ENB@ The First Open Ad-Hoc Working Group on Access and Benefit Sharing, 22-26 October 200, Bonn, Germany

FIRST AD HOC OPEN-ENDED WORKING GROUP ON
ACCESS AND BENEFIT-SHARING

22-26 October 2001 Bonn, Germany

Web Archive:

| Curtain Raiser | Tue 23 | Wed 24 | Thu 25 | Fri 26 |

Highlights of Tuesday, 23 October 2001

Delegates to the first meeting of the Ad Hoc Open-ended Working Group on Access and Benefit-sharing (ABS) under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) met in two Sub-Working Groups throughout the day. Sub-Working Group I (SWG-I) continued discussions on the draft international guidelines on ABS, and Sub-Working Group II (SWG-II) reviewed a Chair's draft for an action plan for capacity building and then discussed approaches to ABS other than guidelines.
Left photo: Delegates during the morning session of Sub-Working Group I

* To view PDF files,

you will need the free Adobe Acrobat Reader.

* To listen to Real Audio files, you will need the free Real Audio player.


	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.

	On the guidelines' key features, IRAN, on behalf of the G-77/CHINA, supported deletion of acceptability and noted that application by providers and users is subject to the definition of terms. Right photo: Mohammed Reza Salamat (IRAN) making an intervention on behalf of the G-77/CHINA.

	GENERAL PROVISIONS:

	CUBA (left), with BOLIVIA, BRAZIL, HONDURAS, PAKISTAN and PERU, proposed deletion of reference to non-discriminatory frameworks, and the US, supported by SWITZERLAND, suggested "transparent" frameworks.

	The EC and the G-77/CHINA suggested ABS strategies as part of national biodiversity strategies.

	BOLIVIA (left), CUBA and TANZANIA called for promoting capacity building that is not confined to ABS.

	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:

	IRAN on behalf of the G-77/CHINA preferred deleting language on negotiation of reasonable timeframes and proposed, inter alia, clarification of "contributions to local economies" as a non-monetary benefit.

	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:

	MEXICO (right), with ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA and COLOMBIA, recommended that language on institution building reflect institutional strengthening over creation. Regarding assessment, inventory and monitoring of biological resources, delegates proposed references to Decisions IV/1(a), V/9 and the Global Taxonomy Initiative.

	SAINT LUCIA (right) proposed deleting reference to the private sector. Regarding means to protect traditional knowledge, several delegates highlighted the need for coordination with the Working Group on Article 8(j).

	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:

	SWG-II Chair José Medaglia Cabrera (Costa Rica) (far left) introduced the relevant section of document UNEP/CBD/WG-ABS/1/3 on approaches to ABS other than guidelines.

	ENB ABS-WG1 SNAPSHOTS:




	ENB Summary of the 2nd Experts Panel on Access and Benefit Sharing ENB coverage of ABS-1 ENB coverage of SBSTTA-6 CBD Secretariat web site with official documents, information for participants and Pre-Registration Form ENB's Introduction to the CBD World Intellectual Property Organization
© 2001, IISD. All rights reserved.