128 Ingrid Hall
WG8j
Even during the meetings of the WG8j, where we saw that IPLCs practice a
politics of nature, it is noticeable that during negotiations in plenary sessions,
participants’ speeches do not make reference to this politics of nature. In their
interventions, IPLCs make reference, instead, to the words used in the texts of
the CBD, the way this institution works, and highlight the importance of other
institutions such as UNESCO. Thus at the opening of the WG8j, the IIFB, in
its declaration, indicated the necessity – in a context where the erosion of biodiversity is accelerating, and given the expectation that IPLCs will conserve biodiversity in an exemplary manner – of implementing the various texts previously
voted for in order to allow IPLCs to carry out their conservation work.
When presenting the results of the Local Biodiversity Outlook 2 (Forest
peoples program, 2020) to which she contributed, and trying to evaluate the
accomplishment of Aichi Target 18, Ms. Joji Carino Nettleton (member of the
IIFB) reiterated the message. In her intervention, she spoke of failure: the measures voted for are not put into practice, and there is a flagrant lack of political
will. In this intervention, she also identified the dysfunctional mechanisms of
the CBD: the delegations of the various countries must produce reports in which
they document – among other topics – the situation of IPLCs and how their
traditional knowledge is taken into account. This knowledge is not taken into
account, however, and this turns the achievement of the goals previously fixed
into an unrealistic hope (ISSD, 2019, p. 3). Here, therefore, we see clearly that
the strategy adopted is anchored in a detailed knowledge of the CBD’s texts and
mechanisms.
In 2019, with the WG8j’s mandate reaching expiry, a large number of the
positions taken up by IPLCs and by the IIFB had to do with the future participation structure of IPLCs. The hope is that a permanent structure will be created.
Thus, at the closing of the event, the IIFB “reminded delegates and participants
that the full and effective participation of IPLCs is crucial for a strong post-2020
framework” (ISSD, 2019, p. 7).
SBSTTA
During the SBSTTA, where the participation mechanism for IPLCs is much
more restricted, the positions upheld by the IPLCs are even more limited and
must be even more efficient. IPLCs took advantage of their rare opportunities
to speak to defend their most essential points. Over the course of the meeting,
the IIFB thus consecutively insisted on the “important contributions of IPLCs
to biodiversity conservation benefitting society as a whole”; on “the full and
effective participation of IPLCs in the post-2020 process” (ISSD, 2019, p. 11);
on the respect for recommendations given by the WG8j; on the crucial nature
of “collaboration between all actors, including IPLCs” (ISSD, 2019, p. 14) who
must have access to information on conservation issues and should be included
WG8j
Even during the meetings of the WG8j, where we saw that IPLCs practice a
politics of nature, it is noticeable that during negotiations in plenary sessions,
participants’ speeches do not make reference to this politics of nature. In their
interventions, IPLCs make reference, instead, to the words used in the texts of
the CBD, the way this institution works, and highlight the importance of other
institutions such as UNESCO. Thus at the opening of the WG8j, the IIFB, in
its declaration, indicated the necessity – in a context where the erosion of biodiversity is accelerating, and given the expectation that IPLCs will conserve biodiversity in an exemplary manner – of implementing the various texts previously
voted for in order to allow IPLCs to carry out their conservation work.
When presenting the results of the Local Biodiversity Outlook 2 (Forest
peoples program, 2020) to which she contributed, and trying to evaluate the
accomplishment of Aichi Target 18, Ms. Joji Carino Nettleton (member of the
IIFB) reiterated the message. In her intervention, she spoke of failure: the measures voted for are not put into practice, and there is a flagrant lack of political
will. In this intervention, she also identified the dysfunctional mechanisms of
the CBD: the delegations of the various countries must produce reports in which
they document – among other topics – the situation of IPLCs and how their
traditional knowledge is taken into account. This knowledge is not taken into
account, however, and this turns the achievement of the goals previously fixed
into an unrealistic hope (ISSD, 2019, p. 3). Here, therefore, we see clearly that
the strategy adopted is anchored in a detailed knowledge of the CBD’s texts and
mechanisms.
In 2019, with the WG8j’s mandate reaching expiry, a large number of the
positions taken up by IPLCs and by the IIFB had to do with the future participation structure of IPLCs. The hope is that a permanent structure will be created.
Thus, at the closing of the event, the IIFB “reminded delegates and participants
that the full and effective participation of IPLCs is crucial for a strong post-2020
framework” (ISSD, 2019, p. 7).
SBSTTA
During the SBSTTA, where the participation mechanism for IPLCs is much
more restricted, the positions upheld by the IPLCs are even more limited and
must be even more efficient. IPLCs took advantage of their rare opportunities
to speak to defend their most essential points. Over the course of the meeting,
the IIFB thus consecutively insisted on the “important contributions of IPLCs
to biodiversity conservation benefitting society as a whole”; on “the full and
effective participation of IPLCs in the post-2020 process” (ISSD, 2019, p. 11);
on the respect for recommendations given by the WG8j; on the crucial nature
of “collaboration between all actors, including IPLCs” (ISSD, 2019, p. 14) who
must have access to information on conservation issues and should be included