ENB:09:28
[Next] .
[Previous] .
[Contents]
FINAL MINISTERIAL SEGMENT
Editors' Note: The High-Level Ministerial Segment started on Wednesday, 7 December 1994, and continued until Friday afternoon. This portion of the COP provided ministers with the opportunity to comment on the work of the COP and to highlight key areas of concern. Since Friday's proceedings were not included in any of the daily issues of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin, they are summarized below.
CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC: Martin Gbafolo, Ministry of Water, Forests, Tourism anf Environment, explained that deforestation (for fuel wood), demographic pressures and nomadic agriculture are of particular concern to his country. He underscored the importance of funding developing countries in setting up conservation policies.
UNITED KINGDOM: Mr. Robin Sharp, Director of the Global Environment Directorate, expressed hope that now that the COP had addressed the necessary procedural mechanisms, substantive discussion could characterize future meetings. He suggested several themes for early action, including: development of national strategies based on sound science and of national reports for COP-II; intensification of financial and human resources to assist biodiversity-rich developing countries in their conservation efforts (noting a US$200 million contribution to the GEF, US$50 million over the last three years in biodiversity-related projects); collaborative and capacity- building efforts; the forging of links with related international instruments such as CITES, RAMSAR and the CMS; a mechanism to address the benefits arising from biotechnology and a protocol on biosafety. He concluded by noting that the striking panel behind the podium, which depicts several tropical species, including a parrot, was an important symbol for the need to conserve biodiversity.
NEW ZEALAND: Mr. David Taylor stated that the Convention represents a watershed in world opinion and that its swift entry into force stands testament to its international significance. He noted that biodiversity is crucial to New Zealand as potential sources of future pharmaceutical discoveries and as an attraction for ecotourism. He also expressed support for management of biotechnology safety; cooperation within the South Pacific and Antarctic regions; a scientific and technical advisory body; and consideration of indigenous people issues.
SWEDEN: Rolf Annerberg, Director-General of the National Environmental Protection Board, recommended that the COP take a holistic approach by focusing on major ecosystems. He called for an intensive look at marine biodiversity at COP-II, agriculture at COP-III and forests at COP-IV. Preparations for the process toward developing a biosafety protocol should be carried out with a sense of urgency so that a protocol can be negotiated without delay.
SPAIN: Cristina Narbona, Secretary of State for Environment, noted that the COP had not included funds to guarantee the effective functioning of the ad hoc working group on a biosafety protocol and offered to host a meeting next spring with the provision of funding for the participation of developing country representatives. She said selection of the secretariat should not only be based on the physical site and administrative support but also on the political will of the host government to drive the Convention forward. She added that NGO participation is a crucial element of the Convention’s success.
ARGENTINA: Fernando Novillo Saravilla of the Exterior Relations Department’s Environment Unit said that the SBSTTA should: have membership from national teams; be an instrument that facilitates access to technology; and ensure sharing of benefits in a just and equitable manner.
FRANCE: Bernard Prague, Minister of Foreign Affairs Bernard Prague stressed the aim of conservation, which seems to have been insufficiently addressed in the Convention. He said thatthe Convention will be unable to realize its goals unless it builds upon an inventory that is precise and exhaustive. He noted that France has created a French environment fund to channel additional development assistance funds to biodiversity beyond the GEF.
MARSHALL ISLANDS: Espen Ronneberg said that the GEF should continue as the interim financial mechanism but added that additional resources should be made available. He stressed the need for capacity building because many of the Convention’s requirements will necessitate the upgrading of national institutions and facilities. He recommended combining efforts under the Convention with those from the biodiversity chapter of the SIDS programme.
SOPAC: Penelope Wensley, Ambassador of Sustainable Development for Australia (current chair of SOPAC), noted that the SIDS Programme of Action is a first cross-sectoral and integrated step at breathing life into Agenda 21 for South Pacific Islands. She expressed hope that future meetings of the COP and the CSD would create linkages with inegrated coastal management, and noted that the region’s National Environment Management Strategies (NEMS) urgently require financial and technical assistance for their effective implementation.
THE NETHERLANDS: Dr. A.N. van der Zande, Deputy-Director for Nature Management, Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries, drew attention to the establishment of a Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy. Underscoring the importance of agro-biodiversity, he expressed strong support for effective cooperation between the COP and the FAO. He also called for: an international legally binding instrument on biotechnology; and follow-up on the Agenda 21 Principles for Global Consensus on the Management, Conservation and Sustainable Development of All types of Forests.
GUINEA BISSAU: Amb. Lopes da Rosa called for international cooperation on the scientific, technological, financial ramifications of the Convention.
THE GAMBIA: Sulayman Samba, Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources, expressed support for the statements made by Burkina Faso and Algeria as well as for the FAO. He also called for: a vibrant partnership regarding scientific, technological and financial issues; respect for the social dimensions of structural adjustment policies; and an equitable formulation of IPRs.