportunity to show our discomfort, but also the rationale we have with this. How can you pretend to not support women, youth, who are bringing so much energy talking about education? And it's actually like the most accessible actions we use to start with, and then we scale our actions. So we If we win in that way, like we have a good document, a good draft that was adopted, and also in that same para, we are no longer mentioned as actors other than national governments, that who is that person? Could be anyone. at least we keep this wording that it's relevant stakeholders. So we have to keep pushing for being recognized as youth, as also right holders. But by now, at least in education, I can let you know, we have a really good document that we hope it's going to be actually taken in count for the next step that UNESCO is going to develop this content. We keep as committee engaging. We want to be there when we design the indicators, so we can also be taken in count in the final development of this program, but also in its implementation, and practically, like, be taking account in all the way that it's coming for Education Global Action Plan. So I just want to be happy with you. Thank you, everyone.

Thank you so much, Aurora, and all the team who are following the negotiation around education. And keep up, guys. We are just waiting for the great news from you. Now I'll pass it to my colleague, Heather, to give us an update on two critical items, resource mobilization and IPPs.

Thank you so much, Roa. The discussions on IPPs, how we implement biodiversity action is equally or even more relevant than just doing it. By bridging together natural and social science and indigenous and local knowledge, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, or IPBES, provide critical evidence to inform equitable decision-making that supports biodiversity and good quality of life. Yet, recognizing this evidence is not enough. The challenge before Parties is not whether to acknowledge the importance of IPBES assessments, but how to translate these findings into concrete measurables that guide the CBD’s ongoing and future work in the implementation of the KEM GBF. IPBES assessments go beyond identifying challenges. They provide pathways, priorities, and recommendations that can inform transformative action for biodiversity and people. In this context, the operative paragraphs of the decision, they are essential to bridge the gap between evidence and implementation. Removing them risks reducing the decision-making to simplest acknowledgement of the assessments without addressing implications for policy and action. While the negotiations are still going today, we already regret to see that a month of parties that are willing to not include actionable guidance in the decision. At the time when scientific evidence and the diverse knowledge systems are incredibly trans-merging the urgency of transformative change, parties must move beyond recognition and commit to operationalize this knowledge. Translate evidence into policies and action. This is essential to advance a more just, equitable, and sustainable future for biodiversity and all people. And the second agenda item that I also want to talk today is resource mobilization. And resource mobilization has been one of the most contagious agendas during this COP 17. The role of indigenous peoples, local communities, women, and youth in biodiversity conservation have been widely recognized through evidence, to live realities, and through previous decisions under this convention. At the same time, the lack of financial resources and barriers to accessing funding have been acknowledged as major obstacles to more equitable biodiversity implementation. Decisions on biodiversity finance agenda have centred on defining the criteria that will access and guide the future global financial arrangement for biodiversity. From the inside of these discussions, we have advocated that whether establishing a new entity or reforming the existing ones, this financial arrangement must promote socially and ecologically equitable access to biodiversity finance worldwide. In this context, the proposed criteria that's being discussed, it needs to build on what has already been acknowledged, agreed, and decided upon previous decisions in CBD processes. GIBN has called on parties to retain the criteria that explicitly address two complementary dimensions that are strengthening participation in decision making on resource allocation and ensuring direct access to funding for indigenous peoples, local communities, women, and youth. GIBN have also emphasizing that biodiversity finance must address historical inequalities and injustices. Discussions on donor and donor bases should avoid relying solely on income-based classifications that fail to capture multidimensional and structural inequalities. Such efforts must neither dilute existing commitments by developed country parties, nor impose additional implementation burdens on developing country parties. many of which already face severe debt burdens and tax injustices. Despite efforts to engage in dialogue and present evidence and rationale, biodiversity finance discussions are increasingly dominated by political dynamics and international relations. Global North and Global South countries remain at odds, informally linking process progress on the criteria for the financial arrangement to progress on broadening the donor basis, and vice versa. So as political considerations dominate decision making, the consequence of these poor decisions will be borne by those that live in these territories, who still lack meaningful mechanisms and the avenues to influence who receives funding, how resources reach the territories, and what is considered eligible for finance. Thank you.

Thank you so much, heather. And now we will jump to another important discussion. As you know, this year we have three COPs, trio, Rio Convention. So I will pass the floor to my colleague Michelle to give us update about the climate negotiation.

Thank you, Roa. From the Global Youth Biodiversity perspective, the discussion on biodiversity and climate change at COP17 have been concerning. And we came to this COP hoping to move forward on two important pieces of work: the supplement to the Voluntary Guideline on Ecosystem-based Approach, and also the multi-level roadmap on enhancing cooperation and synergy across the Rio Convention. Instead, we have witnessed persistent disagreement, and neither document has moved forward as we have hoped. And what is particularly concerning is that the debate is not only about the technical detail of these documents, we are also seeing fundamental disagreement about the scope and value of the cooperation itself. So the multilevel roadmap builds on work mandated by the CEFSTA 27, including technical information exchange intended to identify concrete opportunity for greater policy coherence. Yet, at COP17, some parties have questioned whether the roadmap should move forward at all. And this raises a serious question: how can we address interconnected crises if we are unwilling to work together across the different conventions? The discussion on the supplement has revealed another important challenge: how to address the link between biodiversity and climate change without compromising biodiversity objectives, ecosystem integrity, and human rights. While these concerns deserve careful consideration, they are also contributed to a situation in which we risk losing sight of the purpose of this work: providing guidance that helps ensure climate action delivers benefits for biodiversity, rather than undermining it. At the same time, concern about the inclusion and representation must be taken seriously. Questions have been raised about whether the process has adequately reflected different perspectives, including those of indigenous people and local communities, and whether all regions have meaningful opportunity to contribute to the roadmap. And this gap must be addressed through a genuinely inclusive process, not become a reason for the same discussion to continue indefinitely. So, for GIVN, it's also a question of procedural justice. IPLC women and youth and other stakeholders cannot simply be invited to contribute. Their contribution must be meaningfully considered. And during this negotiation, we had to intervene again to define language that mattered for youth participation during the contact groups. And this showed that being present in the room does not automatically mean that our voices are reflected in the outcome. Looking ahead for SEPSTAR 29, the same phase must do more than extend the process. It must ensure transparent consideration of submission, meaningful participation from all regional stakeholder groups, and clear paths toward action. Otherwise, we risk returning to the same discussion without addressing the underlying division. We cannot afford to keep revisiting the same discussion without reaching meaningful outcome, while biodiversity loss and climate change continue to reinforce each other. We need genuine political commitment to advance cooperation across the Rio Convention, but we also need to ensure that climate action, including mitigation, protects biodiversity, respects human rights, and safeguards ecosystem integrity. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Michel, and good luck for the colleagues who are heading to Turkey for COP13 to continue the discussion over there about the synergies. Now we will go to the next agenda, sustainable wildlife management, in short SWIM, with my colleague Kofi.

Okay, so thank you. As COP13 enters its final days, negotiation on sustainable wildlife management have made important progress. We now have a consolidated draft decision, and several outstanding issues have been resolved. However, some of the most important questions for judges remain unsolved. So we are still seeing disagreement on human rights-based approaches, the meaningful participation of indigenous people and local communities, gender-responsive safeguards and the protection of environmental human rights defenders. So these are not simple technical disagreements over wording. They concern whose rights are recognized, whose voice are heard, and who is protected when wildlife management policies are implemented. So for youth, sustainable wildlife management must go beyond conservation or conserve species, it must also recognize the rights, knowledge, and livelihood of communities that depend on wildlife, while ensuring that conservation and sustainable use are grounded in science, equity, and accountability. We welcome the inclusion of youth in provision on awareness raising, monitoring, and knowledge sharing. This is positive progress, but participation alone is not enough. Youth IPLC must be able to meaningful influence decision, contribute to implementation, and benefit fairly from sustainable wildlife management. So our message to parties is clear. Do not claim they remain brackets by weakening human rights, gender equity, or inclusion participation. A successful outcome of COP17 must deliver more than voluntary guidance. It must strengthen the foundation of wildlife management that is ecological, sustainable, socially just, and generally inclusive. Because protecting wildlife and protecting people rights must go hand in hand. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Kofi. And as you say, protecting wildlife and protecting people right must go definitely hand in hand. So then we are moving to the global review with Sefa. Over to you, Sefa.

Thank you. So we're coming to the end of the COP, and we're almost seeing now the results of the long negotiations for the first global review of collective progress in implementing the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, which is a highlight of this COP. The documents coming out are reflecting the results of different priorities and interests of countries. But what about our interests? Our interests as youth have always been in what we really, actually, genuinely need to address the biodiversity crisis that is affecting our lives and futures. We've come here to COP with a clear-eyed view of what we're facing. Narratives around progress have been circling around the implementation gap, the same implementation gap that was faced by the Aichi Targets for the last decade. The same finance gap, the same ambition gap. Despite knowing all of this, we're having deja vu and we're seeing the same messages again now. It's the same story from then until today when we're doing the midterm assessment of progress for the KMGBF. It's clear to us now that business as usual will not take us to where we need to go, and we need change. So what has changed from then until now? What changed actually is that now we have a framework, the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, that highlights that the biodiversity crisis has everything to do with equity, with human rights, with land rights, and indigenous and traditional territories, with intergenerational equity. And now, because of the review process, we also have more information on how countries are actually translating or not translating this global commitment to the national level. The evidence from the Global Report and the decisions now being made on the Global Review cannot deny anymore the gaps. It's clear that despite committing four years ago to human rights, equitable governance, protection of environmental defenders, and youth participation, among others, they are falling short of making that a reality. And this failure undermines the progress for all other actions, any actions that they do on pollution, on climate change, on protected and conserved areas, among others. Because without equity and justice, there is no legitimacy and no credibility to what they call biodiversity action. We will not get tired of saying it. To close the biodiversity implementation gap, we need to close the justice gap. Despite many attempts to weaken the text on the global review decision, it also could not and should not avoid the inevitable messages that is backed up by evidence. First, that this framework cannot be achieved by governments alone. It needs the grassroots actors, the indigenous peoples who care for their lands and waters, the environmental defenders on the front lines against illegal logging and mining, The youth who mobilize, the women who farm, the funders, the observers at the CBD providing advice to parties. Only in supporting us, recognizing us, naming us, and making the invisible visible will we avoid the same narrative again in 2030. Second, we need to address the financial flows and subsidies that lead to further extraction and destruction of biodiversity, of our lands and communities. And third, that the underlying drivers of biodiversity loss must be addressed. These are, as framed by the IPBES Transformative Change Assessment, the separation and domination over nature and people, the concentration of power and wealth, and the prioritization of individual short-term and material gains. These are the underlying drivers that must be addressed if we are to be successful in living in harmony with nature by 2050. So now parties are in the last stretch of negotiations. We will continue to watch closely the decisions being made here, and most importantly, the implementation being done when we go home from COP17. Will they address the justice gap? That is what we will need to answer, and that is the question that we will have when we get home also. So thank you, and back to Raoul.

Thank you so much, Sefa, and we come to the end for our press conference today. Thank you so much to our speaker. And as we reach the final stretch of COP17, the message from Global Use Biodiversity Network is clear, unify, and urgent. we cannot implement, we cannot close the implementation of the gap of the key MGBF without closing the justice gap. What we have presented to you today, not just a technical critique of negotiation paragraph, is the reality check from the ground. We came to COP17 expecting parties to move from the global promises to operation and action. However, instead we are witnesses familiar pattern repeated themselves. On science and evidence, as Heather highlighted, parties acknowledge the IPBES finding in principle, yet hesitate to adopt the operational guidance needed to turn science and diverse knowledge. On resource mobilization, finance discussion remain locked in geopolitical stand for. On climate and biodiversity synergies, as Michel pointed, procedure in pace are stalling critical tool like voluntary guideline on the Rio Convention multi-level roadmap. On sustainable wildlife management, while progress on text has been Human rights-based approach, gender safeguard, and protection of environmental human right defender remain contest butterfly language rather than non-negotiable foundation. And last, in the global review, as Sef emphasized, we cannot repeat the failure of Aichi Target, a framework that ignore human right, territorial integrity, and equity at its framework is essential to fail. So we can conclude with, without equity and justice, there is no credibility to biodiversity action. GIBON will continue to hold decision maker accountable in this negotiation hall, in our national territory, in the street. We will not stop repeating until it realizes to close the biodiversity implementation gap, you must close the justice gap. Thank you so much, and we are open to have any question here, if anyone have any question from the floor, we have some time. If no, thank you so much for joining our press. Okay, we'll go.

Okay, thank you so much for all of you. I would like to ask what is the main message that we should take to our countries and to the youth that are near us in our countries and also the governments? You guys talked about so many things that I really appreciate and I really agree, but what do you think is the thing that we as young people need to do now in the next year and to next COP in thinking about the national level?

Okay, Aurora.

The key point between all those different things, it's when we say close the justice gap, it's who is in the room, who is taking decisions, and who is in the land. So it's recognize all the different hats, all the different badges we can share, but we can also collaborate, and don't let that things down in the text, but also in the actions, in the global, national, and local level. So basically, it's bring us into the table. That's what happened with IG targets. People was separate. Governments were alone. And at the end, it's these different hats, but also the right holders who knows from the ground what is this meaning in the land, the ones who can bring these different decisions and can also support parties, governments, and other actors. So it's basically bring us into the process, youth, woman, IPLCs, NGOs.

And also, I can have to be engaged more practically for my agenda item, for example, that we send the two documents in pair review. And I think it's a critical moment for us to really send our submission and also be a part and revise the document. And it's a way that we can engage in a practical way. And I think it's what you can bring also to your country and regarding how priority about these documents, so for biodiversity and climate change, at least.

Thank you for the question. I think when we, now that we have this campaign of close the Justice Gap, we also realize and know that this gap looks different in different countries and in different contexts. I think what we want is You know, I think we want to see how this resonates with everyone. What does this justice gap look like in all of your countries and how can we then address it? Because even if it looks different everywhere, all of it is affecting and underpinning the biodiversity action, the lack of biodiversity action. So I think if we can continue to have conversations and plan actions to close the justice gap, no matter what this looks like for you, that will really be, hopefully, it will take us to somewhere where we have changed the narrative and the story further down the line.

Thank you so much, colleague. Any more question? Okay, one over there.

I just thought what are your biggest concerns and what are your biggest hopes from the next days at COP?

Well, thank you for the question. I think now we are in a moment where COP are really moving closer and closer to the political decision. So most ministers have arrived, and all the contentious issues that have not been able to be negotiated, they also go to the ministerial level for a decision. And this is the challenging process that this means that evidence, rationales, and these dimensions of discussions that what we bring to this table are mostly not taken into consideration anymore. So the pressure that we all are here and the pressure that we have with our national governments at our national organizations is crucial to ensure that what we have been pointing out is not going to be undermined by ministerial decisions. So again, for example, finance, we are still fighting the aspect that we might lose the only criteria that we reference for our groups to have the right to participate in decision making and to have access to resources. This is not under negotiations anymore. This is under ministerial decisions, and that's why agency and social pressure is so relevant and so critical, but other agendas is also having them particularities.

Thanks, heather. Any, okay, Sefa, please?

Yeah, I think the hope is that all the work that's been going into the past days from our participation in the negotiations to the actions, to the campaigns, to the conversations, will actually make a difference in this critical last moment where we actually don't have much control anymore. We're hoping that it will reach the hearts and the minds of the decision makers who are making political decisions right now in closed rooms. And we're hoping that we were loud enough, and also that they keep young people in their minds when they actually make those decisions so that they're not making decisions for profit over the good of people and nature.

Thank you so much. Any more response? No? Okay. We still have two minutes for one last question. OK, fine. If no more question, we are here. You can meet us at any time, policy team, and also at use morning meeting. We will be more than happy to respond to your question. Thank you so much for coming here, and have a lovely day.