ENB:09:62 [Next] . [Previous] . [Contents]

WORKING AND DRAFTING GROUPS

FINANCIAL ISSUES: The Working Group forwarded texts regarding additional financial resources and review of the financial mechanism to the COW. On the latter, text was added regarding the application of the criteria of agreed full incremental costs keeping in mind the provision of new and additional resources by developed country Parties. The section on procedure for the review notes: the Secretariat is to prepare background documentation and, if necessary shall appoint a consultant; and [the Bureau plus regional representatives][a steering panel composed of two representatives from each regional group] will monitor and guide on a continuous basis the review. The MOU was also forwarded to the COW. Delegates maintained brackets on text noting that: if COP considers a GEF Council project decision does not comply with COP guidelines, it “may ask for a reconsideration of that decision;” and COP will review funding requirements after each replenishment. Text noting that the GEF will operate the financial mechanism “on an interim basis” was removed from brackets. Delegates removed text calling for the reasons that the amount of new and additional funding was considered to be new and additional. Delegates postponed evaluation of additional guidance for the GEF so they could evaluate the COP-3 draft decisions before incorporating elements from them into their decision.

AGRICULTURAL BIODIVERSITY: The Open-ended Working Group on Agricultural Biodiversity met throughout the morning in order to finalize their draft decision and address unresolved issues. The reference to the World Food Summit’s language regarding the role of the WTO CTE on the relationship between trade and agricultural biodiversity was resolved through informal consultations. Several delegations expressed substantive difficulties with the paragraph pertaining to the interim financial mechanism and argued that the matter should be resolved on the basis of the decision from the Working Group on Finance. However, BRAZIL noted that this paragraph was part of a “package deal” along with the text put forward by AUSTRALIA regarding the legal status of a revised International Undertaking on PGRFA and the Global Plan of Action. The brackets were removed on the condition that the decision reflected similar language from the COP-2 decision on Marine and Coastal Biodiversity. The Working Group completed its work with two issues outstanding: the status of ex situ collections acquired prior to the entry into force of the CBD and intellectual property rights, both of which were referred to the relevant drafting groups on Access to Genetic Resources and IPR.

ACCESS TO GENETIC RESOURCES: The drafting group on Access to Genetic Resources met to negotiate a draft decision. Disagreement focused on a preambular paragraph recognizing that classes of genetic resources may require “distinctive solutions,” and an operative paragraph urging that Article 15 is “duly reflected” in implementation of relevant articles of TRIPs. Revisions to the former paragraph recognized a variety of approaches to managing access based on the diversity of genetic resources and other considerations. Revisions to the latter paragraph requested the Secretariat to cooperate closely with the CTE to “explore the extent to which there may be linkages” between Article 15 and TRIPs.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS: The drafting group on IPR, chaired by Diego Malpede (Argentina), completed a draft decision after prolonged discussion. Three of the most difficult issues included a reference to a proposal before WIPO to allow copyright protection for databases, the relation between the COP and TRIPs, and the impact of IPR to genetically modified organisms (GMOs) on the CBD. The agreed draft decision: calls for an open and transparent assessment of database copyrighting vis-a-vis the CBD; encourages exchange of information between the COP and the WTO over TRIPs; and does not refer to GMOs and the impacts of IPR to GMOs.

INCENTIVE MEASURES: Delegates convened to discuss a Secretariat’s draft text on incentive measures. The group agreed that incentive measures should be incorporated as appropriate into the COP agenda. Delegates replaced language calling for removal of perverse incentives with taking appropriate action on incentives that threaten biodiversity, and added language on promoting positive incentives. The group agreed on language requesting the Executive Secretary to prepare a background document on design and implementation of incentive measures. Delegates bracketed a preambular paragraph recognizing national and international responsibility for developing and implementing incentive measures, but it was deleted in later negotiations in the COW. Some delegations called for re-insertion of a paragraph from an earlier draft requesting the GEF to include incentive measures among its priority activities for funding, and the group agreed to include it in brackets, provided that a related preambular paragraph recalling Decision I/2 (incentive measures as a programme priority for access to financial resources) also be bracketed. The latter was deleted in the negotiations conducted in the COW, while the former was referred to the Working Group on Financial Issues.

[Return to start of article]