EARTH NEGOTIATIONS BULLETIN PUBLISHED BY THE INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT (IISD) WRITTEN AND EDITED BY: JOHANNAH BERNSTEIN ANILLA CHERIAN LANGSTON JAMES GOREE VI "KIMO" STEVE WISE . A DAILY SUMMARY OF THE FIRST MEETING OF THE CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES TO THE CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY 1 DECEMBER 1994 BIOCOP-I HIGHLIGHTS WEDNESDAY, 30 NOVEMBER 1994 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA ITEM 6.2  INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE TO OPERATE THE FINANCIAL MECHANISM UNDER THE CONVENTION: The Committee opened with a G-77 statement recommending the GEF as the interim, rather than the permanent institutional structure. The G-77's main points included: 1) the COP is the supreme body in managing the institutional structure; 2) mobilization of new, substantial and additional resources is the sine qua non to effective implementation of the Convention and is the primary responsibility of developed countries; 3) the GEF, in its present state, cannot meet the Convention's financial requirements and cannot respond to the needs or concerns of developing countries, based on the level of funds available to it; 4) the Secretariat should report to the next COP on possible sources of additional financing; 5) the GEF should continue to serve as the interim financing mechanism until the COP designates a permanent mechanism or takes other initiatives; 6) another pilot phase of the GEF should identify weaknesses in the GEF while the COP should examine ways to establish an independent fund; 7) the financial mechanism should continue on a provisional basis, to be examined at the next COP; 8) the current financial mechanism should be brought into conformity with Article 21; 9) the text of the MOU draft should be adjusted in light of these points; and 10) the G-77 and China would prepare a draft decision for the afternoon session summarizing their views. In a contentious debate, a number of developing countries strongly supported the G-77 position, while a number of developed countries opposed it. Brazil, Kenya, India, South Africa, Colombia, Malawi, Jordan, Zimbabwe, Chile, Nigeria, Uganda, Pakistan, Mauritius, Cuba, Malaysia and Guinea Bissau spoke in support of the G-77 and China statement. Brazil said that even though it is a member of the GEF Council, membership in that body of non-parties to the Convention poses insurmountable difficulties. Kenya said the difference in membership between the GEF Council and the Convention, combined with other factors, could cause the COP to become a subsidiary body to the GEF Council. India said the structure of the financial mechanism is too uncertain and ambiguous to effectively serve the Convention. South Africa called for clear norms and standards for distributing funds without the political interference that characterized past GEF projects. Colombia said the GEF restructuring had not alleviated its doubts regarding the GEF's effectiveness. Zimbabwe said that a distinct and separate fund was absolutely essential for proper control of funds. He said the GEF would filter COP projects and funding decisions, resulting in a slow and ponderous process. Chile said that the COP should seek alternative sources of funds and examine the possibility of an independent fund. Mauritius said that after the GEF Chair's comments he was more convinced than ever that the GEF should not become the permanent mechanism. Germany, on behalf of the EU, said it was disappointed in the G-77 and China proposal. He had hoped that uncertainty over the financial mechanism would be replaced by certainty regarding the predictability of the flow of funds. He said the Convention had no provision for multiple institutional structures for a financial mechanism. He added that the Convention had no provisions for new sources of funding, and that there is no clear role for an additional trust fund nor was the EU prepared to contribute to one. He recommended that the Secretariat survey the availability of funds from existing institutions. The World Resources Institute supported the GEF as the permanent financial mechanism. Opposing the GEF could affect funds committed to the Convention. Austria said the COP was preparing to send a signal of hesitation, distrust and dogmatism, that the goodwill of donor countries might be weakened, and that the COP was engaging in an act of self- mutilation. Cuba endorsed the G-77 and expressed surprise at the EU statement on additional funds. Norway said that to avoid duplication of time and resources, the GEF should be designated the permanent mechanism. Australia and Switzerland called for the GEF as the permanent mechanism. The US, noting that the GEF restructuring was undertaken to address the needs of the Biodiversity and Climate Conventions, suggested the COP build on the progress made by the GEF. Malaysia, speaking in support of the G-77 and China, refuted the perceived threat that the replenishment of funds is contingent on selection of the GEF as the permanent mechanism. She said the only certainty was that the GEF remains an interim mechanism under Article 39 until the COP decides on a permanent mechanism. The Chair, on suggestions by Hungary and Guinea Bissau to initiate informal negotiations, said he would establish an open-ended and transparent contact group to address unresolved issues under Agenda Items 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3. The group will meet outside the hours of the formal sessions, with its draft decisions to be formally considered by the Committee of the Whole. The Chair designated Dr. John Ashe (Antigua and Barbuda) as coordinator of the group. AGENDA ITEM 9  MEDIUM-TERM PROGRAMME OF WORK OF THE CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES: A number of delegations expressed their views on the issue of standing and rotating agenda items within the medium term programme of work. Germany, on behalf of the EU, supported by Australia, Canada, Japan and the United States and others, endorsed the medium-term programme of work. He suggested that COP-2 focus on the link between national reporting and work programs. Australia noted that more immediate attention was required on capacity building, national reports, the clearing-house mechanism, and the issue of in situ and ex situ genetic resources. Brazil supported by Colombia, India and others, proposed the following agenda items for COP-2: an ad hoc intersessional working group on the adoption of a biosafety protocol; access to genetic resources and the equitable sharing of benefits; knowledge and practices of indigenous and other local communities; and the relationship with the CSD. The items proposed for COP-3 included: access, transfer, and development of technology; incentive measures; special session of the General Assembly to review Agenda 21 ; and matters pending from COP-2. France said the COP will have to conduct a survey of global biodiversity on the basis of national inventories and highlighted the importance of conservation. India stressed the importance of addressing in situ and ex situ genetic resources and the knowledge and practices of indigenous and local communities and sharing of benefits with these communities. Algeria, on behalf of the G-77 and China said that the G-77 would have recommendations shortly and agreed with the EU on the review of work programme by the COP but emphasized the need to focus on issues relevant to developing country needs. A representative of the Caucus of the Indigenous Peoples' Preparatory Committee urged the COP to reorganize the work programme to include the rights of indigenous peoples within the Convention, in particular: knowledge and practices of indigenous peoples currently scheduled for 1997 to be moved to 1995. Chee Yoke Ling, of the Third World Network, on behalf of the NGO Task Force on Biosafety, stressed that guidelines would not be an acceptable substitute to a biosafety protocol. Ian Fry, Greenpeace Australia emphasized the importance of a biosafety protocol and highlighted the issue of poverty eradication in relationship to the CSD and the sustainable use of biodiversity. Sweden said the perennial issues before the COP were: financial matters, transfer of technology and scientific cooperation. He suggested considering: all the ecosystems in relation to the objectives of the Convention; a thematic review linked to the CSD process; and work done by the FAO for consideration by COP-3. Norway stressed issue prioritization for the COP-2 and recommended that a biosafety instrument should be developed. The US said the COP should establish both a permanent and a rotating agenda. Malaysia reiterated the importance of convening a working group on biosafety. Kenya urged for COP-2 consideration of biosafety, ex situ collections, IPRs, incentives and indigenous knowledge. Germany, on behalf of the EU, called on COP-2 to address: national strategies; biodiversity indicators; determination of biodiversity components under threat and the action needed; management of and possible extension of nature conservation areas; and conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity. The EU suggested that COP-3 address: financial mechanism effectiveness; policies, strategies and eligibility criteria and the list of incremental costs; the role of in and ex situ conservation; land-use planning; the FAO initiative on plant and genetic resources; indigenous rights; review of the global biodiversity assessment; scientific and technical programs; and conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in agricultural ecosystems. New Zealand suggested that the permanent agenda address the consideration of the reports of the Convention's subsidiary bodies and communications with other conventions and processes involved with conservation. China called for the first two years to focus on: the clearing-house mechanism; SBSTTA; and technical and technological exchanges and human resources training. China also supported a working group to establish biosafety guidelines with a view towards the possible negotiation of a protocol. Denmark urged consideration of: access to genetic resources; biosafety; and knowledge and practices of indigenous peoples and other local communities. Germany, on behalf of the EU, supported the creation of international voluntary guidelines on biosafety and called on the COP to consider the need for, and modalities of a binding instrument, as well as the establishment of an ad hoc work group of technical experts to assist the COP. UP FROM THE BEACH While many delegates feared that the COP would be consumed by tedious procedural debate, GEF discussions on Tuesday re- opened the proverbial Pandora's box proving once again that OECD and G-77 countries are polarized as ever on the financial mechanism, although not as divided as in Nairobi. While the EU and other Northern governments expressed their unanimous support for the GEF as the institutional structure for the financial mechanism, it is evident that the G-77 is itself divided on the issue. The G-77's acceptance of the GEF as the interim measure has shown a certain degree of conciliation. Nevertheless, the debate within the group has pitted certain countries, such as China, who appear ready to support the GEF as a possible permanent mechanism against those countries, such as Malaysia and Brazil, who continue to object to the GEF and prefer the consideration of a separate mechanism altogether. Unless a strong indication is given from this COP, many Northern governments are concerned that funding for biodiversity projects in the immediate future will be jeopardized. But as well, they will face increasing difficulties in mobilizing support for future replenishment of the GEF back in national capitals. The irony in this debate is that the GEF Council is comprised of many of the same governments as those represented here in the COP. However, the fact that many delegations brought their GEF Council members is an indication of the potential for greater understanding and coordination between the COP and the GEF. THINGS TO LOOK FOR TODAY COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE: The Committee of the Whole will continue with the ever-growing list of speakers on agenda item 9 (Medium-Term Work Programme). It will also take up the clearing-house mechanism and item 6.5 (Selection of a competent Secretariat). The Chair urged delegates to come prepared to discuss all remaining agenda items. THE G-77 DRAFT DECISION ON 6.2: Look for copies of the draft G-77 decision on Agenda Item 6.2 that should be available during the day. This issue of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin ) is written and edited by Johannah Bernstein, Anilla Cherian , Langston James Goree VI "Kimo" and Steve Wise . General support for the work of the Bulletin has been provided by the International Institute for Sustainable Development , the Government of Denmark and the World Bank. Specific funding for coverage of the CBD has been provided by the Norwegian Directorate for Nature Management, UNEP and WWF. The authors can be contacted at their electronic mail addresses and during this meeting by phone at +1 809 327 6000 room 193 and by fax at +1 809 327 6987. IISD can be contacted by phone at +1-204-958-7700, by fax at +1-204-958- 7710. The opinions expressed in Earth Negotiations Bulletin are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of IISD and other funders. Excerpts from the Earth Negotiations Bulletin may be used in other publications with appropriate citation. Electronic versions of the Bulletin can be found on the gopher at and in searchable hypertext through the Linkages WWW-server at on the Internet. This volume of the Bulletin is uploaded into the APC conferences and . The Earth Negotiations Bulletin may not be reproduced, reprinted or posted to any system or service outside of the APC networks and the ENB listserver, without specific permission from the International Institute for Sustainable Development. This limitation includes distribution via Usenet News, bulletin board systems, mailing lists, print media and broadcast. For more information, send a message to .