ENB:09:51
[Next] .
[Previous] .
[Contents]
WORKING GROUP 2
The Secretariat introduced the document on the CHM (UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/2/9). The GEF outlined its contribution to CHM implementation. Several countries emphasized that it needs to be based on the CBD, demand-driven and synergy-based. GERMANY, supported by CANADA, JAPAN, INDIA, MALAWI, NORWAY, COLOMBIA, SWEDEN, the UK and the EC, suggested regional workshops on the CHM. SWEDEN and CANADA suggested an advisory committee. The WORLD CONSERVATION MONITORING CENTRE proposed testing the prototype through pilots. MALAYSIA agreed with SWEDEN in advocating a pro-active role for the CHM in brokering bio- prospecting contracts.
THAILAND endorsed the publication of a CHM newsletter, GERMANY stressed that it should not be limited to electronic information. PERU stressed the need for more interactive work with national thematic and regional focal points. INDONESIA said the pilot phase evaluation should focus on organisation, visualization and decision support functions. CHINA suggested that SBSTTA organize a training course for developing countries. SPAIN proposed drawing on national patent office databases. CAMEROON and SWITZERLAND called for information exchanges for countries with existing Internet competence.
MALAWI called for funds from developed countries, the GEF and other donors to assist capacity-building in developing countries. INDIA noted varying levels of capacity to operationalize national focal points. The NETHERLANDS announced cooperation with Germany on developing a World Wide Web site. JAPAN cautioned against an over- ambitious pilot phase. ZIMBABWE urged integrating local knowledge and classification systems. The EC called for involvement of all stakeholders.
The CHAIR introduced a draft recommendation on Agenda Item 3.5 on transfer and development of technology, including biotechnology. ANTIGUA and BARBUDA asked for a reference to the GEF. Supported by CANADA, INDIA, the US, COLOMBIA and the UK, he also queried the competence of SBSTTA to institute a liaison group. MALAWI called for financial assistance. The UK, supported by MALAWI, suggested a role for a focused open-ended liaison group.
The Secretariat introduced the documents on Agenda Item 3.6, indigenous knowledge (UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/2/7 and UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/2/Inf.3). CANADA, GERMANY, AUSTRALIA, and NEW ZEALAND advocated statements by indigenous people during the session. INDONESIA recognized the role of indigenous knowledge and practices in advancing science and technology. MALAYSIA supported the establishment of working groups on indigenous knowledge. AUSTRALIA and the UK requested guidance by the COP for the SBSTTA process. GERMANY supported establishing a technical panel of experts and sharing indigenous knowledge with interested parties and the commercial sector. Several states called for clearly defined terms of reference for a panel of experts to avoid duplication of work. NEW ZEALAND stressed the financial implications of the panel.
Support for an open-ended working group came from COLOMBIA, the PHILIPPINES, SWEDEN, the AFRICAN GROUP, and NGOs. The US, the UK, AUSTRALIA, SWITZERLAND and JAPAN expressed reservations. COLOMBIA said elements raised during discussion are included in his country’s Constitution. The PHILIPPINES proposed a study on the impact of the current intellectual property rights system on biodiversity. The INUIT TAPIRISAT OF CANADA described the Inuvialiuit Final Agreement (1984) on indigenous participation in environmental management. SWITZERLAND outlined a series of proposed inventories and called for support from the financial mechanism. ARGENTINA said SBSTTA should avoid political issues, and objected to a number of references in the document.
ZIMBABWE, for the AFRICAN GROUP, called on SBSTTA to recognize: the role of indigenous people in sustainable development, the scientific basis of indigenous knowledge, and ethnoscientists. INDIA stressed the significance of traditional knowledge outside local contexts. The INDIGENOUS PEOPLES' BIODIVERSITY NETWORK reported on the round table on indigenous knowledge. They suggested an open-ended working group on indigenous people and biodiversity and a moratorium on bioprospecting. SWEDEN, PERU and the UK stressed the need for a cautious approach on intellectual property rights. The INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE ON DIVERSITY stressed that a technical panel would need to be composed of formal scientists and indigenous representatives.
DENMARK noted the importance of public awareness and education in protecting knowledge and practices of local communities and proposed global and local indigenous networks. The INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE OF THE INDIGENOUS TRIBAL PEOPLES OF THE TROPICAL FOREST stressed the importance of recognizing the collective right of indigenous peoples within their territories. MADAGASCAR proposed an international code of ethics on access to genetic resources in countries of origin. The US endorsed market and non-market mechanisms to conserve traditional knowledge, and local participation in land management. The FOUR DIRECTIONS COUNCIL, supported by ZIMBABWE, called for GEF funded roundtables and networks to bring indigenous and formal science practitioners together to monitor biodiversity threats and responses for SBSTTA and the COP. CANADA favored a COP-sanctioned work programme involving indigenous peoples.