Skip to content

| EFE

Reflections on civil society participation and advocacy at COP 16

The historic participation of civil society was the highlight of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP 16), which took place in Cali, Colombia, from October 21 to November 1. This article proposes some critical, c…

Por: Camilo Andrés DuránDecember 17, 2024

The historic participation of civil society was the highlight of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP 16), which took place in Cali, Colombia, from October 21 to November 1. This article proposes some critical, contextual reflections that can be used by civil society to address future meetings like this one.   

Pathways and barriers to influencing COP16

In February 2024, Cali was selected as the host city for COP16. It is the third largest city in Colombia and the closest to Colombia’s Pacific region—one of the most biodiverse regions in the world. 

The Conference had two main areas. The Blue Zone, where the official negotiations of the Parties took place, at the Valle del Pacífico Events Center, that is, outside the city of Cali. The Green Zone, on the other hand, was organized in the heart of the city of Cali, about 15 km from the official negotiating space. 

This Green Zone was the largest in history, compared to participation spaces such as the Interactive Fair for Biodiversity at COP10 in Nagoya, the Civil Society and Youth Forums held at COP13 in Cancun, or the Green Action Zone at COP15 in Montreal. The Green Zone in Cali was developed in more than 350,000 m2, concentrating more than 1,100 events, 280 cultural activities and a million visits to stands of grassroots social organizations, academia, NGOs and the private sector.

However, there were at least three barriers to civil society advocacy in the official COP negotiations. The first is about who has a say in decisions. At the press conference of the Women’s Network for Land and Climate Action, Shirley Krenak, representative of the National Articulation of Indigenous Women Warriors of Ancestry, asked who is a “Party” at this Conference of Parties, and what indigenous peoples’ place. It is clear that beyond the various declarations promulgated by different sectors of civil society, it is the States, through their delegates, who have the last word in the decisions taken in relation to the international instrument. Finally, it is the states who are the subjects of obligations under international law.  

In any case, there were at least two paths for civil society advocacy at COP16. On the one hand, it was agreed to create a Subsidiary Body that seeks to strengthen the work between indigenous peoples, local communities and countries within the framework of the Convention. This was a proposal that 511 indigenous peoples from several Amazonian countries had been supporting within the framework of what was known as the G9

The parties also approved the recognition of Afro-descendant communities as key actors in the protection and care of biodiversity. This was a proposal promoted by the Black Communities Process and the Coalition for the Territorial and Environmental Rights of Afro-descendant Peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean and was supported by governments such as Colombia and Brazil. These two experiences show the importance of having governments open to dialogue with civil society as a factor that facilitates greater impact in the international arena. 

A second barrier to participation was physical distance. In addition to the fact that the Blue Zone and the Green Zone did not share the same space, it was difficult to move between them. Beyond the visit of some official delegates to the Green Zone in spaces free of official negotiation, dialogue could not be generated in a constant manner, rather there were two differentiated scenarios of political advocacy. 

While in the Blue Zone international policy was negotiated, in the Green Zone networks were built among actors and advocacy processes were carried out with the citizens who came to the space and with the local governments.

Finally, a last obstacle stems from the complexity of the negotiations in the framework of the COP and the lack of experience of many of us who are part of civil society in these spaces. There is a growing understanding of the underlying problems, but the formalities and procedures in this type of spaces are essential to monitor and understand the moments and ways to exert pressure on decision-makers. 

The almost instantaneous dissemination of virtual information by the Secretariat of the Convention on Biodiversity contributes enormously to this purpose, making it possible to follow the Conference from anywhere in the world with an Internet connection. In addition, the daily press conferences offered by the Secretariat itself should be a space not only for journalists, but especially for interested citizens. We still have to make efforts from civil society to understand the codes of international negotiations that allow us to achieve greater impact.

Beyond the Blue Zone: a network that strengthens civil society

In parallel to the official negotiations of the Parties, the Green Zone was opened as a novel space for civil society, allowing the construction of networks among diverse actors and advocacy spaces at the local level, both processes that will surely transcend the COP and will be strengthened in the future. 

Dejusticia was present throughout the two weeks there in the Zona Verde, where it sought to be the epicenter of civil society with conversations that allowed us to strengthen our work agenda but also those of other networks with whom we shared the space. Under the framework of the diversity of life, we held conversations around issues such as: drug policy and its impacts on health and the environment; the importance of a comprehensive gender approach in the defense of the environment; the financing of biodiversity with proposals from civil society; the implementation of the Escazú Agreement; and incentives for conservation and human rights, among others. These spaces for conversation brought together national and international non-governmental organizations, indigenous and Afro-descendant communities, civil society leaders—who are opponents in other spaces—academia and citizens in general. 

In addition to participation in preparatory and parallel events in the Blue Zone, civil society had its own agenda of events in the Green Zone that allowed it, for two consecutive weeks, to dialogue, organize and advocate. In this last aspect, the alignment of issues between discussions and dialogues in both zones was crucial. The dialogue in the Green Zone was based on 12 thematic axes, framed in roadmaps that sought to link civil society proposals with decision-makers. Synchronizing the dialogue thematically is an important lesson from COP16 on how to link civil society in these international scenarios. 

In short, there was an important role for civil society to highlight in the framework of COP16 and it is necessary to reflect on this in order to strengthen its participation in future scenarios such as this one. In terms of advocacy, although there are still ostensible barriers, there are lessons learned and avenues open to achieve greater effectiveness in international negotiations. But beyond international advocacy, COP16 left a network of multiple civil society actors that was strengthened by the conversation on an issue that is as novel as it is cross-cutting for many actors: biodiversity.

Powered by swapps
Scroll To Top