The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Regional Programme for Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) held a national consultation for Brazil in Brasilia on Monday, 23 August and Tuesday, 24 August 2010 as part of a regional initiative entitled “Biodiversity and Ecosystems: Why these are Important for Sustained Growth and Equity in Latin America and the Caribbean” (the Initiative) to prepare a report on the role of biodiversity in wealth generation and support of wellbeing in the region. This was the last in the series of consultations with the first being held in Mexico City from 13-14 August 2009, the second in Lima, Peru from 24-25 September, the third in Caracas, Venezuela from 4-5 November, the fourth in Quito, Ecuador from 24-25 November, the fifth in Bogota, Colombia from 30 November – 1 December, the sixth (for Central America) in Guatemala City, Guatemala from 3-4 December, and the seventh (for the Caribbean) in Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago from 26-27 April 2010. Each seeks the inputs of national experts and stakeholders.
The Brazilian consultation included participants representing: government entities; legislators; conservation groups; the academic, indigenous and scientific communities; and the energy, health and botanical product sectors. On Monday, participants heard afternoon plenary presentations on the Initiative and the regional report, as well as the results of a national internet survey. On Tuesday morning they broke out into working groups to discuss emblematic policies in Brazil, identify key sectors for promoting investment in biodiversity and ecosystem services and any existing barriers to such investments. On Tuesday afternoon participants convened in working groups to recommend inputs to the regional report on principal arguments to use, ways to convince decision-makers and dissemination strategies.
The 2008-2011 UNDP Regional Programme for LAC has identified the Initiative as one of its regional strategic areas. Organized in partnership with the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) and the Secretariat for the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the Initiative aims to convince policy- and decision-makers in the region to invest in and maintain biodiversity and ecosystem services.
The Initiative’s primary product will be a report examining a number of issues including: financial and economic benefits and costs to countries from sustainable ecosystem management; the contribution of biodiversity and ecosystems to sectoral production and outputs; their economic value; and the role of biodiversity and ecosystem services in promoting growth and equity. The report’s production is supervised and guided by a Commission for Biodiversity, Ecosystems, Finance and Development composed of the region’s political leaders, economists, businessmen and civil society representatives. The report’s quality control is overseen by a technical advisory committee of regional, finance and economic experts, while much of the report’s actual preparation will be done by a central technical committee composed primarily of environmental economists. With a view to reflecting the diverse experiences and views of LAC nations, a series of consultations across the region was initiated in August 2009 to seek direct input from representatives of governments, civil society, indigenous communities, academia and the private sector. Participants in each consultation hold discussions on four themes: contributions of biodiversity and ecosystem services to LAC’s development and equity; paradigmatic cases of biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services in the country/region concerned and their impact on development and equity; strategic areas and mechanisms to promote investment in biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services; and inputs to the regional report. The outputs of these meetings will be incorporated into the report.
The final report is intended not only to contribute to national polices, but also to global and regional key policy events being held in 2010: the tenth Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity; the International Year of Biodiversity; the Ibero-American summit; and the post-Kyoto negotiations. The Initiative will also contribute to a global study being undertaken on the Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) sponsored by the European Commission and the German Ministry of Environment.
MEXICO CONSULTATION: This consultation took place in Mexico City, Mexico on 13-14 August 2009 and was attended by representatives of government entities, conservation groups, indigenous communities, the academic community and the state hydrocarbons firm, Pemex. Key outputs were identification of many Mexican projects and programmes involving compensation for ecosystem services, and the lessons learned and key trouble issues identified, such as property rights and difficulties in arriving at decisions involving communal land. (For IISD RS coverage see: http://www.iisd.ca/larc/pdf/larc0101e.pdf)
PERU CONSULTATION: This consultation took place in Lima, Peru on 24-25 September 2009 and was attended by representatives of: government entities; conservation groups; the academic community; organizations representing Peru’s regions; indigenous communities; and associations and companies in the forestry, finance, hydrocarbon, fishery and ecological product sectors. The opening plenary was addressed by Peru’s Environment Minister, Antonio Brack Egg. Participants highlighted some unique cases and identified strategic areas as mining, hydrocarbons, agriculture, and water. They also identified key issues they felt the regional report should address, including biofuels, trade barriers, lack of R&D in biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services, CO2 capture, and the relationship of patents with traditional knowledge. (For IISD RS coverage see: http://www.iisd.ca/larc/pdf/larc0102e.pdf)
VENEZUELA CONSULTATION: This consultation took place in Caracas, Venezuela on 4-5 November 2009 and was attended by representatives of: government entities; conservation groups; the academic and scientific communities; and associations and companies representing the hydroelectric, hydrocarbons and fisheries sectors. Participants discussed several case studies and identified energy, tourism, forestry, protected areas, health, sustainable agriculture, fisheries, water and mining as strategic areas. They suggested the payment for environmental services concept would have to be modified before it would be accepted in Venezuela, and expressed preoccupation with ecosystems shared across national boundaries. (For IISD RS coverage see: http://www.iisd.ca/larc/pdf/larc0103e.pdf)
ECUADOR CONSULTATION: This consultation took place in Quito, Ecuador on 24-25 November 2009 and was attended by representatives of: government and international entities; environment and conservation groups; the academic community; and representatives from the Amazonian and highland regions of Ecuador. Participants discussed several case studies and identified the strategic sectors as agriculture, tourism, forestry, water, coastal and marine resources, and biocommerce/biotechnology. They also stressed spiritual values, ancestral knowledge and the need for a communications strategy that links biodiversity, daily life and culture. (For a UNDP summary see: http://www.iisd.ca/larc/biodiv/lacbq/pdf/Rapporteur_Report_Ecuador_ENG.pdf)
COLOMBIA CONSULTATION: This consultation took place in Bogota, Colombia on 30 November – 1 December 2009 and was attended by representatives of: government entities; conservation groups; the academic and scientific communities; and a business association. Participants discussed several case studies and identified the strategic sectors as mining/energy, agriculture, tourism, fisheries, forestry and biocommerce. They emphasized that while Colombia has much of the environmental institutional structure and policy instruments needed to do more on biodiversity, it must give it higher priority, coordinate and integrate it with other policy areas, and stress a commercial-economic vision for sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystems. (For IISD RS coverage see: http://www.iisd.ca/larc/pdf/larc0104e.pdf)
CENTRAL AMERICAN CONSULTATION: This consultation took place in Guatemala City, Guatemala on 3-4 December 2009 and was attended by representatives from seven nations of: government entities; regional organizations; conservation groups; the academic and indigenous communities; a bioproduct producer and a private sector ecotourism project. Participants from five nations identified tourism as a strategic area, while agriculture, forestry, water and energy were identified by three nations apiece, and fisheries and protected areas by two. Participants suggested water as a thematic axis, stressed the role of biodiversity in providing food security and addressing climate change, and offered ideas for possible follow-up at the Central American level. (For IISD RS coverage see: http://www.iisd.ca/larc/pdf/larc0105e.pdf)
CARIBBEAN CONSULTATION: This consultation took place in Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, on 26-27 April 2010 and was attended by representatives from eight nations of: government entities; conservation groups; protected areas; and UNDP offices. Participants identified as strategic areas tourism, forestry, fisheries, water and protected areas. Participants offered specific recommendations for tourism, water and forestry, and identified several general capacity gaps that need to be addressed, including collecting case studies, analyzing existing data, promoting exchanges between economists and ecologists, and building capacity in effective advocacy. (For IISD RS coverage see: http://www.iisd.ca/larc/pdf/larc0106e.pdf)
REPORT OF THE BRAZILIAN CONSULTATION
Facilitated by Rodrigo Medeiros, UN Development Programme (UNDP) consultant, the consultation opened on Monday afternoon. José Machado, Executive Secretary, Environment Ministry (MMA), said biodiversity must be protected in the interests of promoting equity and a better life for all humanity. Noting the huge potential Brazil has in terms of genetic resources, forests, water and other natural capital, he stressed the need for caring for it in an adequate and intelligent manner and for integrating biodiversity conservation into other policies. He said the debate on the role and conservation of biodiversity needs to become broader, involve all actors, and be more systematic, and expressed confidence that this consultation was an important step in that direction.
Jorge Chediek, UNDP Resident Representative for Brazil, said the consultation provides an opportunity for useful dialogue between diverse actors in Brazil about the relationship between biodiversity, ecosystem services and sustainable growth. He explained UNDP promotes biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services as growth and development strategies in Brazil in several different projects. Biodiversity is in a crisis, he declared, but protecting it is often difficult because some of the most biodiverse spots tend to have much poverty.
Cristina Montenegro, Representative, UN Environment Programme (UNEP), noted the results of the Brazilian consultation will not only feed into the regional project for Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), but also a global project, The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB). She explained both projects would be inputs to the Tenth Conference of Parties (COP 10) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) to be held in Nagoya, Japan in October 2010, as well as the Rio+20 Earth Summit scheduled to be held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 2012.
Maria Cecilia Wey de Brito, Secretary of Biodiversity and Forests, MMA, said the perception of biodiversity protection needs to be changed, that the media, general public and many decision makers did not understand its true importance to health, agriculture, waster resources, climate change and to Brazil’s economy generally.
FIRST SESSION: CONTRIBUTIONS OF BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES TO LAC’S DEVELOPMENT AND EQUITY
Medeiros outlined the Initiative’s five strategic messages, namely: the current production model based on non-sustainable use of natural resources and social inequality is creating costs many times greater to the economy, as much at the local as national level; the economic and social benefits of biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services generally exceed the costs of their management; acting now is better than postponing required actions, avoiding ecosystem failures and irreversible changes; poverty reduction and other forms of social inclusion are complementary, not contradictory, objectives; and the natural resource base is a crucial form of capital for families and enterprises.
Emma Torres, Senior Adviser, UNDP Regional Bureau for LAC, explained the Initiative’s origin, organization and principal objectives. She said the Initiative aims at encouraging the region’s leaders to recognize the value of LAC’s biodiversity in promoting economic growth, equity and competitiveness, and to highlight the cost of inaction. Noting that LAC is an agribusiness superpower, she stressed the region also has the potential to be a superpower in biodiversity, carbon and freshwater if it manages its natural capital sustainably. She suggested the region has an opportunity to lead the world in the monetization of ecosystem services as a basis for integrating conservation and production functions.
A member of the regional report’s preparation team, Carlos Eduardo Young, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, addressed three particular messages of the report, that: sustainable ecosystem management (MES) is important for economic growth; MES particularly benefits the poor who have the most to lose by following business as usual (BAU); and moving from “conventional use” of biodiversity to MES is economically viable. He reviewed some barriers to greater sustainable use already identified, such as lack of financial and technical resources devoted to protected areas and the competition for land use. Young explained the report’s methodology is to identify the role of biodiversity and ecosystem services for economic growth and equity in focus sectors – agriculture (products, agro-forestry), forest management (wood and non-wood products, CO2 emissions), fish (marine, freshwater, aquaculture, sport), tourism (domestic, international) and protected areas. He further explained that the report would examine cross-cutting issues such as markets for ecosystem services, human settlements, water, energy, health, climate change and ethical aspects. He discussed specific issues regarding agriculture, water, forest resources and fisheries.
Young discussed several policy themes which have emerged in the regional report, that: ecosystems, economic activities and conditions are strongly related in LAC; current practices of production can be improved considering the flow of ecosystem services, but current policies often discourage the inclusion of the flow of ecosystem services; strategic investments may be needed to build bridges between the gaps that exist today between information, technology, market access and profitability in order to move from current production practices and wider practice of MES; and some important aspects of biodiversity may not be reflected in individual financial returns, so policies and incentives to encourage MES innovation should be taken that benefit society as a whole.
Medeiros explained that in order to have a representative consultation in a country with the size and diversity of Brazil, UNDP decided in Phase I to consult specialists via an electronic questionnaire that asked them to identify priorities and barriers to the sustainable management of biodiversity, and to provide data and case studies that demonstrate the economic and social value of Brazil’s biodiversity. He further explained that this consultation meeting in Brasilia is Phase II.
Medeiros then presented the initial results of the information collected in the electronic questionnaire used in Phase I, which received 165 responses, 33% from academia, 28% from government entities, 22% from nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and 10% from the private sector. Respondents indicated 54 public policies, plans and programmes at various levels of government, and 11 strategic areas, with two being particularly repeated: payment for environmental services (PSA); and conservation in coastal and marine areas. Three major suggestions were offered by respondents: reinforce current action and policy application and consolidation of government efforts at the federal, state and municipal levels; create new economic instruments, such as PSA, and/or expand existing ones, such as the “ecological ICMS” tax used in 14 states; and invest in long-term projects and biodiversity monitoring to improve the state of knowledge about Brazilian biodiversity and to increase understanding about the ecological processes affecting ecosystem services.
In the ensuing discussion, several participants expressed concern about the Initiative trying to set economic values to biological resources when their ecological, ethical and cultural values cannot be expressed in currency terms, in the process effectively “monetarizing” biodiversity. Torres agreed that biodiversity has many values, and explained that for this reason UNDP planned from the outset to discuss social, cultural and ethical aspects. She stressed that the point of the report is not so much to say a particular biological resource or ecosystem service is worth “x” amount, but instead to demonstrate the strong linkages between these and LAC economies and to get financiers and others to become more involved in conserving biodiversity. Young added that it was necessary to discuss biodiversity’s impact on economic growth and employment in order to motivate many politicians and decision-makers to act to protect biodiversity, and to counter the notion held by many that conserving biodiversity impedes economic growth.
Other participants asked if the report will cover all aspects of biodiversity and ecosystem services, and why there seemed to be little emphasis on environmental education in what was outlined as in the report. Torres responded that the report is not intended primarily as an educational tool, but rather as a tool to mobilize decision-makers, prompt greater research on biodiversity and ecosystem service issues, and provoke debate on all their aspects at local, national and international levels. Young added that some of the issues raised by the participants in fact would be mentioned in the report.
SECOND SESSION: PARADIGMATIC CASES OF BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN BRAZIL AND THEIR IMPACT ON DEVELOPMENT AND EQUITY
On Tuesday morning participants divided into four working groups to identify which Brazilian experiences and policies can be considered emblematic and should be mentioned in the regional report. Following this the working group rapporteurs were to report the conclusions to plenary.
Claudio Padua, Institute for Ecological Research (IPE), reported that Group One considered as emblematic the “ecological corridors” in Linhares and Sooretema in Espírito Santo state, the Pontal do Paranapanema zone on São Paulo’s western border with neighboring states, and the UNDP Project on Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity of Border Forests in Northeast Mato Grosso state, funded by the Global Environment Facility. He explained that all were good examples of involving the community and had expanded protected areas while generating income from eco-business involving sustainable use of local biological resources.
Mônica Grabert, State Environment Secretariat (SEMA) of Mato Grosso, reported that Group Two considered as emblematic: the Oswaldo Cruz Foundation’s (Fiocruz) Management Nucleus on Biodiversity and Health (NGBS); the Apucarana Oasis Project for PSA to small farmers in Paraná state; sales support from the state-owned National Supply Company (CONAB); the national policy of minimum price guarantee for ten “socio-biodiversity products” (products from biodiversity made by indigenous or traditional communities); the Food Acquisition Programme (PAA) that links family farmers with entities that need food, such as schools; the Institute of Society, Population and Nature’s (ISPN) Programme of Small Eco-social Projects (PPPE) in the Cerrado Biome, soon to be extended to the Caatinga Biome; and the Social-Environmental Institute’s (ISA) programme to restore degraded areas on Xingu land in Mato Grosso.
Group Three identified three different sectors: government; the private sector and NGOs. On behalf of the group, Vânia Vieira Cunha Rudge, Centroflora Group, reported they considered as emblematic among actions by governments: the National Policy on Medicinal and Phyto-therapeutic Plants (PNPMF); the National Plan to Promote Socio-biodiversity Product Chains; the National Policy on Organic Agriculture; the Initiative to Value Indigenous Cultural Material; financing and public subsidies by the Brazilian Innovation Agency (FINEP), Bank of the Northeast (BNB) and state research support foundations for innovation focused on biodiversity use; the diversification of forest inputs through the RESEX programme on indigenous lands; and the Brazilian Agriculture Research Corporation’s (Embrapa) “agro-ecology transition” programme.
Regarding emblematic cases from the private sector, Group Three identified: the maté tea and natural rubber production chains; efforts in Rio Grande do Sul to conserve the genetic material of green rice; Centroflora’s Partnerships for a Better World project; Centroflora’s Vegeflora project in Piauí state; several firms supporting biodiversity projects, including Natura, Boticário and Michelin; and the Central do Cerrado and Bodega da Caatinga socio-biodiversity product cooperatives.
As for emblematic cases involving NGOs, Group Three identified: the Interstate Movement of Women Coconut and Babassu Crackers (MIQCB); Agrotec’s production of medicinal plants and food products; the Articulação Pacari project on medicinal plants; PPPE; the Floravida Institute; the work of SOS Mata Atlântica to protect the Atlantic Forest; Ecology and Action’s (ECOA) work in Mato Grosso do Sul state; the Sustainable Amazon Foundation; and the Biodynamics Institute; the Union for Ethical Bio-Trade; and the Banco do Brasil Foundation’s “bank of social technologies.”
Rubens Nodari, Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC), reported that Group Four identified as emblematic: tourism projects in the Chapada dos Veadeiros National Park in Goiás state; the Maricoré Green Cooperative of small chestnut producers in the Capanã Grande –Marimoré Extractive Reserve in Amazonas state; the agricultural co-ops and associations in the Extractive Reserve of Médio Juruá and the Uacari Sustainable Development Reserve; the Green Gold Enterprise in Mato Grosso and starting now in Pará state too; the NGO “Earth Allies” formed by rural producers and researchers to evaluate socio-environmental practices; the “Creole seeds” project in western Santa Catarina state; the Biodiversity and Agriculture Commodity Program (BACP); the Biodiversity and Business Offset Program (BBop); the international multi-stakeholder “roundtables” for responsible production of palm oil, soy, biofuel and cotton; and the “live pharmacies” and “green pharmacies” medicinal and phyto-therapeutic plant projects in Amazonia undertaken by Embrapa, Petrobras, the Federal Institute of Amazonas (CEFET) and Fiocruz’s pharmaceutical subsidiary, Farmanguinhos.
THIRD SESSION: STRATEGIC AREAS AND MECHANISMS TO PROMOTE INVESTMENT IN BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
On Tuesday just before and after lunch participants divided into working groups to identify: strategic sectors for biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services; opportunity costs and existing barriers to sustainable management; how best to provide incentives to invest in biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services; and innovative financing mechanisms toward these ends. After the group discussions, each working group rapporteur reported to the plenary.
Regarding strategic sectors, the working groups identified water, agriculture, agro-extraction, silviculture, fisheries, biodiversity-focused tourism, phyto-medicines, protected areas, and socio-biodiversity products.
Among the barriers they identified were: cultural, such as European food preferences rather than those based on what Brazil’s biodiversity offers; lack of credit; lack of targeted technical assistance; lack of targeted research and development related to biodiversity; lack of systematized and readily accessible information; an inadequate, outdated regulatory framework, particularly pertaining to socio-biodiversity products; difficulties in establishing commercial contracts with producers for socio-biodiversity products regarding quality, quantity and frequency; and management deficiencies in associations and cooperatives of small rural producers.
On actions recommended to address the issues identified, the working groups called for, inter alia: improving environmental education; promoting water reuse; allowing access to traditional lands; allowing carefully controlled tourism on indigenous lands; modifying the regulatory framework for the production and commercialization of native products and to help small-scale agro-industry; reducing costs for small and medium-sized enterprises sustainably producing products from biodiversity; and creating mechanisms for access to local, regional, national and international markets for biodiversity-based products, similar to the Industry and Commerce Ministry’s “exporta fácil” (“easy export”) facility. They also proposed: using intellectual property instruments such as patents, geographic indications and collective marks to guarantee market niches linked to biodiversity; providing as much rural extension technical assistance geared to producers of biodiversity-derived products as is currently provided to large-scale agricultural producers using unsustainable practices; regularizing Conservation Units (UCs) and land titles; and integrating traditional and modern scientific knowledge.
Regarding financing mechanisms, the working groups suggested: upgrading existing government funds to make PSA more viable, especially PSA specific to biodiversity, as opposed to water or carbon; getting CONAB to incorporate PSA into its policies; facilitating credit for small producers and producers that value biodiversity; and promoting reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries (REDD) and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries (REDD+).
FOURTH SESSION: DISCUSSION OF CASE STUDIES
The consultation agenda originally called for participants to consider in this session the lessons from two TEEB case studies, one on ecosystem service payments (PES) access in Paraguay, the other on motivating Indonesian authorities to adequately protect Leuser National Park in Aceh Province through studies of the economic losses. However, since Sessions Two and Three had taken more time than anticipated, Medeiros told participants they would receive the case studies by email with instructions for providing feedback via the same medium.
FIFTH SESSION: INPUTS TO THE REGIONAL REPORT
In the session on inputs to the regional report, the working groups were directed to reflect on several questions, in particular: what the principal arguments are for promoting biodiversity and ecosystem services as contributing to growth and equity; how best to convince decision-makers of the need to invest in biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services as cross-cutting foci in national development plans; and what actions should be undertaken to disseminate the regional report. Following their deliberations, the working group rapporteurs reported to plenary.
Regarding principal arguments to employ to convince decision-makers, the working groups suggested: stressing the economic value of biodiversity and the services it provides as a rationale for its conservation; pointing out the number of people who benefit from biodiversity conservation, whether through food security, income gained, stabilizing communities in rural areas or water production; including conservation of genetic resources as an environmental service; providing concrete examples of the irrational use of biodiversity and how it resulted in more poverty, social inequity and irreversible environmental impacts; citing concrete examples of success stories; concretely relating biodiversity to mitigating and adapting to climate change; and emphasizing reduced costs resulting from stopping unsustainable practices whose true costs often are not explicitly factored into economic calculations. They also recommended: stressing the business opportunities in providing value-added products originating from socio-biodiversity; underscoring that the scale of Brazil’s biodiversity is of such magnitude that many valuable products await to be discovered and sustainably developed; and arguing that the guardians of biodiversity provide an invaluable service to society and thus should receive a greater share of the benefits derived from their services.
On disseminating the report, the working groups recommended a number of practices, including: creating a web portal with geo-referenced information; providing 30-second public television ads on the subject; providing articles on biodiversity themes for radio, television and the internet; tailoring the message about the report to the different audiences such as legislators, universities, industry federations; working with the Secretariat of Strategic Affairs in the Brazilian Presidency; a national launch event that includes the President and his Ministers; creating a video synthesis of the report; and conducting a dialogue on the report with development banks, universities and research support foundations.
In the closing plenary, Carlos Ferreira de Abreu Castro, Coordinator for Environment and Development, UNDP-Brazil, reviewed some of the biodiversity-related projects UNDP is undertaking in Brazil and thanked participants for their inputs to a regional initiative that should help dispel the notion that economic production and biodiversity conservation are necessarily in conflict. Emma Torres told participants that all the materials gathered for the report will be available through a website UNDP is creating, and that the website will become one of the vehicles for continuing the dialogue on conserving biodiversity and the role of ecosystem services. She added that UNDP and its partners in the Initiative foresee other products on other aspects of the issue in the future, and as an advisor to the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) she is pressing the Bank to pay greater attention to biodiversity. Medeiros reminded participants about emailing feedback on the two TEEB case studies, and to submit any other relevant case studies and bibliographies they could offer.
The consultation came to a close at 6:00 pm.
Workshop on Forest Governance, Decentralisation and REDD in Latin America: The Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) and the UN Forum on Forests (UNFF), with a number of government collaborators, are organizing a workshop with participants from government, development and environmental NGOs and local community and indigenous peoples representatives to discuss regional perspectives on REDD and develop a better understanding of how decentralisation and forest governance contribute to sustainable management of forests. The results are expected to feed into the 9th session of the UN Forum on Forests. CIFOR is a member of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). dates: 31 August - 3 September 2010 location: Mexico (Distrito Federal), Mexico www: http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/Events/CIFOR/decentralisation-redd.htm
Informal Meeting of Climate Ministers: This meeting, co-organized by the Governments of Switzerland and Mexico, will help prepare for the 16th session of the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC scheduled to take place in Cancún, Mexico, at the end of 2010, and will focus on the long-term financing of climate protection. Participants are expected to discuss the overall architecture of the financial mechanism, including the new Climate Fund, as well as private sector engagement, governance and funding sources. dates: 2-3 September 2010 location: Geneva (Geneve), Switzerland www: http://www.iisd.ca/crs/climate/gdcf/
CBD COP 10: The tenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is expected to assess achievement of the 2010 target to reduce significantly the rate of biodiversity loss, adopt an international regime on access and benefit-sharing and celebrate the International Year of Biodiversity 2010. dates: 18-29 October 2010 location: Nagoya (Aichi), Japan contact: CBD Secretariat phone: 1-514-288-2220 fax: 1-514-288-6588 e-mail: email@example.com: http://www.cbd.int/meetings/
XX Ibero-American Summit: This annual summit organized by the Ibero-American General Secretariat (SEGIB) brings together heads of state and government from Spain, Portugal and the Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking nations of Latin America. The subject of biodiversity is expected to be on the Summit agenda. dates: 11-12 November 2010 location: Mar Del Plata (Buenos Aires), Argentina phone: 34-91-590-1980 fax: 34-91-590-1981 www: http://www.segib.org
UNFCCC COP 16 and COP/MOP 6: The 16th session of the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the UNFCCC and the sixth session of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (COP/MOP) will be held in Mexico. dates: 29 November - 10 December 2010 location: Cancun (Quintana Roo), Mexico contact: UNFCCC Secretariat phone: 49-228-815-1000 fax: 49-228-815-1999 e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org: http://unfccc.int and http://cc2010.mx/en/