EARTH NEGOTIATIONS BULLETIN PUBLISHED BY THE INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT (IISD) WRITTEN AND EDITED BY: Chad Carpenter, LL.M. Deborah Davenport Peter Doran Anja Jänz Daniel Putterman, Ph.D. . Managing Editor Langston James Goree VI "Kimo" Vol. 9 No. 51 Wednesday, 4 September 1996 HIGHLIGHTS OF SBSTTA-2 TUESDAY, 3 SEPTEMBER 1996 The second day of the second session of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA-2) commenced with a brief meeting of the Plenary to elect remaining Bureau officers. Following this, the two Working Groups convened. PLENARY The Plenary completed the election of Bureau officers. The Asian region nominated Mick Raga (Papua New Guinea), the East European region nominated Issa Omarovich Baitulin (Kazakhstan), GRULAC nominated Edgar Espeleta-Guttierrez (Costa Rica), and the African region nominated a representative from Swaziland. WORKING GROUP 1 The CHAIR introduced a draft text summarizing the group's discussion on items 3.1 (assessment), 3.2 (identification and monitoring) and 3.3 (indicators). NORWAY asked for distinction between assessments of biodiversity status and state of knowledge. SWEDEN called for mention of biotechnology’s impact. MARSHALL ISLANDS queried next steps regarding adverse impacts, suggesting discussions with NGO experts. COLOMBIA, the EU, the UK, NEW ZEALAND, CANADA, the US, ZIMBABWE, AUSTRALIA and NIGERIA called for prioritization of work. Priorities included: critical methodological review, indicators, information exchange, analysis of activities with negative impact, refinement of guidelines, capacity building, information exchange and cooperation with other international processes. DOMINICA called for direct reference to financing. CANADA underlined the importance of existing biodiversity knowledge. Supported by ZAIRE, ZIMBABWE and the IVORY COAST, he added traditional knowledge to the Chair’s list of priorities. The US called for a methodological review of guidelines and indicators. BANGLADESH suggested using World Bank social indicators for comprehensive biodiversity assessments. FINLAND proposed using indicators for assessing ecological landscapes. ZIMBABWE suggested an intergovernmental expert panel on adverse impacts. The IVORY COAST emphasized capacity building. INDONESIA called the clearinghouse mechanism (CHM) the highest priority for information flow. MAURITIUS stated that biodiversity assessment requires capacity building. The FOUR DIRECTIONS COUNCIL emphasized the role of indigenous communities in monitoring biodiversity. The Secretariat introduced the document on Agenda Item 3.9, agricultural biodiversity (UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/2/10). Many delegations cautioned against duplicating the work of FAO. BRAZIL introduced a paper on biodiversity’s importance to agriculture, proposing a 5-year plan. SWEDEN called for an agro-ecosystem plan of action in cooperation with other agencies, and submitted a supplementary document (UNEP/CBD/ SBSTTA/2/Inf.20). The NETHERLANDS called for identification of areas for conservation or sustainable use and inquired about negotiations between FAO and the CBD. The UK called for integrating agriculture with biodiversity conservation. SWITZERLAND supported FAO’s work and highlighted microbial biodiversity. ZIMBABWE, for the African Group, called for agricultural practices that promote both high yields and environmental restoration. COLOMBIA generally supported the Brazilian paper. AUSTRALIA gave scientific cooperation and technology transfer the highest priorities. GERMANY said that not all modern agricultural practices damage biodiversity and that SBSTTA’s future work should incorporate traditional and modern practices. BANGLADESH highlighted sustainable and equitable sharing of international resources, particularly water and riparian resources. NORWAY said SBSTTA should focus on analysis of the gaps in knowledge, and the COP needs to clarify communication with the FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. INDONESIA stressed coordination between agencies working on biodiversity, and noted much work is needed at ecosystem level. PERU said the document needs to be more specific regarding in situ conservation of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA). DENMARK characterized the document as too general for substantive decisions and highlighted the importance of restoring natural habitats. MOROCCO focused on integrated resource management and said SBSTTA should support all existing initiatives using CBD as a basis. JAPAN noted that formation of a working group is premature. CANADA suggested consulting FAO on information gaps, such as the relationship between biodiversity-friendly practices and market forces. The US, supported by the EU, highlighted positive aspects of intensive agriculture, including reduced pressure on wild biodiversity, and called for consultation with FAO. MALAWI supported recommendations in Sweden’s paper on public awareness of cultural and biological diversity. AUSTRALIA underscored that FAO is the primary task manager on agricultural biodiversity. The EU highlighted FAO’s work on PGRFA and outlined legislation to encourage agricultural sustainability. PAKISTAN stressed transfer of environmentally sensitive technology and focused on management of arid lands. NEW ZEALAND suggested that the CBD Secretariat should coordinate with FAO in identifying gaps for SBSTTA action. URUGUAY called for a balance between increased food production and biodiversity conservation. GHANA proposed that COP-3 support ex situ PGRFA conservation, and support the "biosphere concept" through the GEF small grants window. AUSTRIA underscored the importance of conserving silvicultural species. FRANCE stated that the document omits in situ conservation highlighted by the FAO Global Plan of Action. KENYA emphasized indigenous agro-practices and access to technology. The CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC called for ensuring that traditional farmers benefit from the dissemination of knowledge on modern practices. The WORLD BANK called for cross-sectoral cooperation in removing institutional constraints on understanding biodiversity and agriculture. FAO noted the follow-up to the Leipzig Conference and cooperation with the CBD and other international processes, including the secondment of a FAO officer to the CBD Secretariat. The THIRD WORLD NETWORK called for discussion of links between trade liberalization and biodiversity and recognition of traditional agriculture-related knowledge. The RURAL ADVANCEMENT FOUNDATION INTERNATIONAL asked for a moratorium on agreements between biotechnology companies and botanical gardens in developed countries. The NETHERLANDS COMMITTEE FOR THE IUCN highlighted recommendations of the fourth session of the Global Biodiversity Forum (GBF-4), focusing on the identification and removal of "perverse incentives" as impediments to biodiversity conservation. CAB INTERNATIONAL underscored concern over co-evolved and domesticated organisms and soil biodiversity. WORKING GROUP 2 The Secretariat introduced the document on the CHM (UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/2/9). The GEF outlined its contribution to CHM implementation. Several countries emphasized that it needs to be based on the CBD, demand-driven and synergy- based. GERMANY, supported by CANADA, JAPAN, INDIA, MALAWI, NORWAY, COLOMBIA, SWEDEN, the UK and the EC, suggested regional workshops on the CHM. SWEDEN and CANADA suggested an advisory committee. The WORLD CONSERVATION MONITORING CENTRE proposed testing the prototype through pilots. MALAYSIA agreed with SWEDEN in advocating a pro-active role for the CHM in brokering bio-prospecting contracts. THAILAND endorsed the publication of a CHM newsletter, GERMANY stressed that it should not be limited to electronic information. PERU stressed the need for more interactive work with national thematic and regional focal points. INDONESIA said the pilot phase evaluation should focus on organisation, visualization and decision support functions. CHINA suggested that SBSTTA organize a training course for developing countries. SPAIN proposed drawing on national patent office databases. CAMEROON and SWITZERLAND called for information exchanges for countries with existing Internet competence. MALAWI called for funds from developed countries, the GEF and other donors to assist capacity-building in developing countries. INDIA noted varying levels of capacity to operationalize national focal points. The NETHERLANDS announced cooperation with Germany on developing a World Wide Web site. JAPAN cautioned against an over-ambitious pilot phase. ZIMBABWE urged integrating local knowledge and classification systems. The EC called for involvement of all stakeholders. The CHAIR introduced a draft recommendation on Agenda Item 3.5 on transfer and development of technology, including biotechnology. ANTIGUA and BARBUDA asked for a reference to the GEF. Supported by CANADA, INDIA, the US, COLOMBIA and the UK, he also queried the competence of SBSTTA to institute a liaison group. MALAWI called for financial assistance. The UK, supported by MALAWI, suggested a role for a focused open-ended liaison group. The Secretariat introduced the documents on Agenda Item 3.6, indigenous knowledge (UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/2/7 and UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/2/Inf.3). CANADA, GERMANY, AUSTRALIA, and NEW ZEALAND advocated statements by indigenous people during the session. INDONESIA recognized the role of indigenous knowledge and practices in advancing science and technology. MALAYSIA supported the establishment of working groups on indigenous knowledge. AUSTRALIA and the UK requested guidance by the COP for the SBSTTA process. GERMANY supported establishing a technical panel of experts and sharing indigenous knowledge with interested parties and the commercial sector. Several states called for clearly defined terms of reference for a panel of experts to avoid duplication of work. NEW ZEALAND stressed the financial implications of the panel. Support for an open-ended working group came from COLOMBIA, the PHILIPPINES, SWEDEN, the AFRICAN GROUP, and NGOs. The US, the UK, AUSTRALIA, SWITZERLAND and JAPAN expressed reservations. COLOMBIA said elements raised during discussion are included in his country’s Constitution. The PHILIPPINES proposed a study on the impact of the current intellectual property rights system on biodiversity. The INUIT TAPIRISAT OF CANADA described the Inuvialiuit Final Agreement (1984) on indigenous participation in environmental management. SWITZERLAND outlined a series of proposed inventories and called for support from the financial mechanism. ARGENTINA said SBSTTA should avoid political issues, and objected to a number of references in the document. ZIMBABWE, for the AFRICAN GROUP, called on SBSTTA to recognize: the role of indigenous people in sustainable development, the scientific basis of indigenous knowledge, and ethnoscientists. INDIA stressed the significance of traditional knowledge outside local contexts. The INDIGENOUS PEOPLES' BIODIVERSITY NETWORK reported on the round table on indigenous knowledge. They suggested an open-ended working group on indigenous people and biodiversity and a moratorium on bioprospecting. SWEDEN, PERU and the UK stressed the need for a cautious approach on intellectual property rights. The INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE ON DIVERSITY stressed that a technical panel would need to be composed of formal scientists and indigenous representatives. DENMARK noted the importance of public awareness and education in protecting knowledge and practices of local communities and proposed global and local indigenous networks. The INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE OF THE INDIGENOUS TRIBAL PEOPLES OF THE TROPICAL FOREST stressed the importance of recognizing the collective right of indigenous peoples within their territories. MADAGASCAR proposed an international code of ethics on access to genetic resources in countries of origin. The US endorsed market and non- market mechanisms to conserve traditional knowledge, and local participation in land management. The FOUR DIRECTIONS COUNCIL, supported by ZIMBABWE, called for GEF funded roundtables and networks to bring indigenous and formal science practitioners together to monitor biodiversity threats and responses for SBSTTA and the COP. CANADA favored a COP-sanctioned work programme involving indigenous peoples. IN THE CORRIDORS A well-attended roundtable discussion on indigenous knowledge and biodiversity conservation received favorable reviews by delegates from both North and South. One developing country delegate called the roundtable "eye- opening", while most agreed that it added value to SBSTTA-2. Some, however, lamented that the discussion was not technical but political, echoing a frustration heard in the corridors that SBSTTA-2 is not keeping to its mandate to consider scientific and technical matters. THINGS TO LOOK FOR TODAY WORKING GROUP 1: Working Group 1 will meet at 10:00 a.m. in room 407A WORKING GROUP 2: Working Group 2 will meet at 10:00 a.m. in room 406. This issue of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin (c) is written and edited by Chad Carpenter, LL.M. , Deborah Davenport , Peter Doran , Anja Jänz and Daniel Putterman, Ph.D. .The Managing Editor is Langston James “Kimo” Goree VI . The sustaining donors of the Bulletin are the International Institute for Sustainable Development , the Dutch Ministry for Development Cooperation and the Pew Charitable Trusts. General support for the Bulletin for 1996 is provided by the Overseas Development Administration (ODA) of the United Kingdom, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark, the Swedish Ministry of Environment, the Swiss Federal Office of the Environment, the Ministry of the Environment of Iceland, the Ministry of Environment of Norway and the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety. Specific funding for coverage of the CBD has been provided by the German Ministry for International Cooperation and Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ). The authors can be contacted at their electronic mail addresses or at tel: +1- 212-644-0204; fax: +1-212-644-0206. IISD can be contacted at 161 Portage Avenue East, 6th Floor, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 0Y4, Canada; tel: +1-204-958-7700; fax: +1-204-958-7710. The opinions expressed in Earth Negotiations Bulletin are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of IISD and other funders. Excerpts from the Earth Negotiations Bulletin may be used in other publications with appropriate citation. Electronic versions of the Bulletin are automatically sent to e-mail distribution lists (ASCII and PDF format) and can be found on the gopher at and in hypertext through the Linkages WWW-server at on the Internet. The Earth Negotiations Bulletin may not be reproduced, reprinted or posted to any system or service outside of the APC networks and the ENB listserver, without specific permission from the International Institute for Sustainable Development. This limitation includes distribution via Usenet News, bulletin board systems, mailing lists, print media and broadcast. For more information, send a message to .