The CHAIR introduced a draft text summarizing the group's discussion on items 3.1 (assessment), 3.2 (identification and monitoring) and 3.3 (indicators). NORWAY asked for distinction between assessments of biodiversity status and state of knowledge. SWEDEN called for mention of biotechnologys impact. MARSHALL ISLANDS queried next steps regarding adverse impacts, suggesting discussions with NGO experts. COLOMBIA, the EU, the UK, NEW ZEALAND, CANADA, the US, ZIMBABWE, AUSTRALIA and NIGERIA called for prioritization of work. Priorities included: critical methodological review, indicators, information exchange, analysis of activities with negative impact, refinement of guidelines, capacity building, information exchange and cooperation with other international processes. DOMINICA called for direct reference to financing.
CANADA underlined the importance of existing biodiversity knowledge. Supported by ZAIRE, ZIMBABWE and the IVORY COAST, he added traditional knowledge to the Chairs list of priorities. The US called for a methodological review of guidelines and indicators. BANGLADESH suggested using World Bank social indicators for comprehensive biodiversity assessments. FINLAND proposed using indicators for assessing ecological landscapes. ZIMBABWE suggested an intergovernmental expert panel on adverse impacts. The IVORY COAST emphasized capacity building. INDONESIA called the clearinghouse mechanism (CHM) the highest priority for information flow. MAURITIUS stated that biodiversity assessment requires capacity building. The FOUR DIRECTIONS COUNCIL emphasized the role of indigenous communities in monitoring biodiversity.
The Secretariat introduced the document on Agenda Item 3.9, agricultural biodiversity (UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/2/10). Many delegations cautioned against duplicating the work of FAO. BRAZIL introduced a paper on biodiversitys importance to agriculture, proposing a 5-year plan. SWEDEN called for an agro-ecosystem plan of action in cooperation with other agencies, and submitted a supplementary document (UNEP/CBD/ SBSTTA/2/Inf.20). The NETHERLANDS called for identification of areas for conservation or sustainable use and inquired about negotiations between FAO and the CBD.
The UK called for integrating agriculture with biodiversity conservation. SWITZERLAND supported FAOs work and highlighted microbial biodiversity. ZIMBABWE, for the African Group, called for agricultural practices that promote both high yields and environmental restoration. COLOMBIA generally supported the Brazilian paper. AUSTRALIA gave scientific cooperation and technology transfer the highest priorities.
GERMANY said that not all modern agricultural practices damage biodiversity and that SBSTTAs future work should incorporate traditional and modern practices. BANGLADESH highlighted sustainable and equitable sharing of international resources, particularly water and riparian resources. NORWAY said SBSTTA should focus on analysis of the gaps in knowledge, and the COP needs to clarify communication with the FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. INDONESIA stressed coordination between agencies working on biodiversity, and noted much work is needed at ecosystem level. PERU said the document needs to be more specific regarding in situ conservation of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA). DENMARK characterized the document as too general for substantive decisions and highlighted the importance of restoring natural habitats.
MOROCCO focused on integrated resource management and said SBSTTA should support all existing initiatives using CBD as a basis. JAPAN noted that formation of a working group is premature. CANADA suggested consulting FAO on information gaps, such as the relationship between biodiversity-friendly practices and market forces. The US, supported by the EU, highlighted positive aspects of intensive agriculture, including reduced pressure on wild biodiversity, and called for consultation with FAO. MALAWI supported recommendations in Swedens paper on public awareness of cultural and biological diversity. AUSTRALIA underscored that FAO is the primary task manager on agricultural biodiversity. The EU highlighted FAOs work on PGRFA and outlined legislation to encourage agricultural sustainability.
PAKISTAN stressed transfer of environmentally sensitive technology and focused on management of arid lands. NEW ZEALAND suggested that the CBD Secretariat should coordinate with FAO in identifying gaps for SBSTTA action. URUGUAY called for a balance between increased food production and biodiversity conservation. GHANA proposed that COP-3 support ex situ PGRFA conservation, and support the biosphere concept through the GEF small grants window.
AUSTRIA underscored the importance of conserving silvicultural species. FRANCE stated that the document omits in situ conservation highlighted by the FAO Global Plan of Action. KENYA emphasized indigenous agro-practices and access to technology. The CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC called for ensuring that traditional farmers benefit from the dissemination of knowledge on modern practices. The WORLD BANK called for cross-sectoral cooperation in removing institutional constraints on understanding biodiversity and agriculture.
FAO noted the follow-up to the Leipzig Conference and cooperation with the CBD and other international processes, including the secondment of a FAO officer to the CBD Secretariat. The THIRD WORLD NETWORK called for discussion of links between trade liberalization and biodiversity and recognition of traditional agriculture-related knowledge. The RURAL ADVANCEMENT FOUNDATION INTERNATIONAL asked for a moratorium on agreements between biotechnology companies and botanical gardens in developed countries.
The NETHERLANDS COMMITTEE FOR THE IUCN highlighted recommendations of the fourth session of the Global Biodiversity Forum (GBF-4), focusing on the identification and removal of perverse incentives as impediments to biodiversity conservation. CAB INTERNATIONAL underscored concern over co-evolved and domesticated organisms and soil biodiversity.
[Return to start of article]