ENB:09:23
[Next] .
[Previous] .
[Contents]
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
AGENDA ITEM 6.6 — FINANCIAL RULES: The Secretariat introduced UNEP/CBD/COP/1/10 entitled “Draft Financial Rules Governing Funding of the Secretariat.” The Chair noted three unresolved issues: the scale of assessments to be applied; brackets on the draft rules, particularly those dealing with the decision-making on budgetary matters; and the assignment of a trustee to manage the secretariat’s funding. Algeria, on behalf of the G-77 and China, said that any assignment of a scale of assessments must consider the economic difficulties of developing countries and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. He said the guarantee clause in Article 20, paragraph 4 should be the basis of any discussion. Germany, on behalf of the EU, said that UNEP should be the trustee for the Secretariat, but suggested that the COP could call for proposals from other agencies. The EU prefers: assessment Formula I, including a 2.5 percent assessment on the EU for administrative costs; Rule 3A for the financing of the Trust Fund; and Rule 15A on decisions. Japan said while it is ready to support the budget of the Secretariat, it does not assume any legal obligation to contribute to the Secretariat’s budget, and requested the word “voluntary” in the text. He favored Formula I for assessments and supported UNEP as trustee. Canada, supported by the US, preferred: Formula I; consensus decisions; and UNEP as the trustee as part of its duties as the Secretariat organization. The US also supported Japan’s call for voluntary contributions. Australia called for mandatory assessments, based on the capacity to pay, to assure predictable funding and endorsed Formula I, UNEP as trustee and Rule 15A. New Zealand suggested seeking consensus under Rule 3 by making a minor amendment to Rule 3A, and supported Formula I and 15A. Brazil recommended mandatory contributions, UNEP as trustee, and Rule 15B with a two-thirds majority.
AGENDA ITEM 7—SUBSIDIARY BODY ON SCIENTIFIC, TECHNICAL AND TECHNOLOGICAL ADVICE: The Secretariat introduced document UNEP/CBD/1/11. Delegates were asked to consider terms of reference, organizational and procedural matters, date and venue of its first meeting, and financial arrangements. Algeria, on behalf of the G-77 and China, reiterated the extreme importance attached by developing countries to the SBSTTA as the main implementing body after the COP. Due regard should be given to geographic representation and full participation by developing countries. The SBSTTA should concentrate on specific matters and examine ways to facilitate the transfer of technology, as well as access to eco-technologies for developing countries. India emphasized that technology transfer should be given due priority in the SBSTTA, the programme of work, and the clearing-house mechanism. Germany, on behalf of the EU, said that priorities should be set according to the medium-term programme of work to prevent overburdening the SBSTTA, adding that its advice should be purely scientific, technical and technological. He recommended specialized panels to ensure efficiency, but objected to the need for a steering committee to meet more often than the entire SBSTTA. The US suggested the SBSTTA should be open-ended, and that its panels should consist of a variety of experts. Malaysia recommended that the SBSTTA should: undertake scientific work on protocol issues such as biosafety and the movement of germplasm; develop criteria for sustainable use; and review threats to biodiversity. Brazil, supported by Colombia, suggested that it should only ask for advice on national reports, and that report production is the responsibility of each country Party. He added that the SBSTTA’s terms of reference should mention protection of indigenous lifestyles and practices. Sweden said it is too early to establish terms of reference, but that the SBSTTA should examine priorities for a clearing-house and promotion of technical and scientific cooperation. The UK said the SBSTTA’s main objective should be to establish a scientific baseline against which future assessments could evaluate the Convention’s effectiveness. New Zealand suggested that the SBSTTA should: communicate with national agencies rather than individual experts; develop a specific priorities list; be cost-effective; and avoid creating burdensome reporting requirements. Japan said that the SBSTTA’s terms of reference are too specific but that it should establish panels focusing on specific priority issues. China suggested the SBSTTA should provide the COP with scientific information and advice to promote technology transfer.
AGENDA ITEM 10 —BUDGET FOR THE SECRETARIAT OF THE CONVENTION: Algeria, on behalf of the G-77 and China, said that the Secretariat is the keystone for the implementation of the Convention and that it required the necessary level of financial resources, particularly for preparatory work for COP-II. He proposed that the Interim Secretariat prepare a comparative note based on the precedents set by other Conventions to provide a clearer picture of budgetary needs. Canada raised the need for budgetary flexibility, a secretariat that was not top-heavy in nature, and linkage between the host organization and location of the secretariat. Germany, on behalf of the EU, said that costs should be reduced and the budget for 1995 should be based on the budget of the Interim Secretariat. Australia said the draft budget was consistent with: the needs of the medium-term programme of work; the prompt start of the SBSTTA; and the provision of information to Parties. Japan said that the proposed budget of $6 million was high and recommended that personnel be streamlined and the number of working languages be reduced in SBSTTA. Spain said that the discussion of the location of the Secretariat and the extension of the Interim Secretariat was important. Switzerland reiterated his Government’s offer to house the secretariat free of charge, at least until 1998 and its willingness to provide substantial support for the secretariat beyond its obligations as a Party to the Convention. Sweden questioned who would finance the 1995 budget that will actually become operational in a few weeks. Norway supported a budget that would maximize the secretariat’s effectiveness and urged for realistic figures. UNESCO affirmed its offer to provide, free of charge, several full or part time UNESCO staff in several substantive areas. FAO said that it was prepared to second a biodiversity and agriculture programme officer at its own expense. China supported Brazil that no developing country should contribute more than the developed countries.
AGENDA ITEM 8— PREPARATION OF THE PARTICIPATION OF THE CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY IN THE THIRD SESSION OF THE COMMISSION ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT:The Secretariat introduced the document UNEP/CBD/ COP/1/12. Algeria, on behalf of the G-77 and China, stressed the importance of cooperation between the COP and the CSD. He added that the focus of the COP report to the CSD should be on substantive issues, such as resource mobilization and technology transfer. Michael Monaghan of the Interim Secretariat read a statement on behalf of Mr. Nitin Desai, USG for Policy Coordination and Sustainable Development. Desai noted that the 104 ratifications indicate the survival of the spirit of Rio. He called for the closest possible cooperation between the DPCSD and the Convention at both the interagency level and the policy and coordination level within ECOSOC. Ghana said that the SBSTTA should contribute to the work of the CSD’s Ad Hoc Working Group on Biodiversity. Canada supported the need for a separate convention on forests. Zimbabwe said that the CSD should not treat biodiversity in a compartmentalized way and that the importance of benefit-sharing within nations must be highlighted. Germany on behalf of the EU, recommended that the COP should report on 3 items: significance of the Convention; current state of its implementation; and its relationship to Agenda 21. Australia noted that the conservation and sustainable use of forests will be critical to achieving the objectives of the Convention. Samoa said that the Programme of Action of Small Island States depends on regional cooperation and that this aspect should be reflected as well. Spain noted that the report of the experts workshop held in Madrid should be included in the report. The UK recommended that the medium term programme of work be reflected in the report to the CSD. Kenya requested that progress be reported on: mobilization of sufficient financial resources by the COP; the issue of technology transfer; and capacity building. The Netherlands and Finland said that the forest principles will be further elaborated on in a possible convention on all types of forests to be discussed by the CSD in 1995. They recommended that this issue be dealt with by the CSD and not within the Convention. Colombia said that the third CSD should help the COP in the development of a biosafety protocol. Sweden said that once the SBSTTA was established, the Convention could provide valuable input to the CSD. He referred to FAO’s contributions in the area of forests. The IUCN questioned how the COP will address the forests issue. He added that the COP’s statement should reflect a willingness to coordinate not only with the CSD but with other convention processes as well. The WWF called for additional reference to those activities to which the CSD should give priority in order to promote the implementation of the Convention. These include the issues of consumption and trade patterns and their impact on biodiversity. He added that the COP should establish an intersessional working group on forests.