ESTIMATING FUNDING NEEDS
Discussion resumed on the subject of financial matters. The Chair turned to the item, "the process to estimate funding needs." Referring to Article 21, paragraph 1, which states that the COP should determine the amount of resources needed for developing countries to implement to the Convention, the Chair asked delegates for relevant ideas on how to estimate funding needs. He explained that these comments would help the Secretariat to prepare a document on this matter for the next meeting. Mexico suggested working from the figure of US$3.5 billion found in the biological diversity chapter in Agenda 21 and then asked the Secretariat to determine the methodology used to arrive at this figure and other possible methods of assessing necessary funding needs. Belgium stated that financial needs can only be calculated based on a knowledge of country strategies. Brazil noted the intrinsic relationship between incremental costs and the volume of resources available. He also suggested that the Secretariat study the financial benefits to developed countries from the utilization of biodiversity in order to help develop the relationship to the amount of funds that could be transferred to developing countries for the purposes of the Convention. It was agreed that the Secretariat would prepare a document on the subject of determining funding needs for the next meeting.
DRAFT RULES OF PROCEDURE
Article 23.3 states that the COP shall agree on its rules of procedure. The Secretariat prepared a draft set of rules for consideration by this meeting (UNEP/CBD/IC/1/6) based on the rules of procedure of the Basel Convention and, where appropriate, the Climate Change Convention. The Chair asked delegates to identify rules requiring substantive changes to enable the Secretariat to produce a revised draft for the next meeting. The EC noted that the decision by the COP on the amount of resources needed does not apply to the extent, nature or form of contribution. He suggested including a provision in Rule 40 on voting that would replace majority with consensus as the basis for decision-making on paragraphs 1 and 2 of Articles 21. Regarding Rule 52 on official languages, Japan requested that the Secretariat provide the Committee with information on how much money would be saved by restricting the number of languages in the COP. This proposal was dropped after objections from many delegates, including Colombia on behalf of the G-77.
DRAFT RESOLUTION ON THE INTERIM FINANCIAL MECHANISM (UNEP/CBD/1/WG.II/CRP.1/Rev.1)
This draft resolution was introduced by Colombia on behalf of the G-77 and China, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. It contained an outline for the strategy, programme priorities and eligibility criteria for the interim financial mechanism. The first revision of the draft had been introduced on Wednesday by some of the Nordic countries, and the G-77 prepared their counter-draft on Wednesday evening. The two drafts were consolidated during informal consultations on Thursday morning between representatives of these two groups. In her introduction, the delegate from Colombia said that the resolution sought to reflect Working Group II discussions on Wednesday. The G-77 had included a list of eligibility criteria, as requested. The Chair created a drafting group composed of the Bahamas, Brazil, Malaysia, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Colombia, Belgium, Australia, Sweden, Hungary and the US to draft compromise language for the remaining bracketed text. However, after meeting throughout the afternoon, the group returned to Working Group II without a compromise text. The Chair decided to include a balanced selection of parts of the non-consensus draft as a paragraph in the report of the Working Group with an note explaining that there had been no agreement.
Due to lack of time, the Chair said that the issue of incremental costs would be taken up at the next meeting of the ICCBD but that the group should propose useful intersessional work to be carried out by the Secretariat. Switzerland noted the Expert Panel Three recommendations on this matter. Belgium, on behalf of the EC, suggested looking at existing projects to establish what kind of elements are financed as incremental costs. The Chair said that the group could ask the Secretariat to prepare a draft list of incremental costs and explore the issue of methodology to be used in estimating incremental cost.
TECHNICAL COOPERATION AND CAPACITY BUILDING
The Chair asked the delegates to identify areas where the Secretariat could prepare documentation for the next meeting. New Zealand proposed that the Secretariat assess the existing clearinghouses and their relation to the work of the Committee. The representative of the World Industry Council for the Environment asked the Committee if they would consider enlisting the support of industry on this Convention. Belgium suggested that the Secretariat work with WIPO.
[Return to start of article]