Published by the
International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD)
Vol. 9 No. 276
Wednesday, 11 February 2004
CBD COP-7 HIGHLIGHTS:
TUESDAY, 10 FEBRUARY 2004
COP-7 delegates met in two Working Groups (WGs).
WG-I considered mountain biodiversity and protected areas (PAs). WG-II
discussed technology transfer and cooperation. Delegates convened in
an afternoon Plenary to hear progress reports on WG-I and WG-II’s
work and statements by organizations, and to address draft decisions
on invasive alien species (IAS).
WORKING GROUP I
MOUNTAIN BIODIVERSITY: WG-I Chair Hans
Hoogeveen (the Netherlands) opened WG-I. The Secretariat introduced
documents on mountain biodiversity (UNEP/CBD/COP/7/1/Add.2, and 7/14
and INF/6) and relevant SBSTTA recommendations, noting remaining
brackets in the proposed work programme.
Many delegates expressed support for the work
programme and its integration into the CBD Multi-Year Programme of
Work (MYPOW) and thematic work programmes. Iran, for the ASIA AND
THE PACIFIC GROUP, encouraged Parties to submit relevant information
to the CBD Clearing-house Mechanism (CHM), and supported South-South
cooperation and a watershed approach. CHINA noted the importance of
Ireland, for the EU and Acceding Countries,
Bulgaria and Romania, supported a targeted work programme. Several
delegates and the FAO emphasized the importance of transboundary
cooperation and coordination with other initiatives. UGANDA called
for integrating mountain ecosystem conservation into poverty
The RUSSIAN FEDERATION, INDONESIA, CHINA and
BRAZIL stressed the need for new and additional financial resources
to implement the work programme. JAPAN opposed references to
national budgets. BRAZIL underlined that national policies should
not hamper other countries’ conservation efforts and trade.
Liberia, for the AFRICAN GROUP, suggested
empowering local communities, building capacity and enhancing
regional cooperation. MALAYSIA emphasized the importance of
implementing the work programme in accordance with national
capacities and priorities. INDIA stressed the need to register
grassroots level innovations and develop local networks to
TURKMENISTAN supported action to maintain
ecologically viable corridors, rather than establish ecological
corridors. CANADA and the INTERNATIONAL INDIGENOUS FORUM ON
BIODIVERSITY (IIFB) proposed adding references to indigenous
communities. ALBANIA stressed the importance of pastures and
pastoralism. INDONESIA called for a clear definition of mountain
ecosystems. CHILE questioned the need for recommending the
development of new legislation.
GHANA stressed the importance of mountain
biodiversity conservation for watershed management. KENYA identified
mountains as a critical source of social, cultural and economic
goods and services. COLOMBIA highlighted the need for technology
transfer and access and benefit-sharing (ABS). LEBANON outlined the
benefits of its mountain agro-biodiversity programmes to local
Peru, on behalf of the ANDEAN COMMUNITY,
recommended that the work programme focus on, inter alia,
sustainable development and good agricultural practices.
ARGENTINA and BOLIVIA called for references to
countries of origin. INDIA and the IIFB expressed concern regarding
reference to "inappropriate" land use practices, and the IIFB
recommended a precautionary approach.
WWF noted its concern regarding the significance
of mountains as headwaters of rivers.
PROTECTED AREAS: The Secretariat presented
the documents on PAs, including the proposed work programme (UNEP/CBD/COP/7/1/Add.2,
and 7/4 and 15). Outlining the outcomes of the Vth IUCN World Parks
Congress held in September 2003, IUCN highlighted the need for
national-level gap analyses and management objectives, and for PAs
to benefit local people.
Several delegates supported an outcome-oriented
work programme with specific targets and harmonized with other
relevant activities. AUSTRALIA stressed the need for realistic
targets. IUCN, the EU and SWITZERLAND supported creating an
open-ended working group on PAs. ICELAND said the contact group on
the budget should decide whether to establish a technical expert
group or an open-ended working group.
The WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION stressed the need
for synergies between national-level programmes. The EU called for a
bottom-up approach and integrating PAs into the wider land- and
seascapes. SWITZERLAND supported assessing implementation of the
work programme at each COP until 2010, and proposed references to
areas within and beyond national jurisdiction. The NETHERLANDS
called for balancing ecological and social interests, and for
including marine PAs (MPAs). ICELAND called for cooperation relating
to PAs beyond national jurisdiction, particularly MPAs. CHILE
stressed the need for financial support to establish PAs, and
supported further expert work regarding MPAs.
WORKING GROUP II
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER: The Secretariat
introduced a background note and relevant SBSTTA and MYPOW
recommendations, including draft elements for a work programme (UNEP/CBD/COP/7/1/Add.2,
and 7/4, 5, 7 and 16). Most delegates supported the draft work
China, on behalf of the ASIA AND THE PACIFIC
GROUP, stressed the need for political will, identification of, and
access to, environmentally sound technologies, and funding for
South-South cooperation. COLOMBIA emphasized the importance of
North-South transfers. The RUSSIAN FEDERATION stressed indigenous
peoples’ rights and, with CAMEROON, called for global technology
transfer without geographical boundaries.
Kiribati, for the PACIFIC SMALL ISLAND DEVELOPING
STATES (SIDS), expressed concern over the lack of progress in
technology transfer and, with the BAHAMAS, called for prioritizing
actions to address the vulnerabilities of SIDS. THAILAND stressed
the need to identify user and provider stakeholder groups, and
proposed coordination mechanisms at various levels. ARGENTINA and
SOUTH AFRICA urged developed countries to provide financing, build
capacity and create incentives for technology transfer.
Egypt, for the AFRICAN GROUP, stressed that
intellectual property rights (IPRs) should not hinder technology
transfer, with KENYA adding that traditional knowledge should be
considered. The GAMBIA and UGANDA said technology should be socially
and environmentally friendly and culturally relevant, and backed by
effective capacity-building programmes. TANZANIA stressed the need
to acknowledge and compensate communities’ contribution to
technology development and, with INDONESIA, to provide clear
guidance to the CBD’s financial mechanism.
Colombia, on behalf of GRULAC, underscored the
need for an integrated implementation of CBD articles on technology
transfer, technical and scientific cooperation and handling of
The EU and Acceding Countries, Bulgaria and
Romania stressed the role of the CHM as a gateway to databases of
relevant organizations. He called for improved access of developing
countries to patent information, and expressed regret that
traditional knowledge is not addressed in the work programme. The
AFRICAN GROUP, with Tunisia on behalf of the ARAB GROUP, suggested
referencing traditional knowledge as part of technology transfer.
CANADA called for references to Article 8(j) (traditional
knowledge). BRAZIL and MALAYSIA objected to including traditional
knowledge in the work programme, noting lack of a protection system.
BOLIVIA said technologies derived from traditional knowledge should
remain within community control, and suggested transfer between
communities. Mexico, on behalf of the LIKE-MINDED MEGADIVERSE
COUNTRIES, added that a sui generis system should be
developed for traditional knowledge protection.
SWITZERLAND said the work programme should focus
on facilitation mechanisms and avoid duplication, and, with
INDONESIA and NORWAY, highlighted the importance of collaboration
with other processes. NEW ZEALAND and AUSTRALIA called for emphasis
on scientific and technical cooperation, addressing impediments to
such cooperation and clarifying the role of the CHM.
The PHILIPPINES called for an analysis of the
role of IPRs in technology transfer and highlighted the need for
links to the work of the Article 8(j) Working Group. NIGER,
supported by many, said pilot projects and technology transfer
should be based on developing countries’ needs. NORWAY stressed the
importance of hard and soft technologies, and opportunities for
technology transfer through distance learning. COSTA RICA stressed
the importance of involving civil society and, with BURKINA FASO, of
involving the private sector. The ARAB GROUP emphasized the need to
ensure support by donor institutions and to strengthen the CHM at
the regional level. BURKINA FASO highlighted the need for
cooperative research and academic cooperation. CAMEROON supported
establishing an expert group to facilitate implementation of the
work programme. SWITZERLAND, CANADA, AUSTRALIA and EL SALVADOR
expressed concern regarding the establishment of an expert group,
with CANADA prioritizing work through the CHM.
The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)
outlined relevant activities, including its data specification for
databases pertaining to genetic resources and disclosed traditional
WG-I Chair Hoogeveen and WG-II Chair Desh Deepak
Verma (India) reported on progress in their WGs.
STATEMENTS: IUCN called on Parties to develop
a work programme on PAs that addresses MPAs, financial resources and
improvement of management practices. WIPO introduced its technical
study on patent disclosure requirements relating to genetic
resources and traditional knowledge, prepared in response to a COP-6
request. The INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR THE PROTECTION OF NEW VARIETIES
OF PLANTS (UPOV) cautioned that ABS regulations could impede access
to plant genetic resources.
The UNITED NATIONS UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE FOR
ADVANCED STUDIES reported on its work on the use of IPRs,
traditional knowledge, ABS and bioprospecting in Antarctica. The
INTERNATIONAL TROPICAL TIMBER ORGANIZATION outlined its work on
conservation and sustainable management of tropical forests. The UN
FORUM ON FORESTS welcomed the involvement of the CBD Secretariat in
the Collaborative Partnership on Forests, especially regarding its
work on traditional forest-related knowledge and on forest
biodiversity. GREENPEACE KIDS FOR FORESTS described its initiatives
encouraging youth to take action for the protection of forests.
INVASIVE ALIEN SPECIES: COP-6 President
Hoogeveen introduced documents relating to decision VI/23 on IAS,
including a draft decision and amended guiding principles on the
precautionary principle and intentional introduction (UNEP/CBD/COP/7/
L.1 to L.3). He said the documents represent a compromise arising
from informal consultations, and asked delegates to adopt them as a
package in order to avoid reopening negotiations. Many delegations
requested additional time to consider the documents, with several
noting that these had been submitted in English only.
IN THE CORRIDORS
As working groups proceeded with
business-as-usual, the positive spirit of the meetings in the
communal and "Kampung" areas resonated in discussions on the heavy
and potentially sensitive work programmes on protected areas and
technology transfer. At times, the call for a bottom-up approach and
indigenous participation could be heard in Working Group II, located
directly above the "Kampung" area.
In other parts of the Putra World Trade Centre,
invasive alien species were still attracting much attention. One
delegate noted that finding a compromise on the substantive issues
would not solve the procedural problems at the center of this
debate. Despite requests by most regional groups to continue
consulting informally on the compromise proposal, many delegatesï¿½
optimism regarding the prompt resolution of this issue was not
THINGS TO LOOK FOR TODAY
WORKING GROUP I: WG-I will meet at 10:00 am
in the Dewan Merdeka Hall to continue discussing PAs.
WORKING GROUP II: WG-II will meet at 10:00 am
in Room TR4 to consider the follow-up to the WSSD, MYPOW, the
Strategic Plan and operations of the Convention. Look for a Chairï¿½s
text on technology transfer and cooperation to be circulated in the
PLENARY: Participants will reconvene in
Plenary at 5:30 pm to review progress.