ENB:09:52
[Next] .
[Previous] .
[Contents]
WORKING GROUP 1
The CHAIR introduced a second revision on Agenda Items 3.1 (assessment), 3.2 (monitoring), and 3.3 (indicators). NEW ZEALAND said that taxonomy is essential for monitoring and indicators. GERMANY suggested an expert group. The US added a reference to the aggregate impact of agricultural practices and the need for understanding agriculture’s role in the overall landscape context. MALAWI added institution building and enhancement to a call for capacity building for developing countries. SWEDEN added references to strengthening links between assessment of biodiversity and natural resource management.
The CHAIR introduced his draft on discussion of Agenda Item 3.9 (agricultural biodiversity). He advised Parties that there is no conflict between the policy role of the CBD and the FAO, and formed a contact group chaired by Zimbabwe to advance the text. The NETHERLANDS, supported by the EC, recalled discussion on a gap analysis work program regarding agroecosystems and agro-genetics. He favored a joint approach with the FAO. SWEDEN, supported by Denmark, suggested following the example of SBSTTA-1’s work on marine biodiversity and recalled that Sweden and Brazil had submitted extensive inputs not reflected in the text.
The Secretariat introduced Agenda Item 3.10, terrestrial biodiversity (UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/2/11, 2/12, 2/Inf.1, 2/Inf.3, 2/Inf.6 and 2/Inf.7). GERMANY called for priorities including CSD/CBD coordination and finances for combating desertification. MEXICO presented the Global Biodiversity Forum’s Statement on Forests and Biodiversity. Delegations prioritized economic and non-economic benefits of forests, criteria and indicators, underlying causes of degradation, capacity building, and restoration of degraded lands. ZAIRE highlighted financing for countries with reserves.
A number of Parties recommended that SBSTTA await the outcome of IPF deliberations before deciding a work programme. Several countries highlighted the contribution of “working forests”, a participatory ecosystem approach, integration of biodiversity into sustainable use policies, and effects of human disturbances. The AFRICAN GROUP recommended fertilizer impact studies. FINLAND highlighted harmonization of approaches. COLOMBIA asked that SBSTTA limit analysis to technical forest/biodiversity conservation linkages.
FRANCE recalled a SBSTTA-1 recommendation that COP-3 respond to a request from the Forest Panel (IPF) for advice on biodiversity measurements. MALAWI called for assistance to national initiatives. The IVORY COAST highlighted recommendations from the Francophone Group on over-exploitation. NORWAY said knowledge gaps identified by the IPF would exist whatever the outcome of the IPF process. The PHILIPPINES recommended focus on in situ conservation and participation by indigenous communities. DENMARK and AUSTRIA supported a programme adaptable to IPF decisions.
GERMANY rejected the proposed medium-term programme and suggested that SBSTTA advise the IPF. CAMEROON supported an immediate programme of work and IPF guidelines. BURKINA FASO warned against delaying CBD implementation. The BIODIVERSITY ACTION NETWORK suggested that some Parties may want to slow progress. With the FUNDACION PRO-SIERRA NEVADA DE SANTA MARTA, he called for work on the international dimensions underlying forest biodiversity loss. THE INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF THE TROPICAL FOREST called for a standing forum for indigenous peoples.
The CHAIR introduced draft text on Agenda Item 3.12, coastal and marine biodiversity. SBSTTA-2 was to review work by an expert group created by COP-2 (Jakarta Mandate) but this work has not started. Delegations generally supported the text. AUSTRALIA proposed language on lack of progress, drafting rather than "setting" priorities, and on resources for implementation. The UK rejected the proposal for a global assessment. The MARSHALL ISLANDS called for equitable geographic representation at the expert meeting and acknowledgement of regional activities. CANADA urged that delegates to other fora acquaint themselves with the implications of the CBD. He favored the GBF’s recommendation for a global state of knowledge assessment. SWEDEN noted that further COP guidelines to the Secretariat were redundant, and recommended postponing further work until SBSTTA-4. NEW ZEALAND objected.
GERMANY highlighted tourism’s impact on marine biodiversity. JAPAN recommended an open-ended expert meeting to ensure transparency. The CHAIR explained that he wanted SBSTTA to urge the COP to implement the Jakarta Mandate (Decision II/10). He invited Parties to forward comments for the expert meeting to the Secretariat. SAMOA, MAURITIUS and the MALDIVES said the expert meeting should hear representatives from small island states. NORWAY and ICELAND supported using a full roster of experts. COLOMBIA and the US asked the Chair to ensure that his draft is consistent with the Jakarta Mandate. SWEDEN, supported by PAKISTAN, supported an overall research review, assisted by UNEP and independent scientists.
SOUTH KOREA said priorities should be based on a global assessment. The MARSHALL ISLANDS suggested that Parties and other organizations forward comments to the expert meeting. SWEDEN, supported by the UK, recommended that the Secretariat document should not be forwarded to the expert meeting. AUSTRALIA said the Secretariat’s document on marine and coastal biodiversity could be critically examined by the experts. UNEP announced it is preparing documentation to help implement the Jakarta Mandate. UNESCO commended the DIVERSITAS research programme.
Working Group 1 reconvened in the evening to consider the Chair’s revised text on Agenda Items 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 (UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/WG.1/CRP.1). An Annex to the text contained an indicative framework of activities that have a significant adverse impact on biodiversity. Delegates deleted the Annex, but added specific amendments from previous discussions. Delegates then considered a revised draft of the Chair’s text on Agenda Item 3.12 (marine and coastal). Proposed amendments included consideration of the views of the wider roster of experts during the expert group meeting and the output of SBSTTA-3 based on the expert meeting.