No Nature-based Solutions Without a Human Rights-based Approach | Geneva Rights and Environment Talks

About this Session

Nature is fundamental to the well-being of all people. Healthy ecosystems underpin diverse livelihoods and economies, cultures, and the enjoyment of a wide range of human rights, as framed by the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment.

The UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment, David Boyd, emphasized in his 2020 report to the UN General Assembly, “All human rights ultimately depend on a healthy biosphere.” The triple planetary crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution caused by human activities impacts ecosystems, even leading to possible collapses, affecting access to clean air to breathe, safe water to drink or nutritious food to eat.

Nature-based solutions (NbS) have been recognized in various international bodies and frameworks as a way to tackle the environmental emergencies that we face today:

• The concept of nature-based solutions is rooted in the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)’s Ecosystem Approach, endorsed at its 5^th Conference of the Parties (COP 5) in 2000 in Nairobi, Kenya. It is the primary framework for action under the convention, integrating the management of land, water, and living resources.
• Nature-based solutions aimed at addressing the societal challenges related to ecosystems, such as ensuring food security, water security, social and economic development, and human health, as defined by Resolution 069, adopted at the 2016 World Conservation Congress in Hawaï (USA): NbS are “actions to protect, sustainably manage, and restore natural or modified ecosystems, that address societal challenges effectively and adaptively, simultaneously providing human well- being and biodiversity benefits.”
• In 2021, IUCN adopted its Global Standard for NbS at its World Conservation Congress in Marseille, France (by 128 State and subnational members combined) to provide a common basis of understanding for NbS and a robust global operational framework.
• In 2022, the 5^th United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA-5) adopted Resolution 5/5 on “Nature-based solutions for supporting sustainable development” to bring NbS in line with the United Nations 2030 agenda for sustainable development.
• The NbS concept is also integrated into several multilateral agreements and conventions, such as the CBD, in particular the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework’s Targets 8 and 11, UNFCCC, UNCCD, and the Wetlands Convention, and is becoming a major criterion for funding and investments.
• From 26 February to 1 March 2024, the 6^th United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA-6) is also considering a further resolution on the matter.

With such a growing recognition, ensuring a human rights-based approach in nature-based solutions is a necessity to guarantee coherence in the protection of human rights and the health of the biosphere and in the implementation of the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment.

Experts in this session reflected on these recent developments, including the recent UNEA-6 outcomes, as well as on existing human rights obligations of States, businesses, and organizations when it comes to the implementation of nature-based solutions.

About the Geneva Rights and Environment Talks

In the face of the three interrelated environmental crises — climate change, loss of biodiversity, and pollution — the recognition of the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment by the UN Human Rights Council and the UN General Assembly is an important milestone that puts environmental issues at the forefront of the human rights agenda.

The Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment reports to the Human Rights Council during its March session on issues related to his mandate. The Geneva Rights and Environment Talks aim to harness the opportunity of this moment of the year to reflect on the challenges posed by the rapid decline of nature and biodiversity and the intertwined human rights implications. The talks are also an opportunity to discuss how Geneva contributes to bringing together the actors working towards ensuring the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment is upheld for all.

Speakers

By order of intervention.

Otto SIMONETT

Director, Zoï Environment Network

Mirna Ines FERNANDEZ

Researcher, Third World Network

Grace BALAWAG

Deputy Coordinator, Tebtebba & Co-chair of the Indigenous Peoples Caucus of the UNFCCC

Ashanapuri HERTZ

Programme Officer, Swedbio

Alexandra Masako GOOSSENS-ISHII

Representative to the UN & Programme Coordinator, Climate & Environment Advocacy, Soka Gakkai International

Radhika MURTI

Director, Centre for Society and Governance, IUCN

David BOYD

UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and environment

Yves LADOR

Representative of Earthjustice to the United Nations in Geneva | Moderator

Highlights

Summary

Welcome

Yves LADOR | Representative of Earthjustice to the United Nations in Geneva | Moderator

• The challenges around nature-based solutions are becoming a key issue not only in climate change but also in the biodiversity framework and in various funding processes.
• To understand why we have so much emphasis on nature-based solutions at this moment, it is important to put this in the framework of what we call the triple environmental planetary crisis, which involves pollution, global warming, and the loss of biodiversity. These issues have very deep connections and must be considered as a global process.

Mapping the Sacrificed Zones of the Triple Environmental Planetary Crisis

• What I like in the title of this event is the word “solution.” Since I started working in this domain in the late ’80s, when we began warning about climate change, we have always used maps to illustrate the issues. Now, the whole discussion is happening even faster than we thought. I am always amazed at how much knowledge there is and how much time is lost. Hence, I really appreciate the emphasis on solutions. Nevertheless, we must be aware that we are often preaching to the converted.
• When we discuss nature-based solutions, we need to recognize that we have destroyed nature and now seek solutions that do not further harm it.
• Our project focuses on mapping the triple planetary crisis, inspired by the concept of sacrifice zones, which are the most polluted places on Earth. Can we capture this triple planetary crisis in our mapping efforts? This involves geographical mapping and inventorying what is happening at these hotspots. We aim to create a system where people can digitally and visually interact with these hotspots, understanding their drivers, causes, and potential solutions.
• Some hotspots are kept in the light on purpose because they generate money. One example is the nuclear legacies around Fergana Valley, identified after the breakup of the Soviet Union in the early ’90s. These legacies are often presented to delegations of banks and donors, but very little happens. Only now, with the help of EBRD and other banks, are things starting to change very slowly.
• Our system aims to revisit these hotspots, linking them to potential solutions and monitoring progress. Classical pollution hotspots are easier to address than those related to climate change, which involves slow-onset events. Climate change is not linear, and events like sea-level rise in the Nile Delta or Miami can reach tipping points. This makes the methodology more difficult, but not impossible.
• Biodiversity hotspots are perhaps the most challenging. We have identified hotspots, but understanding their drivers and solutions is complex. We plan to work on a prototype in the coming months, selecting three hotspots each for pollution, climate change, and biodiversity to systematize our approach. This would create an observatory for the planetary crisis.
• One important aspect I didn’t mention is conflict. We work a lot in Ukraine, where conflicts drive uninhabitable spaces. The UNEP recently passed a resolution to look at the environmental impact of conflicts, which is crucial for addressing these issues.

Looking at Nature-based Solutions from a Human Rights-based Perspective

Mirna Ines FERNANDEZ | Researcher, Third World Network

• The concept of nature-based solutions was first mentioned by the World Bank in 2008, but it was officially defined for the first time by the European Commission in 2015. One year later, the more widely used concept of nature-based solutions was adopted by IUCN at the World Conservation Congress in 2015.
• There is still a lot of confusion between nature-based solutions and other related or similar concepts. First, NBS is not the same as NCS (natural climate solutions). Although they are similar and sometimes used interchangeably, nature-based solutions focus more on ecosystem actions, while natural climate solutions focus more on carbon storage and carbon emissions reduction.
• There is also a lot of discussion on nature-based solutions versus the ecosystem-based approach or ecosystem approach. It is good to clarify that the ecosystem approach is the primary framework for action under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). It was defined in 2002 and has a set of principles that can be considered safeguards, some of which are quite strong and remain valid today. Finally, ecosystem-based approaches, defined at the CBD and by UNEP, focus more on climate adaptation.
  • Going more into the NBS part, nature-based solutions have gained the most traction and funding. This is good because good practices are being showcased, and we see many examples of governments and companies implementing nature-based solutions, such as reforestation projects and the restoration of prairies and other ecosystems. The concept gets a lot of attention and has significant media potential.
  • However, there has also been a lot of misuse of the concept, as warned by various civil society organizations and rights holders. Different companies have been using and misusing the concept for greenwashing, focusing on carbon sequestration and not on the necessary reductions. For example, Shell, the oil company, has a significant nature-based solutions project that was highly criticized for focusing more on monocultural plantations rather than cutting emissions.
  • There have also been adverse impacts on Indigenous Peoples and local community rights, especially because projects are implemented without their free, prior, and informed consent. There have been cases of land expropriation to implement these projects. Impacts on food systems have also been noted, with carbon farming receiving more funding than agroecology, which could hijack food security.
  • Studies show that conflicts increase with the implementation of NBS projects. Therefore, it is crucial to ask ourselves how we can avoid the impacts of the misuse and bad implementation of NBS. Safeguards may not be effective; for example, REDD+ schemes, aimed at reducing emissions from deforestation, had safeguards considering Indigenous and traditional knowledge and stakeholder participation, but they didn’t work well due to self-monitoring and self-reporting by states.
  • We need something more effective, binding, and stronger to ensure good implementation of NBS, focusing on the positive cases that should be funded. There is an IUCN standard for this.
• To summarize these discussions, nature-based solutions (NbS) are now featuring in the outcomes of the COPs from both biodiversity and climate change. They are included in the Sharm El-Sheikh Implementation Plan for Climate and in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework for biodiversity. We also have a first globally agreed definition from UNEA 5, which was in March 2022. This definition not only provided the first definition but also gave UNEP the mandate to convene a series of intergovernmental consultations for NBS.
• There is still a lot of disagreement, and it is very unclear how countries will be able to choose between nature-based solutions or ecosystem-based approaches if they have the right to do so. For NBS, we have a definition, but everything else still needs to be defined. The discussion on safeguards did not even start, and these are very important. We need safeguards to ensure ecosystem integrity and human rights as the highest priority in implementation. Additionally, we need safeguards for financial institutions to ensure that the funding going to nature-based solutions respects human rights and the integrity of ecosystems.
• Rights holders—Indigenous Peoples, local communities, women, and youth—need to be at the core of the discussion table. This means they need to be included in the very initial stages of discussion and design of any global standards, guidelines, definitions, norms, and safeguards for the implementation of nature-based solutions. These groups are the real experts on the ground. They have been implementing nature-based solutions for the longest time and will be able to see the gaps and misuse in implementation.

Grace BALAWAG, Deputy Coordinator, Tebtebba & Co-chair of the Indigenous Peoples Caucus of the UNFCCC

• We have conducted several case studies of Indigenous Peoples and local communities in countries where their territories are based, including Africa, Asia, and Latin America. This was done last year, and we have some publications on our website about it. We conducted the study to validate our discourse on nature-based solutions.
• First, we asked whether the approach of nature-based solutions to address climate, environment, and sustainable development is a new concept. It has been a vibrant, intergenerational undertaking practiced and refined by Indigenous communities for generations. If we are not consulted and asked how we perceive nature-based solutions, or natural climate solutions, we cannot contribute effectively.
• For Indigenous Peoples, we have long been contributing to this approach by being part of nature. For us, nature and people are intrinsically related, and we cannot separate the sustainable management of nature from the lifestyles and principles of Indigenous Peoples based on their customary governance systems, traditional values, and perspectives.
• Indigenous Peoples, with a population of around 370 to 400 million individuals, sustain the world’s cultural diversity, including about 7,000 languages. They occupy and use 22% of the world’s land, where 80% of the world’s biodiversity can be found. These ecosystems store the largest forest carbon stocks, especially in tropical forests.
• We reiterate that nature-based solutions must have a human rights-based framework to be successful. The security of collective and communal land tenure systems is the foundation of these solutions. Communal land tenure is well-suited for areas of Indigenous Peoples and local communities.
• Despite this, there have been cases of displacement and marginalization of Indigenous Peoples due to nature-based solutions proposed without free, prior, and informed consent. Indigenous Peoples have their own knowledge systems and practices that have sustained their ecosystems over generations.
• Without recognizing and respecting these knowledge systems and practices, no nature-based solution will be successful. We have our own proposals on how to deal with nature-based solutions. If only state parties define these solutions without proper consultation and consent of Indigenous Peoples within targeted territories, then these solutions will not be real or effective.
• There must be respect for collective and communal ownership of territories, customary governance systems, and Indigenous knowledge systems and practices that have proven effective over generations. Indigenous Peoples’ principles, including interconnectedness, interdependence, reciprocity, and mutual sharing, must be respected. These principles have sustained the remaining territories of Indigenous Peoples. Without these being respected, any proposed solutions will not be effective. Indigenous Peoples have been practicing and contributing to climate change solutions, biodiversity protection, and sustainable development goals for generations.
• To conclude, it is essential to have a process of effective and meaningful participation of Indigenous Peoples and local communities in any solutions proposed by governments and the private sector in relation to nature.

Ashanapuri HERTZ | Programme Officer, Swedbio

• In our paper, developed by SwedBio in collaboration with Soka Gakkai International and contributions from various organizations, we aimed to delve deeper into why a human rights-based approach is essential to address the complexity of biodiversity and climate challenges. We recognize that these challenges disproportionately impact people living in vulnerable situations.
• We have been actively engaging in the Convention on Biological Diversity and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. We have followed discussions around nature-based solutions and their definitions, as well as the recent developments in the UNEA process.
• Despite the multilaterally agreed definitions of nature-based solutions, concerns persist about their significant risks and what truly constitutes a nature-based solution. At UNEA 6, a proposal to develop standards and criteria for nature-based solutions did not pass. This highlighted the need for a human rights-based approach in biodiversity and climate actions, not just limited to nature-based solutions.
• In our discussion paper, we focused on adopting a human rights-based approach to actions addressing biodiversity loss and climate change synergistically. We collected case studies, practices, tools, and methodologies exemplifying key elements of a human rights-based approach, such as access to information, meaningful participation, and access to justice.
• We selected 13 case studies based on reviews of existing climate and biodiversity actions, representing various elements of a human rights-based approach. These case studies illustrate the importance of strengthening enabling environments, ensuring full and effective participation, and enhancing capacity and accountability of duty bearers.

Key findings from our studies include:

1. The need for meaningful participation and leadership of communities disproportionately impacted by biodiversity loss and climate change.
2. Strengthening environmental and social safeguards to protect human rights, including the right to a healthy environment.
3. Ensuring free, prior, and informed consent beyond mere box-ticking exercises.
4. Respecting and including traditional indigenous knowledge and management systems.
5. Recognizing the context-specific nature of challenges and promoting locally adapted solutions.
6. Understanding power, political, and gender dynamics affecting biodiversity and climate actions.
7. Fostering adaptive capacity and valuing communities’ abilities to monitor and address future environmental issues.

• We are preparing a dialogue process to engage with key rights holders, aiming to synthesize recommendations on implementing a human rights-based approach in biodiversity and climate actions, including nature-based solutions. We hope to provide more case studies to inspire effective implementation.

Alexandra Masako GOOSEENS-ISHII | Representative to the UN & Programme Coordinator, Climate & Environment Advocacy, Soka Gakkai International

• The origin of the resolution discussed at UNEA 6 stems from UNEA 5, which established the definition of nature-based solutions. The definition had already been a significant challenge, but it was agreed upon and adopted. Following this, a mandate for an intergovernmental consultation process was set to better understand the norms, criteria, standards, and guidelines for implementation.
• Costa Rica and Nigeria led the consultation process, which was hybrid, involving both online and in-person discussions. Despite several proposals, there was no agreement. The process aimed to compile best practices, assess criteria for common understanding, and identify options for sustainable investment in nature-based solutions.
• At the end of this process, due to the lack of common understanding, Cameroon, on behalf of the African Group, proposed a resolution at UNEA 6 to adopt criteria, norms, standards, and guidelines for implementing nature-based solutions. They emphasized not reopening the definition but focusing on the criteria and guidelines.
• Initially, the proposal suggested an intergovernmental open-ended working group with stakeholder participation, including indigenous peoples and other groups. However, this did not gain support. The next suggestion was to form an expert group nominated by states to make recommendations, but this also did not reach a consensus.
• Towards the end of the negotiations, there were discussions about creating facilitative voluntary guidelines similar to those for ecosystem-based approaches. Some states proposed a repository of good practices, but the African Group questioned the criteria for including these practices. Ultimately, there was no agreement, and the resolution was withdrawn.
• From a civil society perspective, major groups, including farmers and indigenous peoples, followed the process closely. The critical point was ensuring that any criteria designed at the multilateral level included co-designing with indigenous peoples and full participation from civil society, women, youth, and farmers. Strong safeguards grounded in a human rights-based approach were essential.
• Next steps from the civil society perspective involve engaging with donors and funding discussions to push forward human rights-based approaches. In the context of climate discussions, particularly around carbon markets, it is crucial to establish strong grievance and redress mechanisms.

Radhika MURTI | Director, Centre for Society and Governance, IUCN

• Conservation norms and practices have evolved, especially in the last two decades, focusing on socioecological systems, people’s resilience, and interdisciplinary actions. The concept of nature-based solutions emerged in 2009, and by 2016, IUCN took responsibility to define it. It’s crucial not to equate biodiversity conservation with nature-based solutions. For a solution to be considered nature-based, it must provide both human well-being and biodiversity benefits.

The eight criteria of the standard we developed are:

1. Define the societal challenge: Identify the problem and how it will be measured.
2. Design nature as the solution: Determine how nature can address the problem.
3. Economic feasibility: Ensure the solution is economically viable.
4. Biodiversity net gains: Balance biodiversity benefits with economic feasibility.
5. Inclusive governance: Ensure transparent and just decision-making processes.
6. Balancing trade-offs: Manage who gains and loses to ensure fairness.
7. Adaptive management: Ensure solutions remain relevant and effective over time.
8. Mainstreaming into systems: Integrate the solution into political systems at all levels.

Developing this standard involved 800 people from over 100 countries, including ecologists, social scientists, policymakers, and the private sector. It took three years to complete. The standard has been adopted by our members’ assembly, which includes a mix of states, NGOs, government agencies, and indigenous organizations.

• Criterion five, inclusive governance, is particularly relevant today. It involves free and prior informed consent, grievance mechanisms, decision-making processes, and upholding rights. The focus is on moving from safeguarding to programming, using human rights to enhance conservation efforts.
• We propose shifting from doing no harm to leveraging both human rights and conservation to achieve better outcomes. Although this standard hasn’t gone through the UN process, it has received significant buy-in from our General Assembly.
• To do things differently, faster, and better, we need to build long-term, trusted partnerships between conservation and human rights communities. This will enable us to shift from an activist approach to a partnership approach.

Nature-based Solutions, the Challenges Ahead

David BOYD | UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and environment

• Human rights-based approaches to the planetary crisis are the only effective and equitable way forward. I have probably said that a dozen times at the council, but the message is having trouble getting through. States have obligations to put human rights at the heart of climate action, biodiversity conservation, pollution reduction, and water issues. Anything related to climate and the environment must center human rights.
• It is encouraging to see the IUCN recognize this, though we still have many states that do not. In addition to the report I presented to the General Assembly on human rights depending on a healthy biosphere, I also wrote a report on women, girls, and the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment, which contains a lot of information relevant to today’s discussion. I also have a policy brief called “Human Rights-Based Approaches to Conservation: Effective, Inclusive, Imperative.” This brief was intended to ensure that the draft of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, which initially included no references to human rights, be strengthened. There is good news: indigenous rights, women’s and girls’ rights, and the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment all ended up in the final version of the framework.
• One area where we have seen sustained human rights violations, not just in the 50s, 60s, and 80s, but right through to today, is fortress conservation. The biodiversity framework includes a commitment to protect 30% of the Earth’s lands and waters by 2030. This is an extraordinarily ambitious commitment that could have egregious impacts on human rights unless human rights-based approaches are taken. We know from scientific evidence that when we empower indigenous peoples and traditional nature-based communities through recognition of their lands, titles, and tenures, we achieve the best biodiversity outcomes. Hence, not only are we furthering human rights, but we are also furthering conservation.
• I am perturbed by the increasing reliance on carbon offsets as a solution to the climate crisis. We have a ton of evidence now that forest-based carbon offsets, for example, are largely fraudulent. An example from Switzerland involves the world’s largest seller of carbon credits, South Pole, which got the carbon rights to about 800,000 hectares of Zimbabwe, sold carbon credits worth literally hundreds of millions of dollars, but there is no evidence that any communities in Zimbabwe benefited or that there was any protection or restoration of forests. This is gravely concerning. We now see companies from the United Arab Emirates, like Blue Carbon, signing agreements with African governments covering more than 80 million hectares of Africa. They have no expertise in forest management or dealing with communities, so this is a major concern.
• The United Nations’ recognition in 2021 at the council and in 2022 at the General Assembly of the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment is a clarion call for rights-based approaches to these challenges. It clarifies the point that the right to a healthy environment puts people and nature together. It ends the age-old separation of humans and nature and says we must take actions that are good for both people and nature at the same time. I am delighted to see a recent law passed by the state of New South Wales in Australia, which mandates that all climate action must be consistent with the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment. This will drive rights-based climate action.
• However, we know that where legal frameworks are inadequate, such as the European Convention on Human Rights, which makes no mention of the right to a healthy environment, the European Court has ruled that there is no right to nature protection under the convention. This is despite scientific evidence showing that nature protection is fundamental for human well-being. This is why there is a critical campaign to add the right to a healthy environment as an additional protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights.

Closing

• There are many studies about what are called perverse subsidies—government subsidies that result in harm to nature and the climate, currently estimated at approximately $1.7 trillion, largely going to businesses that harm the environment. This money should be redirected to people and communities working on genuine nature-based solutions.
• This discussion is a first step in bridging the fields of nature protection and human rights. We need more human rights in biodiversity and ecosystem instruments, and in many of these processes. An additional protocol in the European region is necessary. Without normal and livable ecosystems, we will face more human rights violations and the death of many systems and life in general. These are fundamental challenges that we need to address.

Video

Live on Facebook

Environment @ HRC55

The 55th regular session of the Human Rights Council (HRC55) is taking place in Geneva and online from 26 February to 5 April 2024. This regularly updated page highlights the environmental-related activities of this session.

Photo Gallery

Documents

• Presentation

Links

• Environment @ 55th Session of the UN Human Rights Council
• Geneva Rights and Environment Talks
• Adopting a human rights-based approach to biodiversity and climate action | Swedbio