Press Conference: Halfway to 2030: Time to close the gaps and move from commitments to action, UN Convention on Biodiversity - COP 17

A proposed legislative change in Armenia raises serious concerns that mining projects could move forward without meaningful community consent. Strategic interests and mining investments must not override the rights of local communities. We therefore call for this issue to be urgently discussed during the COP17 plenary in the context of indigenous peoples and the protection of local communities. We ask that the implications of the trip initiative and related critical mineral cooperation for community land rights and consent be examined openly. The people who live on and depend on this land must have a meaningful voice in decisions about its future. Thank you.

Can we take another question? The lady in white, please. Then we give the floor to the mic to the lady in black and then the guy in jacket. Yeah.

Hello. My name is Tathavi Khlazaryan. I am a reporter for RFE/RL Armenian Service. So my question is, in 2023, Azerbaijan forcibly displaced the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh, who were indigenous for thousands of years. They have lost access to their nature, to their biodiversity. While Azerbaijan is destroying also now their cultural and natural heritage. They, their language is also in danger right now. So have their rights, rights have been discussed in during this meeting and somehow will be maybe issued or addressed. Thank you very much.

Hello, my name is Anna Scott, I'm a journalist from Carbon Pulse. I had a question for Jennifer, please, regarding Article 8j.

I wondered what's your view on how Article 8j should be structured?

How should Article 8j be structured in your view? My name is Frederick Mujira. I'm a journalist from Uganda. What is the main obstacle standing in the way of progress right now?

Okay, we let the speakers answer the four questions first. Yeah.

Yes, I can start and then the others can add. One of the things that we heard during the Leaders Summit is the impact of war and displacement on biodiversity protection. This, the history that was shared to us about the displacement is a history that is shared also with Indigenous Peoples. Many of us have been displaced from our hometowns, usually due to armed conflict, wars and so forth. And it is clearly something that disconnects us from our land, from our traditional knowledge and from our ways of protecting the land and the biodiversity. So these are things that need to be addressed. language has been accepted by the CBD as a proxy indicator of biodiversity richness. So the number of speakers of indigenous languages correspond quite closely to the richness, biodiversity richness of a place. That's why it's a matter of concern when languages are being lost. Regarding, and we're hoping that SPHA could provide this platform to address issues such as those. There is one element within the programme of work that is about the human rights-based approach, and it includes the notion of establishing a grievance and redress mechanism. But to get there, there has to be a strong subsidiary body on Article 8. On how 8 should be structured, of course, it's an ongoing debate here, it's an ongoing negotiation, and I'm in a tricky position of being one of the contact group co-chairs, and we are in the hands of the parties. This is a party-led process. Of course, as I said earlier, when we think about the structure, it's something that should build on and improve. on the practices of the working group on article 8j and when we say that we mean there has to be a co-chair from indigenous peoples and local communities, there has to be friends, advisors to the bureau from indigenous peoples and from local communities. So and of course beyond that there are many more details that we can share but I don't think we have time for that but that's the basic principle, we build on the working group. Thank you.

Thank you. I want to respond on journalists from Uganda. So in the case of indigenous and traditional territories as area that conserve biodiversity, we are hoping that we have some advance and progress because this is what we were doing. We are conserving biodiversity for millennia. However, of course, these areas are the most important areas of biodiversity, and there is a lot of interest that these areas become part of protected areas or OECMs. And for this, our brother and sister from around the world are worrying. because many times these protected areas are established or OECMs are established without the free, prior and informed consent from these communities. Sometimes they are displaced, sometimes there is human rights violations, and sometimes there is not the respect of rights of indigenous peoples and local communities. Of course, there is some cases, some countries who has national legislation, who has indigenous protected areas, as Australia and other countries, which has different approach. For this, what we are emphasizing that there is important, this fifth pathway for indigenous peoples and local communities, which is the recognitions. on what we are doing. Of course, the main obstacles, there are 196 parties with different realities in their work, and here at the CBD, the decisions are adopted by consensus. But of course, we are hoping that we get some important advance here, because we want to contribute to achieve target three, but we want with the respect of our roles and contributions. Thank you.

I'd like to add something on this matter. A running thread in all of the problems we're encountering is the insistence on the parties making all of the decisions, when in fact, The reality is governance on the ground, governance of biodiversity is local. Biodiversity is local. We're talking about a global biodiversity framework, but in fact, decisions made in distant places, even here, have direct impacts on the actual state of biodiversity and the well-being of the entire natural world and the peoples in it. So at every point in the different agenda items, we are negotiating with governments for them to respect rights, self-determination, and actually accept that governance has to be in the hands of those who are living close to biodiversity and have maintained the continuing state of nature and biodiversity because of our close relationship. And when it's insisted on that this is a party led process, they are actually not meeting the requirements of the moment for transformation in economic, political and thinking structures that have to move away from these injustices and monopolies of power that are actually brought us to this bad state of biodiversity. But the mindset is still very set on You know, the times have changed, but everything remains the same in some of the minds of the parties present in this convention.

Thank you. I'd like to address our brother from Uganda's question. In terms of the DSI space, there are very large obstacles in terms of unanswered questions. So in terms of money into the fund, who goes to use more DSI, should they pay more? And those who use less or have indirect use of DSI, should they pay less? And then once money is in the fund, what kind of legal certainty does that give for industry? So when they receive a certificate that says, yes, we have contributed to the fund, does that mean that they have fulfilled their access and benefit sharing obligations? And what kind of legal certainty does that give them? So they want that kind of peace of mind to know that they are fulfilling their legal obligations. And then once the money is in the fund and then going out to the different places where it is going to, there's the allocation methodology. And in terms of the general 50%, that's not the 50% for indigenous people and local communities. There are multiple different criteria that are being weighed up around how we apportion benefits out. And the data sets underpinning those are very varied and they need more complete information. So for example, criterion A talks about biodiversity richness. And what kind of data sets are we using to actually indicate how biodiversity rich a country is? And does that further enforce this research that's already been done in countries that are already having research done? And does that leave behind countries that don't have the same richness within the research already done on their lands? And then the second one about geographical origin, there's discussion about apportioning benefits based on where the DSI has come from, but the current reality is that a very small percentage of DSI actually has a listed country of origin. there is even less information about indigenous or local community origins of the data and so we're needing to really overhaul the way that we're using our data practices so that we have a full complete idea of where our data is actually being generated from and then the 50 for indigenous people in local communities we haven't fully gotten into yet that is work that is yet to be done so there's uncertainty there too there are multiple other questions also happening about how we make sure we're reviewing the fund and making sure that it is operational in a way that is actually successful. So there are very big questions that have to be answered at COP17, and this is, I believe, what's standing in the way of progress for now, because people want the certainty that they're putting in the money correctly and that it is operationalized properly.

Thank you, Kathy. So another round of questions. I'll take two questions. The two ladies in front. And because we don't have enough time, maybe the question will be brief.

Hi, I'm Orla Dwyer from Carbon Brief. I have a question for Joji on the global review. You mentioned a couple of the things that you'll be looking out for, but I wondered, was there anything else specific that you think is necessary in the global review to make it a success by the end?

And hi, this is Aruna from GovBrief. A question from Katie. I know you gave us a great overview of DSI and the issues at stake. Is there anything in particular you might want to say to companies, given the fact that there's only $6,000 in the fund from two companies who decided to be icebreakers, and we're talking about billions in terms of potential. We've also had the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund with less than $400 million in. They've been doing indigenous programming and hitting those targets. But At the same time, you know, there seems to be a lack of resources there. So yeah, those two for me.

Yes, in terms of the global review, what needs to be done. So the decisions here are actually going to guide the parties to raise their ambition and to raise their means of implementation, we're saying ways of implementation. because really it's the national biodiversity strategies and action plans have quite low ambitions in order to reach the target set by the KMGBF and of course parties really need to be strongly guided but also strongly supported to do their job. However In fact, in countries, unless civil society, indigenous peoples and others are truly recognized to be important partners, we are not going to move the political wheel in order for parties to raise their ambitions, because it is always up to the voluntary actions by the parties to carry out these global agreements. And with the guidance that is regressive, which is actors other than national governments, which is not actually giving the specific guidance, roles, and relationships and partnerships that should be undertaken. And this is under negotiation. Parties insist on national circumstances, and unless that is really changed in the mindsets of governments of how they do things, I think it will be very difficult for us to make real progress.

Well, thank you very much for your question. It's a very pertinent time to be asking this. And I would like to say that we have spoken to a lot of industry representatives that are really interested in the fund and want to contribute and really want to do the right thing. And there is this mindset that, why pay for something that we've already been getting for free, especially in a voluntary mechanism? And I would ask you to think about when Nagoya was developed and talking about fair and equitable benefit sharing for access to genetic resources. These are resources that are incredibly important to our people and that we have long relationships with. And in the spirit of fair and equitable benefit sharing, you should share benefits back to communities if you're using data from their lands, waters, and territories. And there are a huge amount of industry representatives out there that have historically had bilateral relationships with Indigenous communities and are actively sharing benefits back for the use of DSI. So those relationships are still preserved within this. But 50% of nothing is still nothing. And it's really important to us to see that this fund starts to be operationalised for the sake of fairness and equity, for the sake of our people on the ground, for the sake of biodiversity conservation. We strongly implore industry and all of those who are eligible to contribute to the fund to do so. We know it's voluntary, but there is a huge amount of value to be gained in doing the right thing.

Yeah. Thank you. I would also like to respond a little bit of what Katie has responded and also in relation to the question asked by the journalist from Uganda. Two things. One, I think when we talk about what's preventing the implementation of the GMPF, everyone will have an answer according to all targets. So, but of course, the implementation requires funding. And I think when you talk about the DSI, and you look at the resource mobilization for the implementation of the KMDPF, I think there is a roadmap of putting systems in place before you create a fund for the implementation of the KMDPF. But I think, in my own view, and also following the resource mobilization and financial mechanism, and also in relation to the Cali Fund, I think the fund was created quickly in a way that there was no mechanism of mobilizing resources and channeling out. So I think that that could also be a challenge. So we have an empty bucket, but we did not say how do we channel resources into the bucket and how do we channel resources out of that bucket.

Okay, thank you. Thank you to all the speakers. Thank you for joining us. we can for any everyone anyone that interested to ask for the question we can have a ballet room yeah happy to yeah will be available yeah thank you thank you

Hello, everyone. Hello, everyone. Welcome, and thank you for joining us. I'm Jacqueline Isod, I'm media lead for Greenpeace International at COP17, and I'll be moderating. today's press conference. Today, our four speakers will outline what Greenpeace expects from the negotiations here in Yerevan, and what governments need to do at home also to turn those decisions into lasting nature protection. We'll hear from each speaker first, and then we'll open the floor to questions. To start, I would like to invite Anne Lambrecht, head of Greenpeace delegation at COP17, to share our overall assessment of what's at stake at this COP and what it needs to deliver. Anne, over to you.

Thank you, Jackie, and welcome everybody. In 2022, parties agreed to 23 targets and a global mission to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030, also known as the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. And in 2026, COP17 is a decisive moment to keep that 2030 deadline within sight. And it's the CBD's first big stocktake. We have all seen, I think, the global report on collective progress, which shows that we are far off track. And here in Yerevan, leaders need to come together to course correct. And in this world where we are increasingly facing an interconnected environmental, climate and social crisis, negotiators here face a difficult task to come with responses to critical gaps urgently. My colleagues will be discussing the gaps that we see as a priority in greater detail. In short, it is about making sure that we have sufficient resources and that they are moving in the right direction, that rights are embedded at the core of implementation action, and that we make sure that we have global and national policies that are coherent, connected, well aligned and that do not contradict or even undermine each other. COP17 will need to deliver not just on these priority gaps that my colleagues will be discussing, it will also need to honour two important decisions that have been taken two years ago at COP16 in Cali. To start with, the coffers of the Cali Fund should be filled with solid and meaningful contributions of those who benefit the most from the DS-I, or Digital Sequence Information, and who so far have contributed precious little to the preservation of the ecosystems that their businesses depend on. And if everybody is called upon to foot the bill for nature, then primary accountability and responsibility lies with these giant corporations. Second, the new subsidiary body for indigenous peoples and for local communities, SBJ, must be operationalized in a way that supports their right to self-determination, and parties should walk the talk from Cali and agree to a modus operandi that recognizes their effective participation, the effective participation of those who stand at the front lines of nature preservation every single day, because our frontline heroes deserve front row recognition. So what we don't need from this COP is more announcements and initiatives just for the sake of having them. What we also don't need is a premature discussion about what should come after 2030, but what we do need is an action-oriented response to the gaps that have been identified. And COP17's global review shouldn't be allowed to become coordinate on a map, a single coordinate on a map of disaster where we're all just taking stock of what's going to happen if we don't protect ecosystems and biodiversity, if we don't respect the roles and the rights of the nature's best guardians, and if we continue to allow multinationals to massively benefit of nature destruction, whereas the people at the front lines are suffering the consequences. So progress in the next four years will depend on what's going to be decided here in Yerevan, but also what's going to happen afterwards in capitals and on the ground at home. And COP17 is a pivotal checkpoint to keep the 2030 targets within our reach and to also make sure that we use this unmissable chance to shift gears and to deliver for the planet. Thank you.

Thank you, Anne. Next, Ihean Wabiwa, biodiversity program manager at Greenpeace International. She will address the biodiversity finance gap and what governments need to do to ensure funding reaches those protecting nature.

Thank you, Jackie, for the floor. So as Jackie said, I'll be talking about the finance gap. And as we all know, the finance gap is one of the main gaps that have been identified. in the global review. And we all know that rich countries have failed to meet the 20 billion by 2025 deadline, even though we could also know that, yeah, they could have lent a bit closer to the number. But at this COP, what we are expecting the rich countries is to close the gap. like entirely close the gap of the 20 billion by 2025, but also to not miss the 30 billion by 2030 deadline. Because if they don't do that, we will not be talking about meeting the 2030 as the deadline to deliver the coming global biodiversity framework. And this cannot be true if developing countries and developed countries continue to move in the wrong direction. because from my perspective and from our perspective, we believe that they are moving in the wrong way. They have to adjust their choices, they have to adjust their action and implement the right plans on the ground. The decision that we could see here that parties are pushing for more money on the table, but developed countries, they're trying to get away from their primary obligation to do this and seek for financial, private financial. This is not bad. We all believe that private sector should also do their part. They should do their share. But this is the main, the primary obligation from parties, the rich countries to do that, developed countries. So this shouldn't be a kind of moving away from their own obligations. We can also see that in this COP, developing countries and also developed countries, they are pushing for biodiversity credits offset as one of the solution to close the biodiversity gap. And we can say that biodiversity credits and offset should not be another license to destroy nature. We cannot accept that. I think we need parties to make the choice that will be environmental friendly and that will put people on the center and credits, biodiversity credits and offset are not the solution that we can be looking at for now. We can also see that in this COP, countries, especially rich countries, are trying to shift their attention from, as I was saying, public money to private investment and this is not acceptable. What they need to do is to be looking at the area where they can have more money that private But VESY credit offset will never do, will never give. And this is expanding the fiscal space. If they do that, we believe that they can have more money that all those fast solution that they are pushing. We want them to have the time and think about what could be the real solution that we have. They have to put in place to serve the biodiversity loss that we are. We are doing that. We don't say that private sector are exempt from their share. They have to do their share, but we want public money to be at first, and parties has to take the good share of that. And we also see that countries are pushing that they don't have money, and it's not about a global shortage of global wealth because money is there. They just need to take the right direction. They need to take the right decision. And one of that is that we could see that there's a huge contradiction on financial flows. We see that countries that are here, they keep asking for more money, but they, at the same time, they continue to support harmful subsidies. and they are asking the the private sector to to put money on the table and also to stop destroying forest or biodiversity but it's really a kind of contradiction you can't be asking private sector to stop investing while they're getting those subsidies until those subsidies are not tackled and not stopped no one can ask the private sector to not put money on the table it's not possible either you do the right thing and you go in the right direction or you say what is your real priority, because I'm lost. I don't know what the rich countries they want. They want to stop biodiversity loss or they want to continue doing business as usual. And we'll never get at where we want to do. So what we will be looking at this COP is that we know that at the CBD, the conversation about expanding the fiscal space is not at the core of the conversation. But what we are expecting from this COP is that they will give it at least a genuine attention to make sure that they agree on step forward on how they'll start talking about this from now until we get to the We believe that if they start doing the right thing and moving away from subsidies, not giving money to those who are destroying forests, we will get enough money to solve the biodiversity loss and developing countries not continue to ask for the money to implement. Because what we can see now is that Public policy are currently spending $30 destroying nature and they're using one US dollars to protect it. It's shocking. You can't be building a house, you spend $10 to build a house and then you give 10,000 US dollars to people that will come and burn it. Finally, what do you want? Really, like seriously, we need to, it's really time to meaningful action and meaningful action cannot be real if we don't have meaningful decision. And in Yerevan, we are hoping that countries will take meaningful action and will take meaningful decision. It's not only about promises, but we want them to be really conscious about the choices that we'll be doing. So another problem is that they are asking developing countries, and I'm from the DRC, from Congo, I know how it works on the ground. They are asking countries to protect forests, but these same countries poor country or developed country, they are so in deep in debt, financial debt, like public debt, and they are using nature to try to get money from nature and pay their debt. So we can't be asking them to solve their to to to to protect biodiversity and they they have to use the same biodiversity to pay their debt. So I think cancellation of public money, public debt will be also something that can can be a solution and The developed country cannot escape saying that we don't have financial money, we don't have financial means to do this and we have to use nature to close the gap. They have to cancel this because they are using the same to try to service their debt. And we cannot be asking them to do something while you are also taking the majority of the finance that they can get to protect the same biodiversity. It's not possible. So this is what I wanted to say is really like, yeah, public countries, they need to do the right thing because they are doing the opposite. Thank you.

Thanks, Ihean. Now I'll pass it on to Camila Jardim. Camila is an international politics specialist at Greenpeace Brazil, and she will discuss how governments can bring climate and biodiversity action together and why coordination across the Rio Conventions matter. With you, Camila.

Thank you, Jackie. Good afternoon, everyone. We arrived here in Yerevan for COP17 at a crucial moment. We are more than halfway to 2030, risking the sixth mass extinction with no signs of deceleration and on a trajectory where we have to limit to the 1.5 temperature limit overshoot. The impacts are everywhere, showing that nature does not recognize administrative silos. Neither should we be limited by them. At a time when our crises are accelerating and mutually reinforcing, the only way for us to make it on time is to break the silos and unite our efforts. Yet for 30 years, the three Rio conventions, the climate, biodiversity, and desertification, have operated in parallel and have encountered difficulties in expanding bridges with one another. The Convention of Biological Diversity has been championing the synergies agenda in recent years. However, we still see pushback in negotiation rooms and countries reluctant to take the synergistic approach to the next level. Science and practice are very clear. Delaying action massively increases the cost of implementation, whereas adopting a synergistic approach to policy can accelerate and reduce costs. For example, the cost of addressing biodiversity loss will double if delayed by 10 years, while delaying action on climate change could add an estimate minimum of $500 billion per year. Actions that prioritize single sector objectives or operate in isolation, such as biodiversity conservation on the one hand or climate change mitigation on the other, not only miss the opportunity to create benefits across multiple areas within a similar budget or time effort, but can also create trade-offs and negative impacts on each other. For the past 30 to 50 years, biodiversity has been dropping by 2% to 6% every decade. And healthy ecosystems help us fight climate change by capturing carbon and softening the impact of extreme weather events. But as biodiversity declines, these natural buffers break down, releasing more greenhouses into the air and losing their ability to provide ecosystem services and climate adaptation. Tropical forests, for example, store over 250 billion tons of carbon while harboring 80% of terrestrial biodiversity. Every hectare of canopy cleared releases carbon dioxide into our atmosphere while stripping dangerous species and their homes and dismantling the water cycles that protect communities from drought. This destruction also hits our daily lives. It cuts off clean water supplies, increases the spread of new diseases, and raises food prices, promoting food insecurity. The good news is that we know what to do. Previous COP decisions have laid the diplomatic groundwork. COP 15, the CBD COP 15, gave us the KMBF, the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, and targeted Target 3, the 30 by 30 commitment. UNFCCC COP28 explicitly recognized that halting deforestation and forest degradation by 2030 is essential to keeping 1.5 alive. And Brazil, holding the presidency of the 30th Climate COP, has invited the world to engage in producing a global roadmap to halt and reverse deforestation and forest degradation by 2030. This roadmap can be a real demonstration of the power of synergies right before our eyes. Its launch is expected in the coming days, but the most important moment comes afterward. Even when we struggle to reach consensus in formal multilateral spaces, concrete and impactful action can still be taken by champion countries and groups. Together, we can build political will and momentum. What we need now in a year of three COPs, the biodiversity COP, the climate COP, the desertification COP, and the launch of the COP30 President's Forest Roadmap is the coalition of champion countries and relevant stakeholders, including everyone in this room, to build the impetus required to meet these non-negotiable planetary targets. If we fail to stop forest destruction and decelerate biodiversity loss by 2030, we fail on climate and we fail on nature. Let this short window be remembered as the moment the world stopped managing this crisis separately and started saving our shared home together. Thank you.

Thank you, Camila. Now I will pass it on to Laura Caicedo, campaign coordinator at Greenpeace Andino. Laura will focus on the 30x30 target and what effective protection looks like when human rights and the rights of indigenous people and local communities are at its heart. Laura, with you.

Thank you, Yekang. Hello, everyone. Across Latin America, from the Amazon and the Maya forest to the Gran Chaco and the glaciers and oceans of Chile and Argentina, protecting nature means protecting water, food, livelihoods, cultures, and rights. That is why one of our key priorities at COP17 is to accelerate action to protect and conserve at least 30% of land, inland waters, and the ocean by 2030. But the UN warns that current commitments, even if met, would protect only 26% of land and 12% of the ocean. We really need stronger ambition and faster implementation. Land grabbing, cattle ranching, mining, and infrastructure projects put ecosystems and communities under pressure, even inside of protected areas. Powerful industries influence policy, while mega-diverse countries lack sufficient funding and technical support. When ecosystems are destroyed, wildlife loses its habitats, and people can lose their homes, livelihoods, and connection to their territories. These barriers are political and economic, but governments can change them. Solutions already exist. Communities monitor forests, indigenous authorities govern their territories, and local agreements protect fishing grounds. 30x30 is not simply about making new areas on a map. It means protecting living ecosystems, respecting rights, and providing the means to make protection last. Here, Greenpeace calls on governments to deliver three things. The first, protection that works for nature. keep ecosystems healthy and connected, prevent their destruction and degradation, and restore damaged habitats. Governments must align agriculture, trade, and investment policies with conservation goals, as well as subsidies. They must require enforceable due diligence, because companies must prevent harm, monitor and disclose impacts, and be held accountable for repairing damage. Second, protection built on rights and community leadership. Governments must recognize indigenous and traditional territories as distinct conservation systems. Parties must secure customary land rights, legally recognize and support community-led conservation, and respect free, prior, and informed consent. People must have real influence over decisions affecting their territories, including women and youth. Indigenous peoples and local communities need information, access to justice, and safety to defend their territories. Conservation must strengthen their rights and governance, not take control away from them. And last, resources for lasting protection. Governments need funded national plans and technical capacity. Greenpeace calls for dedicated funding streams, with at least 20% directly accessible to Indigenous peoples and local communities. General decisions must translate into national laws, budgets, and actions that deliver 30 by 30 while protecting human rights. As the triple planetary crisis puts pressure on our water, food, and bioculture, let's remember something. We are part of nature. Wherever we live, our planet depends on its protection. Thank you.

Thank you, Laura. Now we are open for questions. Whoever has a question, please raise your hand, and Diego will bring the mic.

Hi, it's Orla Dwyer from Carbon Brief. This question is open to anyone, but what would you say the mood music is so far in the negotiations? How are the vibes? And then I have a specific question for Camila, just in regarding the Brazil elections. You probably expect this, but you know, we'll be here when the runoff vote is announced. How are you feeling ahead of that? And also, obviously, the outcome of that will be very significant in terms of the Amazon, in terms of Brazilian ecosystems and how what's being discussed here will be enacted on a national level there. Thank you.

Who would like to go first? Anne.

On your question on the mood, music, I think Everybody was a bit worried about the huge agenda of this COP, and we had a very smooth plenary yesterday, and it seems like everybody still has confidence that all these agenda items can be treated. It's very early days to say how this will further go, because we've only still seen a few content groups, and we're in the normal first day where parties are holding on to their positions. Still, but yeah, I would say the mood music at the moment is still rather positive in the sense of finding agreement on this huge agenda. But we would, of course, like to see a bit more ambition, especially also in the global review discussion after what we heard yesterday, so that it becomes truly action oriented and that we're not just taking stock of the gaps that we've already notified.

Thanks, Anne. Camilla.

Hi, thank you for your question. It's indeed very challenging times. First, I would say that we have already lost because our Congress elections have been massively turning the seats to the right and far right. So they have now a much stronger capacity to dismantle our environmental policies. And we had until like for this previous period, it was already the the farthest to the towards the right that we had. So it's it's worsening and it's very concerning. So we still have hope that we will have a government that will be taking nature seriously, taking environmental policy seriously. We know that one of the candidates have been openly speaking about dismantling our environmental institutions and our capacity to monitor deforestation and fight against illegal activities in our forests. So we are very concerned. We are also very concerned with the protection and guarantees of rights to indigenous peoples and local communities. We know that this is an anti-environmentalist and ultimately also anti-human rights project, so we are very concerned. But this current government has reached and done a great job in fighting deforestation. As you saw recently, we had the lowest deforestation rate in record since 1988. So it's really amazing what has been done in terms of monitoring and countering deforestation and illegal activities, but still lots to be done. And regardless of the results, we'll be there. I think the streets are being heard. I think people are mobilizing and this issue is being taken up and the discussions are really evolving in terms of like how our society is looking at the environment and the nature policies and how they related to their lives. So this is an ongoing fight and regardless of the result, this will be a very difficult moment for us ongoing. So we also count on your support and Yeah, please be with us. We will need it. Thank you.

Thanks, Camila. This is a very sensitive subject for us Brazilians, right? Any more questions?

Hello, I'm Dan Bloomfield from University of Exeter in the UK. The UK government recently announced a turnaround a resuscitation of a funding pledge that was ditched by the previous Prime Minister for international climate finance and aid budget to go on nature. It says that there'll be about 1.5 billion for nature between 2026 and 2029 from the UK. How should that money be spent? What would you want to spend that on? 1.5 billion for nature from the UK? What are your priorities? You can't hear me? So one and a half billion pounds sterling from the UK government for nature for between 2026 and 2029. It was a commitment from the previous government. Now it's been reinstated. So my question to Greenpeace is what do you think that money should be spent on?

Thank you so much for that information. I think it's really encouraging for UK and other parties to start putting money on the table because, as I was saying, what we are expecting from this COP is that we are getting more and more of this kind of commitment. And we hope that by the end of the COP in Yerevan, we're going to get firm, like more actions in that direction to put money on the table to close the gap because I had this morning, before this press conference, the IFC, the Indigenous People and Local Communities Caucus, was having the press conference in this room, and they were also highlighting the fact that they are doing a lot of work on the ground. They are putting their life at risk to save nature, but their effort is not recognized. They are up their contribution is not recognized. When we are talking about accelerating implementation, they're not even talking about the actions that indigenous people and local communities are already doing on the ground. And this kind of situation needs to change. We have to make sure that each actor is recognized in even little that they are doing. So for instance, the money that the UK has put on the table, we could say that We want to know how this money will be used and how this is going to be channeled to those people that are on the front line, that are putting their life at risk to save the planet, because the work they are doing there is not only about their local benefit, but it's for the entire planet. So I would say that the priority is really to make sure that the local and on-ground biodiversity protection are prioritized, the people that are doing the work on the ground need to be recognized and also get the meaningful support financially and technically to make sure that the work is going on and that we can all put our hand together and tackle the biodiversity loss.

Thank you. Any more questions?

Good afternoon. Ali Bekri for AFP. I'm sorry I came a bit late on this press conference. I just wanted to broaden a bit the question on Brazil that you just answered to Latin America in general. Do we know if there is the risk or it's already materialized that the right-wing move that we see already and before the second round of the Brazilian election has already affected some venues like this one, like Cops, biodiversity, climate. What does it change? What's the risk at stake here of this move towards the right, far right?

So I'll start, but I have other colleagues that might have additional comments. So some of the most progressive voices in Latin America, for example, Colombia, have now turned to far right. So we have a colleague from Colombia that can comment on that. So unfortunately, Latin America has been-- this shift takes out from negotiations and from global climate biodiversity action. countries that are champions or that are representing very important stakeholders. On the one side, they are holding large amounts of biodiversity, forests, a capacity to bring in the solutions and make sure that indigenous peoples and local communities have the rights guaranteed. And also, they are developing countries, so they can also talk and build bridges with other countries that also are facing and being challenged by this commodity global way of doing things that we need to explore and extract everything we have from our land. So it's a very important groundwork for us in terms of how we can build adequate policies that can both protect the environment, protect people, and as well allow these countries to develop with a sustainable development that looks towards rights and poverty fight. So it's a major loss and we hope that Brazil is still on the right side of the game, but it's definitely a different scenario for us and Latin America that has been having some of the major champion voices in the region. It could be the case that we don't have these champions anymore and then there are less and less champions globally elevating the ambition and this is a concern for us.

Hello, thank you for that question. I'm from Colombia. I think that we are facing a challenge with this paradox of protecting nature and development. That's the current narrative in the region. And I think that after the COP16 that happened in Cali, let's say that Colombian people and the region Regular people, not the people coming to the cops, they are more aware of the importance of protecting nature. So in the case of Colombia, I think that we cannot see the government going back. because people, they are demanding nature protection. And then we have also the local context of the Nino phenomena, the wildfires, the drugs, et cetera. So this is a reality that we cannot hide anymore. And in the case of Colombia and Brazil, I think that that's something that we are working very hard and it's how we do translate these priorities, very scientific context to daily issues for people to understand and make that pressure. At the moment, we saw that, for example, Colombia is still working in things like indigenous people's priorities here. Let's see how it works in the next two weeks, but that's something that we are monitoring and the government has been there for a few months, so we don't know yet how they are going to behave, but for us it's important always to put at the center of the table that free, prior and informed consent is important and keep the counter-narrative right, because that's also a challenge now with social media. We have a lot of information coming from different fronts, and also the job that you do. The media is very important for us also, to connect with you, but to also share data, like facts, what is really happening, how is this impacting people, and then covering the media also with what is happening on the ground, and the solutions too. So let's say it's a tough moment for the region, but we also try to show the solutions. because that's also something important in countries like mine, where a lot of difficult things are happening at the same time. We have an earthquake in Colombia, Venezuela, and that also have an impact on nature. Many things happening at the same time, but also there are local organizations coming with solutions, indigenous people, protecting nature, et cetera. So we are trying to focus on that and prioritize that with the new governments. So we keep on doing what we need for protecting nature.

Thank you, Laura. Thank you, Camilla. Any more questions?

Hello. I'm presenting Armenian investigative journalist media. Is it okay? Okay. I should read my question. During construction at the site where the conference is now taking place, construction waste including rocks and soil, was dumped into the Neiba-Hrazdan Gorge and the Hrazdan River. As a result, trees have been broken. Some are at risk of falling. And based on our observation, the river channel may have narrowed. The area now is fenced off, so you would need to go beyond the fence to see it. We covered this case several times, but we got nothing from the government. So my question, I know it's not a general question, it's a very specific question, but anyway, so my question to Greenpeace is, how does you view this damage at the very site hosting COP17? And would you be willing to visit the area and public call on the Armenian authorities to investigate and restore it. Thank you.

Thank you for your question. As we don't have our own local office here, it's really interesting to learn about these cases from you here and from the local civil society as well. So thank you very much for bringing that information. Happy to discuss further what we could help address with the convenient presidency. So happy to have a chat after we wrap up to understand better what has been going on here. Thank you.

Thank you all. I think our time is up. So unfortunately, we don't have time for more questions here, but we are available. Please reach out to me if you need more information or if you want our spokespeople for quotes, for interviews, for anything, okay? Thank you so much.