Malaysia's factors included: optimization of economic benefits; food security; protection of unique biodiversity; and enhancement of science, technology, education and knowledge of biodiversity value. Indonesia outlined the three guiding principles of its 1993 national biodiversity strategy: meeting basic country needs; generating income; and promoting environmental protection. India expressed its opposition to the exercise of listing priorities, explaining that he was troubled by the expectation that countries must produce a list of factors when in fact the issue is dynamic and difficult to quantify. He added that a comprehensive list of priorities was dependent on the parties' assurance of funding. Bolivia echoed India's point, stating that the cultural and linguistic diversity of its society presented obstacles in the setting of social and economic priorities. Both Bolivia and Peru stated that the importance of traditional knowledge must be recognized within national sustainable development strategies.
China's priority criteria included: degree of biodiversity; degree of threat; number of species; ecosystem diversity; and the economic, social and cultural importance of biodiversity. Mauritius and Tanzania suggested that the amount of ecosystem pressure must be assessed and that countries with the most endangered species should receive the highest priority. Uruguay included in its priority factors: environmental education and the involvement of the private sector, as well as both the NGOs and local populations. Lithuania referred to the importance of discussing the role of monitoring in national activities. The Marshall Islands echoed the view of other island states that the immediate threat to their ecosystems is climate change. The US prioritized activities to protect endangered species that would consolidate inventories and other types of data and enable better understanding of ecological problems.
Germany outlined the factors that underlie its national priorities: degree of threat; categorization of species by type and degree of threat; monitoring; influence of projects on ecosystems; and sustainability of land use practices. WWF Brazil noted the difficulties in setting priorities and referred to the importance of integrating human needs into conservation projects. The Biodiversity Support Program called on Governments to include the experience of NGOs, local populations, indigenous communities and local governments in their decision-making. Brazil highlighted the importance of considering country and region-specific factors and stated its concerns with the notion of global benefits.
The Chair later presented a summary of all the ideas for further consideration and, eventually, presentation to the COP. As a number of delegates were not satisfied with his summary, the Chair then asked for a small group to reorder the list. The final list, as agreed by the Group, was included in the Working Group's report to the Plenary (see below).
[Return to start of article]