You are viewing our old site. See the new one here
![]() |
|
FIRST
AD HOC OPEN-ENDED WORKING GROUP ON ACCESS AND BENEFIT-SHARING 22-26 October 2001 Bonn, Germany |
||
|
||||
|
SUB-WORKING GROUP I: | ||
![]() SWG-I Chair Birthe Ivars (Norway) (Left) suggested following the structure of document UNEP/CBD/WG-ABS/1/3 as outlined in Annex I. |
||
![]() |
||
GENERAL PROVISIONS: | ||
![]() |
||
![]() The EC and the G-77/CHINA suggested ABS strategies as part of national biodiversity strategies. |
||
![]() |
||
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF USERS AND PROVIDERS: |
||
![]() JAPAN (right) suggested clarification of the relation between central government and local governments or communities. |
||
![]() CANADA (right) called for consistency with Article 8(j) and noted many countries are both users and providers. |
||
![]() François Pythoud (SWITZERLAND) (left), supported by the EC and MEXICO, said that users' responsibilities should be more practical and specific. |
||
PARTICIPATION OF STAKEHOLDERS: | ||
CANADA proposed reference
to a "country-specific" rather than "case-by-case" basis. BOLIVIA
and PERU said representatives of those directly involved, including
indigenous communities, should form the consultative committee. |
||
PRIOR INFORMED CONSENT: | ||
![]() BELGIUM (Left), on behalf the EU, supported by AUSTRALIA and EL SALVADOR, said PIC should be subject to national legislation. |
||
![]() The US said that restrictions on access should be transparent and noted that central governments are not necessarily the genetic resources' managers. |
||
![]() Paul Sanchez-Navarro (WWF) (right) noted that PIC should be strongly related to local communities and the INDIGENOUS FORUM (below) said that all community members should participate in the decision. Many textual suggestions were also made. |
||
![]() |
||
MUTUALLY AGREED TERMS: | ||
![]() |
||
![]() The IIFB (right) called for empowering local communities to revitalize traditional knowledge as a non-monetary benefit. |
||
OTHER PROVISIONS: | ||
Delegates noted that
some prescriptive statements contained in the section are not in
accordance with the guidelines' voluntary nature. SWITZERLAND called for
a mechanism to guarantee monitoring of implementation, stressing a
certification system. CANADA said implementation mechanisms should focus
on incentives, and that compliance, sanctions, remedies and dispute
resolution should refer to contracts only. |
||
SUB-WORKING GROUP II: | ||
ACTION PLAN FOR CAPACITY BUILDING: | ||
![]() In SWG-II delegates addressed a draft action plan for capacity building, which includes a preamble and an annex with sections on: the objective; key areas; processes; and means of implementation. After some discussion a section on coordination was added. |
||
Preamble: | ||
Discussion centered around the convening of a workshop to address capacity building for ABS. Regarding timing, most delegates wanted the meeting before COP-6, with many suggesting it be held with the Working Group on Article 8(j) in February 2002. | ||
Key Areas: | ||
![]() |
||
|
||
![]() ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA and MADAGASCAR (right) highlighted the need to address monitoring and evaluation mechanisms, as well as indicators. |
||
![]() GERMANY (right) suggested addition of awareness raising, and CANADA and COLOMBIA requested reference to the GEF's guidelines for national capacity self-assessment. |
||
Means of Implementation: | ||
![]() COLOMBIA (right) proposed reference to scientific and technical cooperation with respect to the CHM, and HAITI suggested including dissemination through CD-ROMs and hardcopies. |
||
OTHER APPROACHES: | ||
![]() |
||
ENB ABS-WG1 SNAPSHOTS: | ||
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
||
![]() |
|
|
© 2001, IISD. All rights reserved. |
|