The Secretariat introduced the document on capacity building for taxonomy (UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/2/5). Several countries called for funding and suggested the GEF. MALAYSIA, GERMANY, SWEDEN, THAILAND, COLOMBIA and CHINA suggested using the CHM to disseminate taxonomic information. GERMANY, INDONESIA, COLOMBIA, SWEDEN and the UK called for urgent capacity building. GERMANY called for priority setting and a maximum use of existing organizations. ITALY, NIGERIA and INDIA supported regional centres of excellence, which were opposed by COLOMBIA, the US and NEW ZEALAND. Joined by ARGENTINA, CAMEROON, BELGIUM and BRAZIL, COLOMBIA supported regional training programmes. The UK urged support for parataxonomist training. The NETHERLANDS considered basic systematic work in taxonomy not a matter for CBD, since it is already covered by UNESCO. NORWAY supported SWEDENs call for developing national plans to prioritize taxonomic activity.
ARGENTINA offered technical assistance for regional training. CAMEROON highlighted training needs. FRANCE suggested telecommunications to disseminate information. NORWAY and NIGERIA called for national taxonomy action plans and GEF funding. MALAWI, for the AFRICAN GROUP, suggested resources for training and networking to attract young scientists.
SWITZERLAND called for long-term capacity building. BELGIUM said job opportunities will attract young scientists. AUSTRALIA offered to lead a global initiative, and, with NEW ZEALAND, suggested incorporating traditional knowledge into databases. INDIA and ZIMBABWE supported data repatriation. The US emphasized the value of taxonomic data for sustainable use. SOUTH KOREA stressed regional cooperation. DIVERSITAS proposed a liaison group of taxonomists. BIONET INTERNATIONAL emphasized GEF support. MALAYSIA and CANADA endorsed the need to educate policy makers. The AMERICAN PLANT SCIENCE NETWORK urged support for existing regional initiatives. The EXPERT-CENTRE FOR TAXONOMIC IDENTIFICATION urged sharing of knowledge.
The Secretariat introduced the document on economic valuation (UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/2/13). The narrow focus of the paper on genetic resources was criticized by some countries. CHILE reported on a workshop on economic incentives in Santiago. GERMANY, supported by numerous delegations, agreed that the issue should be a standing item. JAPAN and the US disagreed. SWITZERLAND urged specific policy recommendations. GERMANY noted work of other organizations on economic incentives. MALAYSIA, INDONESIA, NIGERIA and NORWAY emphasized that economic valuation should not be a prerequisite for policy action.
The AFRICAN GROUP recommended participatory and bottom-up approaches involving indigenous communities. UNCTAD stressed that the issue of valuation should not be seen in isolation. ITALY stressed the collective value of biodiversity and FRANCE, along with SOUTH AFRICA and CAMEROON, stressed symbolic and cultural values. NEW ZEALAND and FRANCE called on the CHM to collect empirical data. NORWAY called for an integration of economics into other CBD items.
The NETHERLANDS proposed focusing on genetic resources valuation. INDIA highlighted the commercial value of biodiversity and supported UNCTADs BIOTRADE initiative. ZIMBABWE and the US cautioned against deferring action. COLOMBIA linked economics and biodiversity to the equitable utilization of genetic resources. SOUTH AFRICA suggested quantifying existence values. JAPAN suggested better valuation of PGRFA.URUGUAY underlined valuation as a policy-making tool. PERU recommended presenting the Santiago workshop results at COP-3. ZAMBIA said valuation instruments are inadequate. MOROCCO called for evaluation of negative impacts. The FOUR DIRECTIONS COUNCIL emphasized biodiversity values for agriculture.
<M>The Working Group discussed several draft Chair's texts:
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER: The paragraph on liaison groups was deleted. CANADA and AUSTRALIA proposed adding the CHM to the list of technology transfer recommendations. MALAYSIA, COLOMBIA and ANTIGUA & BARBUDA objected to the proposal by JAPAN and AUSTRALIA to delete the paragraph on identification of appropriate technologies for genetic resource utilization. From the paragraph on private sector involvement, JAPAN, supported by NEW ZEALAND, the UK and the EC, proposed deleting the sentence urging all Parties to encourage private sector technology transfer. INDIA, INDONESIA, COLOMBIA, MALAWI and CAMEROON objected. NEW ZEALAND proposed compromise text. From the paragraph calling on the CHM to facilitate information sharing, COLOMBIA, supported by INDIA and the US, deleted specific references to putting brokers into contact with each other.
CLEARING HOUSE MECHANISM: ANTIGUA & BARBUDA added language on the financial mechanism, thematic foci and pilot projects to enable implementation of the CHM. GERMANY emphasized decentralization and training. CANADA added that information should be controlled by the providers. The US deleted a needs survey of Parties. MALAWI and INDONESIA proposed GEF support. CANADA proposed replacing guidance from experts with text calling for an advisory committee coordinated by the Secretariat. INDIA added guidance in a transparent manner and the UK called for an informal committee. The paragraph linking the CHM to National Focal Points, including national patent offices, was amended by AUSTRALIA to for example, patent offices at the suggestion of the PHILIPPINES. SWEDEN proposed that the CHM review case studies of scientific cooperation. This was incorporated as a possible topic of regional CHM workshops by INDIA and the US.
BIOSAFETY: ANTIGUA & BARBUDA, supported by NIGERIA, rearranged the paragraph on funding, emphasizing guidance to the GEF on capacity building. NEW ZEALAND proposed deleting reference to the Protocol on Biosafety. ANTIGUA & BARBUDA and MALAYSIA objected.
[Return to start of article]