ENB:09:28
[Next] .
[Previous] .
[Contents]
SETBACKS
Biosafety Protocol: Despite the fact that a process has been put in place to consider the need for and modalities of a biosafety protocol. There is considerable concern about the adequacy of that decision. Most NGOs, the G-77 and many Northern countries felt that discussions regarding the need for a protocol had been well resolved in Nairobi, and that the COP should focus its efforts on the modalities. NGOs cited the clear guidance provided by the UNEP Expert Panel on Biosafety and the support displayed in Nairobi that immediate work commence on a protocol. There was also concern that certain non-Parties have had a disproportionate influence on biosafety discussions here at COP-I, despite the overwhelming support among both Northern and Southern governments for a biosafety protocol. The fact that this ad hoc process is not directly funded from the general budget, but from voluntary funds, is worrisome to many governments who feel that lack of financial support could jeopardize the work of the ad hoc group. The Nordic countries specifically called for the ad hoc working group to be funded from the general budget.
Indigenous issues: There was disappointment among NGOs and indigenous groups that indigenous issues have been deferred in the medium-term work programme until 1996. Despite passing reference in the COP’s statement to the CSD, many felt that such a delay was inappropriate, especially given the very concrete references to the importance of benefit-sharing with indigenous groups and local communities in the Convention itself. Disagreement regarding the need for an ecosystem approach to biodiversity conservation: There is continuing disagreement over the need for an ecosystem approach to biodiversity conservation. Several countries have maintained that biodiversity loss must be addressed within the larger context of forests, agricultural production and fisheries management. Others insist on a more narrow framework for the Convention, with primary focus on monitoring, assessment and nature conservation. Several G-77 countries appear to be more concerned with issues regarding access to genetic resources, technology transfer, biosafety and the sustainable use of biological resources, although countries such as India called for more attention to conservation issues. Many G-77 and OECD countries are also concerned that a broader ecosystem focus could potentially open up discussions that would impinge upon their right to use their natural resources as they see fit and draw attention to unsustainable national practices. Some NGOs have commented that many governments may be reticent towards a broader ecosystem approach on the basis that it is still easier to develop regulatory frameworks for species than for ecosystems. For example, multiple species fisheries management is extremely complicated and problematic. Good scientific input becomes all the more important in this regard.
Financing the Medium-term work programme: One major concern related to the medium-term work programme is the inadequacy of the budget relative to the very burdened work programme. Governments seem to be divided between those who are truly committed to the aims of the Convention and to backing political commitments with the necessary level of financial support, and those governments who are not prepared to give biodiversity conservation the high political and financial backing it deserves. These governments have argued against a larger budget for the Secretariat and have further argued against funding all aspects of the COP’s work. For example, the meeting of the ad hoc working group on biosafety will be dependent on voluntary funds from those countries who oppose taking a decision now on the need for a biosafety protocol. NGOs maintain that the funds should be provided from the general budget to ensure that the work of the ad hoc group is fully executed. They are concerned that financial clout could potentially affect a formal decision by the COP. Other aspects of the preparatory work for COP-II may also be un- funded or at least underfunded. Several delegations warned against undermining substantive work by failing to provide the necessary level of financial support. They see a budget-based veto as an emerging tactic in COP negotiations.
Forests: Notwithstanding the COP’s intended input on forests to the third session of the CSD, there was considerable disappointment by some governments and most NGOs that the medium- term work programme contains no references to forests. NGOs, such as Greenpeace International, are concerned that the consideration of forests in the context of terrestrial biodiversity has been delayed until COP-III in 1996. This is problematic because COP- III will be meeting well over one and a half years after the forest issue will have been considered by the CSD and the initiation of a forest convention negotiation process (most likely under FAO, which is perceived as lacking the necessary conservation-related expertise and orientation). Many felt that this decision could potentially marginalize the Convention in the area of forest ecosystems. There is also concern that the Biodiversity Convention will not be able to assert itself as the broad-based instrument for the integration of conservation and sustainable use.
Restricted NGO access: Many NGOs commented that access to the contact group meetings at ICCBD-2 had been far more liberal than at COP-I. While they understood the need for closed-door discussions on budgetary matters, they expressed disappointment that they could not contribute to the important discussions on the medium-term work programme, especially in light of the Convention’s emphasis on broad-based participation. It was felt that the contribution of the technical and scientific expertise among NGOs at COP-I could have resulted in better decisions regarding the choice of issues to be addressed by the COP in the next three years.
Intellectual Property Rights: NGOs felt that IPRs should be dealt with as part of a cluster of issues including access to genetic resources, community rights and knowledge systems, benefit- sharing as well as indigenous knowledge and practices. The US and certain OECD countries argued in favour of addressing the IPR issue separately. The US specifically called for a narrower emphasis, in part in response to the pending ratification debate in the US Congress. The IPR issue was one of the major reasons why the Bush Administration did not sign the Convention. Developing countries, led by Brazil, argue that the IPR language in Article 16 warrants a broader consideration. G-77 countries have suggested that the Biodiversity Convention is a more sympathetic forum for the concerns of developing countries, especially in comparison with the GATT and other international agreements. Many NGOs maintain that IPRs cannot be addressed adequately without consideration of the issue of benefit-sharing in the context of the rights of farmers and indigenous groups to have access to ex situ collections and to benefit from the commercial products that have been derived from those collections that have been developed by virtue of their traditional knowledge. Many delegates felt that the politics of US ratification were not a legitimate reason to dilute the Convention’s relatively strong position on IPRs.