ENB:09:28
[Next] .
[Previous] .
[Contents]
AGENDA ITEM 9 — MEDIUM-TERM PROGRAMME OF WORK OF THE CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES (UNEP/CBD/COP/1/13)
The second ICCBD considered the need to outline a medium-term programme of work of the COP. Many delegations expressed their views on the issue of standing and rotating agenda items within the medium-term programme of work. Germany, on behalf of the EU, supported by Australia, Canada, Japan, the US and others, endorsed the medium-term programme of work. He suggested that COP-II focus on the link between national reporting and work programs. Australia noted that more immediate attention was required on capacity building, national reports, the clearing- house mechanism, and the issue of in situ and ex situ genetic resources. Brazil supported by Colombia, India and others, proposed the following agenda items for COP-II: an ad hoc intersessional working group on the adoption of a biosafety protocol; access to genetic resources and the equitable sharing of benefits; knowledge and practices of indigenous and other local communities; and the relationship with the CSD. The items proposed for COP-III included: access, transfer, and development of technology; incentive measures; special session of the General Assembly to review Agenda 21; and matters pending from COP-II. France said the COP will have to conduct a survey of global biodiversity on the basis of national inventories and highlighted the importance of conservation. India stressed the importance of addressing in situ and ex situ genetic resources and the knowledge and practices of indigenous and local communities and sharing of benefits with these communities. A representative of the Caucus of the Indigenous Peoples’ Preparatory Committee urged the COP to reorganize the work programme to include the rights of indigenous peoples within the Convention, from 1997 back to 1995. The Third World Network, on behalf of the NGO Task Force on Biosafety, stressed that guidelines would not be an acceptable substitute to a biosafety protocol. Greenpeace International emphasized the importance of a biosafety protocol and highlighted the issue of poverty eradication in relationship to the CSD and the sustainable use of biodiversity. Sweden said the perennial issues before the COP were: financial matters, transfer of technology and scientific cooperation. He suggested considering: all the ecosystems in relation to the objectives of the Convention; a thematic review linked to the CSD process; and work done by the FAO for consideration by COP-III. Norway stressed issue prioritization for the COP-II and recommended that a biosafety instrument should be developed. The US said the COP should establish both a permanent and a rotating agenda. Malaysia reiterated the importance of convening a working group on biosafety. Kenya urged that COP-II consider biosafety, ex situ collections, IPRs, incentives and indigenous knowledge. Germany, on behalf of the EU, called on COP-II to address: national strategies; biodiversity indicators; determination of biodiversity components under threat and the action needed; management of and possible extension of nature conservation areas; and conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity. The EU suggested that COP-III address: financial mechanism effectiveness; policies, strategies and eligibility criteria and the list of incremental costs; the role of in and ex situ conservation; land-use planning; the FAO initiative on plant and genetic resources; indigenous rights; review of the global biodiversity assessment; scientific and technical programs; and conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in agricultural ecosystems. China called for the first two years to focus on: the clearing-house mechanism; SBSTTA; and technical and technological exchanges and human resources training. China also supported a working group to establish biosafety guidelines with a view towards the possible negotiation of a protocol. Germany, on behalf of the EU, supported the creation of international voluntary guidelines on biosafety and called on the COP to consider the need for, and modalities of a binding instrument, as well as the establishment of an ad hoc work group of technical experts to assist the COP. Chile, Slovakia, on behalf of the Eastern European Group, Zaire, the Philippines, Cuba, Brazil, Malawi and Sri Lanka recommended examination of a biosafety protocol in the medium-term programme of work. The UK said that it was developing national guidelines for biosafety jointly with the Netherlands. Australia said that an open-ended ad hoc working group should conduct a rigorous and objective analysis of the need for a protocol. Slovakia, on behalf of the Eastern European Group, called for biosafety to be considered by COP-II, including a working group on GMOs, and a moratorium on GMOs until a protocol is negotiated. Zaire said a protocol should mention the risk of release of GMOs and recommended the inclusion of monitoring using local experts, risk assessment and in situ conservation. UNIDO suggested that the COP consider using the guidelines and the voluntary code of conduct developed by the Interagency Working Group composed of UNIDO, FAO, the WHO and UNEP as a basis for further action. Australia, speaking on behalf of Japan, the US, Switzerland, Canada, New Zealand and Mexico, recommended a three-year planning horizon with the following routine matters: a report from the financial mechanism; reviews of programme priorities, the SBSTTA, and the clearing-house mechanism; a report on relations with other conventions and institutions; a budget; national plans and related matters under Article 6. She said that COP-II should address guidelines for national reports and progress on genetic resources and in situ conservation. The Philippines said that access to genetic resources cannot be separated from the rights of indigenous peoples and underscored the need for community involvement. The representative from the Ramsar Convention said that the Convention and other related ones, including CITES and Bern have amassed field experience that need not be duplicated. The Bonn Convention noted that it could provide information on migratory species. UNESCO offered assistance in promoting research and education, citing an upcoming meeting on international cooperation for biodiversity and a biodiversity guide for teachers to be distributed globally, especially in developing countries. FAO emphasized its work related to preservation of plant genetic resources for food production and access to ex situ genetic collections, including those of the Consultative Group on International Agriculture Research (CGIAR), which it now manages. Sweden stressed the need to consider access to genetic resources and said that COP-III’s consideration of intellectual property rights should be coupled with farmers and indigenous peoples’ rights. Malaysia recommended coordination with FAO’s negotiations on plant genetic resources. An open-ended contact group chaired by Mauritania discussed outstanding issues on this agenda item. (See page 7.)