What process do you think would be most adequate to further advance the work on the LTAM?

We consider it very important to submit the draft LTAM for peer review in view of a revised draft to be discussed at SBI4. The European Union would also welcome further informal discussions with Parties and rights and stakeholders, including at SBI-4.

Spain would support a peer-review process of a revised and updated draft LTAM and Voluntary Action Plan, considering previous submissions in CBD/COP/15/INF/10, CBD/COP/15/INF/11 and CBD/COP/15/INF/12, as well as the submissions by Parties and stakeholders in response to notification 2023-028 and the outcome of the open-ended Online Forum, in good time before SBI-4.
We encourage an additional activity as part of the “interim process” to enable deeper exchange between and among Parties and stakeholders on the LTAM, e.g., in the format of an informal exchange on mainstreaming before SBI-4 chaired by the SBI Chair (tentatively in early Spring 2024).
Spain encourages to give high priority to the LTAM during SBI-4, allowing appropriate discussions to make real progress before COP-16.
We could also support the establishment of an ad hoc technical expert group (AHTEG) to advise the Parties, Bureau, and Secretariat on the implementation and review of LTAM, and to collaborate with other AHTEG, such as CBD AHTEG Indicators.

With the successful adoption of the GBF and only seven years to achieve its 2030 targets, it is high time that we also deliver on the momentum and outcomes of COP13 and COP14 on mainstreaming and adopt the LTAM at COP16. Therefore, we consider it very important to submit the draft LTAM for peer review, in order to discuss a revised draft at SBI 4. To allow for thorough and fruitful discussions, we urge that mainstreaming and the LTAM are accorded high priority on the agenda of SBI-4 and that the Secretariat include a proposal for a revised draft in the preparatory document for the respective agenda item of SBI-4.

Canada agrees with previous posts that the LTAM should be put for peer-review as soon as possible, and a revised version be presented for consideration by Parties at SBI-4.

We consider the LTAM to be a useful beginning, but the current draft needs to be completely re-written before SBI-4, with much wider participation from Parties, civil society and IPLCs, including small farmers. These revisions must reflect the fact that biodiversity destruction and climate change are accelerating and interacting in ways that reveal that we have to move quickly and decisively to mainstream biodiversity in time to avoid catastrophic impacts.

Yet, as a member of the Informal Advisory Group on mainstreaming, I saw how comparatively little involvement there was from civil society, IPLCs and Parties and how deeply business was involved. This means that the current drafts of the LTAM, and the Action Plan in particular, are greatly influenced by business interests.

True biodiversity mainstreaming demands immediate reductions in both biodiversity destruction and climate forcing emissions, but many business interests fear that this could damage their profits, hence the promotion of offsets, carbon markets etc as a means to delay real action for as long as possible.

Currently there is a real risk that biodiversity and ecosystem functions, plus the indigenous peoples and local communities whose cultures, practices and knowledge are so vital to healthy ecosystems, will simply continue to be exploited for extraction and to offset continued climate forcing emissions. This is unacceptable. We also have to be aware that the promotion of carbon markets is an entry point for geoengineering projects, strongly promoted at COP28 of the UNFCCC.

Scientists agree that change is happening faster than previously thought, which makes immediate action all the more important.

The CBD must play a leading role at all levels to address this, with the participation of all sectors, especially those closest to biodiversity and ecosystems, and that is what biodiversity mainstreaming should mean.

Like Spain, Germany, the European Union and Canada, Belgium would support a peer-review process of a revised and updated draft LTAM and Voluntary Action Plan, considering previous submissions and submissions by Parties and stakeholders in response to notification 2023-028, along with the outcome of the open-ended Online Forum. This needs to be done in good time before SBI-4 to enable a meaningful discussion at SBI and adoption of a final version of the LTAM at COP16.  We also agree that an informal exchange facilitated by the SBI chair ahead of SBI-4 could be very useful. We echo the importance of giving mainstreaming and the LTAM high priority and sufficient time at SBI-4. Finally, we would like to support the request for meaningful involvement of relevant stakeholders.

Like Spain, Germany, the European Union and Canada, and Belgium, we would support a peer-review process of a revised and updated draft LTAM and Voluntary Action Plan, considering previous submissions and submissions by Parties and stakeholders in response to notification 2023-028, along with the outcome of the open-ended Online Forum.

The updating-process as well as the peer-review process should include full participation of non-stake actors. For the updating-process, we suggest considering to invite members of the previous informal working group on mainstreaming to contribute.

Friends of the Earth International is concerned about the current LTAM and Action Plan. They have never been discussed in depth by parties nor been peer-reviewed to ensure the scientific coherence of the measures. Many civil society organisations, backed up by scientific evidence, consider several of the LTAM and Action Plan measures counter-productive.

Therefore, a scientific and party peer review of the whole text should be done. Previous experiences of proposed measures must be reviewed, and their effectiveness must be assured.

Based on such a review, it is highly likely that a new text will need to be drafted. If the basis would be the current text, it would require significant possibilities for in-depth discussion and negotiation.

In no case should the LTAM be approved as a package without discussion and negotiation on each of the measures. The development of the Action Plan should be done at a later stage than the LTAM. One can only build consensus on the implementation actions of a strategy when the strategy itself has been adopted. Working otherwise would be counterproductive.

Even though we are aware that the timeframe is short, we consider it paramount to adopt the right decisions rather than following the urgency. The LTAM, as it stands, risks significantly worsening the situation of biodiversity.

We also caution that the interest in the current mainstreaming work is almost exclusively by developed country parties. Any process -including the decisions on ways forward- would need the active involvement of developing country parties.

In line with previous posts from the EU Commission, Spain, Germany, Canada and Belgium, The Netherlands is in favor of aligning the LTAM with the GBF, while taking into account previous work and previous submissions. This updated LTAM should be shared trough a peer-review of the draft LTAM, after which the secretariat can produce an updated LTAM to be shared well in advance of SBI4, for discussion at SBI-4. At SBI-4 there should be sufficient time to discuss the updated LTAM. Furthermore, the Netherlands regards it important to have a deeper exchange between parties, and to have meaningful involvement of rightsholders and stakeholders, preferably ahead of SBI-4.