ENB:09:04
[Next] .
[Previous] .
[Contents]
WORKING GROUP II
Operational structure and characteristics of the financial mechanism: The Chair summarized that most countries noted that the language in Article 21 is sufficiently clear regarding the requirements of the financial mechanism. Countries cited both structural and performance components, such as transparency, democratic decision-making, and universal membership as essential. The Chair noted agreement on the criteria of effectiveness and efficiency. The US said that, beyond the requirements of the Convention, the mechanism should: fund high quality projects; facilitate participation of local communities and NGOs in project proposal and execution; be responsive to the different needs of biodiversity conservation.
Relationship of the COP to the financial mechanism: The Chair noted agreement on the need for clear procedures in the financial mechanism; communication between the mechanism and the COP; a formalized reporting system from the mechanism to the COP; a quick response to funding requirements; and regular replenishment and advice from the COP on the resources needed. Japan stressed that the COP should consult with the financial mechanism on arrangements. There was agreement on the need for a clear division of labor between the COP and the mechanism to avoid micro-management. In accordance with the Convention, the COP shall determine the policy, strategy and programme priorities. Regarding the legal relationship between the COP and the financial mechanism, Hungary proposed preparing a list of desired characteristics as part of a contract with the GEF or any other mechanism. Tanzania suggested that the mechanism should be an independent legal entity.
Eligibility criteria: The Chair requested that the delegates contribute to an indicative list of eligibility criteria. Sweden suggested that Malaysia prepare alternative criteria. The Chair requested that the G-77 meet with the Nordic countries to prepare a list for today.
It was agreed that only developing country signatories will be eligible after the first meeting of the COP. Japan dropped its legal concern over the definition of the term "developing countries." Consequently, it was agreed that all developing countries are eligible until the first COP. Bahamas noted the special conditions dealing with LDCs and SIDS.
Economies in transition (EITs): The Chair explained that the issue of access of "economies in transition" to the mechanism is not a matter for the Convention. Brazil noted Expert Panel Three's suggestion of an amendment to the Convention regarding this point. Poland called for additional provisions, noting the vital need of EITs for support to implement the Convention.
Subsidiary bodies: Japan, the US, Austria and Canada said that no subsidiary bodies should be established. Tunisia, supported by Mexico, Venezuela and Brazil, suggested a follow-up body linking the COP and the GEF. Some noted that the same countries involved in the restructuring of the GEF were present at the ICCBD.
GEF restructuring and suitability as a mechanism: Sweden, Belgium on behalf of the EC, Switzerland, Canada, Japan, the US, Austria and Chile expressed confidence that the GEF would be restructured to ensure its suitability for the Convention. The Chair referred to links to the GEF as "bridge-building." He noted that the group would want to transmit guidelines to the GEF. Some countries said that guidance from this group to the first COP regarding the mechanism could serve as a signal to the GEF. Malaysia opposed relegating discussions with the GEF to the Secretariat and said the ICCBD should provide it with "instructions" rather than "guidelines."
The Chair's summary indicated that the relationship between the COP and the GEF could be settled during the interim by the Chair of the ICCBD at GEF meetings. Colombia, on behalf of the G-77, stated that this should not preclude the possibility that the ICCBD send policy guidance to the GEF, as proposed by the Finnish non-paper.
Interim period: Many countries felt it was not useful to focus on the interim period. However, Brazil stated that the GEF should be provided with criteria for the interim period. WWF noted that, according to the Convention, the GEF's eligibility as the interim mechanism is dependent on its restructuring, scheduled to be completed by December 1994, after the first COP and, therefore, there is no basis for a decision to be taken on this point.
On behalf of Iceland, Norway, and Sweden, Finland proposed a draft resolution regarding the interim financial mechanism. Paragraph 2(g) of Resolution 2 invites the ICCBD to consider developing policy, strategy and programme priorities, as well as criteria and guidelines for eligibility to resources until the Convention's entry into force. The Chair stated that it would, in fact, continue until the first COP. Malaysia took issue with the implications of the criteria, referring to "conditionalities."
Other mechanisms and placement: WWF called for the GEF to be but one element of the Convention's financing mechanism. EDF, on behalf of several NGOs, noted the Expert Panel's recommendation to consider a centralized mechanism within the COP like the Montreal Protocol Fund. Canada spoke on developing countries' access to information and funds from other sources, such as development agencies and regional banks. After asking about the relationship of these sources to the COP and their responsibility to the Convention, he suggested that the Secretariat arrange for these bodies to attend the next session.