ENB:09:67
[Next] .
[Previous] .
[Contents]
MONITORING AND COMPLIANCE
The Chair introduced his aide-memoire on monitoring and compliance (UNEP/CBD/BSWG/2/CRP.7). On monitoring, the aide-memoire asked: is there a need for individual Parties to report on the implementation of their commitments; if so, what matters should the reports address (e.g., the operation of the AIA and notification procedures; adoption of national regulations); and how should the reports be processed (e.g., referred to the COP; scrutinized by an expert committee). On compliance, the aide-memoire asked if the provisions of the protocol would be sufficiently normative in character to justify establishing a procedure for reviewing the implementation of commitments by individual Parties. If so, what type of process should be developed, who should trigger it, how should it operate and what should be its objective.
Many delegations agreed that Parties should report on the implementation of their commitments and the provisions of the protocol would justify some type of review process. Delegates expressed a range of views on the level of reporting and type of review. UGANDA said that reports should be processed through the clearinghouse mechanism and, on compliance, the procedure should be cooperative, conciliatory and judicial when necessary. Its objective should be sharing of experience and information. CAMEROON and NEPAL also supported a fixed system for monitoring implementation. JAMAICA called for a prescribed format for required information that could be updated annually and said that a review process should not interfere with State sovereignty. With the US and BRAZIL, he said a Party on its own behalf or the Secretariat through a committee established by the COP could trigger the review. SOUTH AFRICA expressed concern regarding the financial implications of establishing a standing review body.
The EU stated that individual Parties should report on implementation and all reports should be made available to the COP. With the US and BRAZIL, he said the provisions should be cooperative, transparent, non-judicial and advisory. The goal should be friendly settlement of differences through practical guidance and assistance. AUSTRALIA and BRAZIL said that firm positions on compliance procedures should be deferred until the obligations are clearer. JAPAN stated that monitoring will be covered under information- sharing provisions and separate section was unnecessary. ETHIOPIA, supported by LESOTHO, said monitoring should not focus only on whether obligations are being fulfilled but whether the consequences of LMOs within a country are being checked. On compliance, there may be situations when judicial powers would be required.
Following this discussion, the Chair presented two additional questions for delegates: should the protocol contain an article on non-discrimination and should the protocol address transfer of LMOs between Parties and non-Parties. He said the concept of non- discrimination entailed that Parties are treated in the same manner and no discrimination is drawn between international and national activities. INDIA and MALAYSIA said the CBD is founded on principles of equity and objected to an article of this type within the protocol. During the final Plenary, delegates accepted the Chair’s draft elements paper on monitoring and compliance (UNEP/CBD/BSWG/2/CRP.14), which reflects the range of proposals made during discussions.