Why Brazil's lead climate negotiator walked out of COP15 biodiversity talks
‘There was no genuine engagement from the other side of the table’: Leonardo Cleaver de Athayde
Brazil's lead climate negotiator didn't attend the United Nations biodiversity conference in Montreal expecting to lead a walkout. But when he and other developing countries felt as though their concerns weren't being taken seriously, they had to act.
"There was no genuine engagement from the other side of the table on the basis of their proposal," Leonardo Cleaver de Athayde, lead climate negotiator in Brazil's Foreign Affairs Ministry, told The Current's Matt Galloway.
The walkout took place on Wednesday, following an impasse over how a biodiversity framework would be funded. Developing countries were not convinced by the commitments from wealthier nations and demanded they come up with more cash to pay for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework (GBF).
Negotiators returned to the table on Wednesday evening, but de Athayde said he hasn't seen genuine engagement from the other side since.
"We have yet to see any counterproposals from the developed countries that would address the concerns that developing countries have raised in this regard," he said.
Negotiators only have a few more days to come to a solution before COP15 wraps up on Monday.
Despite the disagreements, de Athayde said he is hopeful that common ground will be found in time.
He spoke to Galloway about the responsibility of Brazil in protecting its own biodiversity, as well as the progress made since COP27 in Egypt. Here's part of their conversation.
We're professional career diplomats and civil servants, and we're used to dealing with situations like this. You can rest assured that the Brazilian delegation is here to contribute to a deal.-Leonardo Cleaver de Athayde, Brazil's lead climate negotiator
The Amazon, as you know, [is] one of your most biodiverse places on the planet — and under your previous president, Jair Bolsonaro, we know the deforestation rates in the Amazon accelerated dramatically. So what is the the responsibility of Brazil to protect its own biodiversity, in addition to asking for help from wealthier nations?
Well, yeah, we are completely responsible for that and we realize that — and in fact, I mean, Brazil has made many pledges relating to conservation. It's actually been historically a very successful country in conserving its biodiversity assets.
But the issue here is that not only Brazil, but developing countries in general, will need international support. This is a key principle, actually, of international environment multilateral agreements.
There's this principle called "common but differentiated responsibilities," and according to this principle, developed countries are expected to show solidarity in providing financial support to developing countries in the implementation of the agreements.
That applies not only to the [United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity], but to the climate change convention and other agreements as well.
What would you say to people in Canada about our responsibility to you in Brazil?
Canada also will have a huge responsibility in implementing the GBF and the targets.
I think Canada, like Brazil, is ... is a mega-diverse country with a lot of biodiversity assets. So to be honest, in many of the discussions, Brazil and Canada actually do have similar positions.
But on resource mobilization, I think there the issue is of course that Canada is a developed country, and of course the expectation is that Canada, as well as all other global north countries, will contribute to resolving this impasse that has emerged surrounding the issue of resource mobilisation.
This was the issue that came up during the recent climate negotiations in Egypt, that there was an impasse from between wealthier nations trying to figure out what their responsibility was.... I just wonder whether you see progress in that at all more broadly.
Well, not really. I think that's the main issue that keeps coming up in every environment negotiation taking place now.
As you said, we had a very, very similar discussion a few weeks ago at Sharm el-Sheikh. And I was there. And indeed, once again, we had this difficult, new, contentious discussion on resource mobilization.
Now, that said, I think we need to acknowledge that COP27 in Sharm el-Sheikh did deliver a historic agreement on establishing a new fund for loss and damage, and I think one of the things that developing countries were expecting was that — and here in Montreal, you know, what happened to Sharm el-Sheikh would inspire us to move forward and also agree on a historic decision on finance or resource mobilization.
Are you hopeful that you will find some common ground?
We're professional career diplomats and civil servants, and we're used to dealing with situations like this. You can rest assured that the Brazilian delegation is here to contribute to a deal.
But of course, this is a collective endeavour, and all countries need to pitch in.
Produced by Kate Cornick. Q&A has been edited for length and clarity.
