Is the current draft of the Long-Term Strategic Approach to Mainstreaming biodiversity (LTAM) an acceptable basis for the continued work?

Yes, the European Union considers the current draft of the LTAM and the associated action plan as a good basis for the continued work. However, as the LTAM is meant to support implementation of the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), the current drafts should be revised, structuring all their elements along the relevant GBF targets.
With reference to notification 2023-120, we would like to ask the Secretariat to briefly set-out how the work under the LTAM would relate to other work on tools and guidance for achieving the targets, including as part of the CBD work programmes. (This could be done separately and it may not be necessary to spell this out in the LTAM itself.)

Spain underlines that the process leading up to and during COP15 did not allow for a thorough discussion on the draft LTAM by Parties and stakeholders, and that the submissions that were assembled in documents CBD/COP/15/INF/10-12 were not integrated into a new proposal for LTAM, which made it more difficult for Parties to even agree on an ad interim approach at COP15.
Regardless, we underline the importance of the LTAM with its actions, as presented in CBD/SBI/3/13. Therefore, we request reinserting the actions in the LTAM, namely under Headline Actions 1 to 5. All changes and text proposals made on the strategy areas for the LTAM should also apply to the Action Plan.
With these amendments, the current draft of LTAM can be considered an acceptable basis for further work. The final form of the LTAM, including its Action Plan, should be adopted at COP-16 to be used as an important tool for the implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.

Yes, we consider the current draft as an acceptable basis for continued work. Mainstreaming biodiversity is a key determinant for achieving the goals of the convention and is part and parcel of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF). In order to effectively mainstream biodiversity, the GBF needs to be fully implemented by all Parties and, likewise, its full implementation will only be possible with delivering on its many targets related to mainstreaming. The LTAM should serve to support the implementation of the GBF, hence the current draft should be revised in line with the relevant GBF targets and avoid duplications.

Canada agrees that the overall content of the current draft of the LTAM is an acceptable basis for continued work.  However, it is essential that the LTAM is updated to reflect decisions made at COP15, especially the finalization of the 23 targets.  In particular, the LTAM should be revised to communicate how various Targets (e.g. 15, 16, 18) intersect with LTAM and how LTAM can help support the practical implementation of the KMGBF and its 23 targets.  Canada also agrees with the European Union's comment (#3143) that the work done in notification 2023-120 should be integrated with the LTAM as the tools and guidance from various international sources could help to support the action plan.

No, the current draft of the LTAM is not yet acceptable. It needs to be completely rethought and rewritten, on the basis of discussions involving all sectors of society, especially Indigenous Peoples, women, local communities and small/peasant farmers, which is one reason why both UNDRIP and UNDROP should be part of those discussions. 

The CBD Secretariat should organise these discussions as soon as possible, to take place well before SBI-4, so that a new draft LTAM based on them can be produced in good time.

The challenges are immense and the CBD needs to be more outspoken on the importance of biodiversity and should be a stronger advocate for biodiversity and ecosystem functions within the UN and globally. The CBD should be strongly aware of and resistant to all the false solutions being proposed with the aim of avoiding real change, especially to the current economic model. It must work with other UN bodies to counter the growing strength of corporate interests within the CBD and across the UN.

Belgium agrees with the points made by Spain, Germany and the European Union.  Whilst we consider the current draft LTAM Strategic Approach to be an acceptable basis for the continued work that needs to be undertaken ahead of COP16, we agree that it needs to be revised and restructured to fully reflect and support the different elements of the Global Biodiversity Framework.  

Belgium also agrees that it would be useful to understand the Secretariat’s views on how the work under the LTAM relates to other work that is underway on tools and guidance for achieving the targets, as requested by the European Union.

Yes, we consider the current draft of the LTAM and the associated action plan as a good basis for the continued work. However, as the LTAM is meant to support implementation of the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), we agree with the EU, Canada, and others that the current drafts should be revised, structuring all their elements along the relevant GBF targets.

When updating the LTAM and Action Plan, it is crucial to again ensure adequate non-state actor participation, as this has proven to be one of the succes factors that made the current LTAM and Action Plan work so well.

FOEI believes that the current draft of the LTAM lacks the necessary emphasis on the regulation of businesses which are damaging to biodiversity. Only through coordinated regulation by all states can the negative spiral of business impact on biodiversity and human rights violations – often of those who defend biodiversity- be stopped. The LTAM will need to elaborate much more on this to have credibility.

All the sections that include voluntary measures by business will need to be revised, as many of them have a terrible track record in solving the problems at hand; on the contrary, they often worsen them. The LTAM needs to be based on measures with a proven track record of effectively improving biodiversity.

Therefore, the current draft of LTAM is not an acceptable basis.

According to the Netherlands, the LTAM, and its associating action plan, is an important supporting tool to facilitate implementation, and enhance understanding of, mainstreaming biodiversity. The current draft, based on the important work of the Informal Advisory Committee on Mainstreaming, provides a good basis to continue work. The LTAM should contribute to the implementation of the mainstreaming targets of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. Using the current structure as a basis, the LTAM should be further improved through revising and restructuring the LTAM in line with the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, as other colleagues have mentioned in the posts above.