You are viewing our old site. See the new one here

ENB:09:65 [Next] . [Previous] . [Contents]

IDENTIFICATION, MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT (AGENDA ITEM 8)

In initial consideration of this item on Wednesday, 6 November, delegates considered Options for Implementing Article 7 of the Convention (UNEP/CBD/COP/3/12) and the SBSTTA recommendations on implementation of Article 25.2(a) (UNEP/CBD/COP/3/13). Article 7 calls on Parties to identify and monitor components of biodiversity, and processes and activities that may have adverse impacts on its conservation or sustainable use. Article 25.2(a) calls on the SBSTTA to prepare scientific and technical assessments of the effects of measures taken in accordance with the Convention’s provisions.

Numerous delegations endorsed SBSTTA recommendations II/1 (on assessments and assessment methodologies, identification and monitoring, and indicators) and II/2 (on capacity building for taxonomy). The EU said the development of indicators should be given a high priority. SWEDEN stressed a bottom-up approach to developing indicators. GERMANY stressed the importance of identifying and agreeing internationally on suitable indicators. SOUTH AFRICA and AUSTRALIA supported a two-track approach to assessment and indicator development. INDIA called on regional bodies, in connection with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), to conduct assessments in marine areas. ETHIOPIA emphasized the need for flexibility in methodologies. NORWAY called for the use of remote sensing. ARGENTINA called on UNEP to provide necessary funds for training in taxonomy. BRAZIL proposed the creation of taxonomic centres of excellence. JAPAN called for attention to regional differences in establishing a framework for identifying activities that have adverse effects on biodiversity.

During consideration of the draft decision on Identification, Monitoring and Assessment (UNEP/CBD/COP/3/L.6), MALAWI, on behalf of the African Group, proposed a paragraph endorsing SBSTTA recommendation II/2 on capacity building for taxonomy, which was adopted. The EU and the G-77/CHINA proposed alternative formulations for a paragraph calling on the GEF to address the need for capacity building in taxonomy. The EU’s proposal emphasized capacity building in taxonomy “relevant to field activities.” The G-77/CHINA formulation requested the GEF to provide financial resources to developing countries to address the need for capacity building, including taxonomy, to enable them to develop and carry out initial assessment for designing, implementing and monitoring programmes in accordance with Article 7. The G- 77/CHINA formulation was accepted and the decision was adopted, as amended.

[Return to start of article]