You are viewing our old site. See the new one here

ENB:09:28 [Next] . [Previous] . [Contents]

AGENDA ITEM 6.4 — CLEARING-HOUSE MECHANISM FOR TECHNICAL AND SCIENTIFIC COOPERATION  (UNEP/CBD/COP/1/8)

The Secretariat introduced the document and the Information Paper (UNEP/CBD/COP/1/Inf.9) on the aims, scope, function and governance of a clearing-house mechanism that was circulated at the request of Sweden. Sweden referred to the Swedish Environmental Institute (SEI) study that it had contracted on the aims, scope, functions and governance of a broad-based clearing- house mechanism. He reported that a workshop sponsored by the Bahamas and Sweden had also been conducted. He said a clearing- house mechanism should promote and facilitate technical and scientific cooperation, particularly for developing countries, in accordance with Article 18 of the Convention. The mechanism should not just be a switchboard for data and services but should take a more active role in providing brokerage services and facilitating national capacity building. The following organizations were included in the governance section of the information paper: UNDP, UNIDO, FAO, CGIAR, UNEP, WHO, TFAP, the GEF, the World Resources Institute and the SEI. Algeria, on behalf of the G-77 and China, said that the key issue regarding scientific and technical cooperation was access to, and transfer of environmentally sound technology, taking into account the needs of developing countries. He said the mechanism should be administered by the secretariat under the authority of the COP. Colombia, supported by Chile, was concerned that the mechanism not be extractive in nature regarding traditional knowledge. Germany, on behalf of the EU, supported by Japan and others said that scientific and technical cooperation and information exchange should be improved, stressing cooperation through regional centres funded either multilaterally or bilaterally. He said that the information systems of UNEP, IUCN, World Conservation Monitoring Centre, UNIDO, and UNDP should not be duplicated.  Malaysia suggested a special focus on access to genetic resources and sharing of its benefits, as well as biotechnology and biodiversity prospecting. Japan said that its funding should come from the Convention budget and the mechanism should not engage in brokerage services. New Zealand supported: regional centres; an electronic network with a decentralized structure; focus on the needs of end-users; and administration of the mechanism by the Secretariat. Egypt noted the limited access of developing countries for data management and storage. Australia supported establishment on an incremental basis and functions that would include provision of information on plans and strategies on all levels as well as information on methodologies for assessing and valuating biological resources. Brazil suggested a decentralized clearing-house mechanism and said that information should not be disseminated until rules regarding access are adopted. Canada said that the mechanism should link Parties with problems together with centres for solutions. The UK suggested that the clearing-house mechanism be limited to information retrieval and referral and not be authorized to provide brokerage services. The US recommended that the clearing-house mechanism be a pointer to the data with access open to non-parties and that it not play a brokerage role. India called for its financing to be covered by sources other than the financial mechanism of the Convention. An NGO representative speaking on behalf of NGOs questioned the appropriateness of the clearing-house to deal with such sensitive issues as the right to genetic information. An open-ended contact group chaired by Dr. A. Lazar (Canada) worked to resolve outstanding issues in this agenda item. (See page 7.)

[Return to start of article]