Linkages home
Mobile access to this event's ENB reports and more!
Earth Negotiations Bulletin
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
A Reporting Service for Environment and Development Negotiations
Download PDF version
French version
Back to IISD coverage
Volume 09 Number 588 - Thursday, 11 October 2012
CBD COP 11 HIGHLIGHTS
Wednesday, 10 October 2012

WG I addressed Article 8(j), biodiversity of drylands and sub-humid lands, inland waters and protected areas (PAs). WG II considered the status of the Nagoya Protocol, and cooperation, outreach and the UN Decade on Biodiversity. A contact group on Article 8(j) and a Friends of the Chair group on GEF-related items met in the evening.

WORKING GROUP I

 ARTICLE 8(j): The Secretariat introduced the item (UNEP/CBD/COP/11/7; UNEP/CBD/WG8J/7/INF/5/Rev.1, 5/Add.1 and 7/Rev.1). Making reference to the Rio+20 outcome, UNGA resolutions and the Ramsar Convention, NORWAY, supported by GUATEMALA and IIFB, recommended referring to “indigenous peoples and local communities” under the Convention, rather than “indigenous and local communities” (ILCs).

Repatriation of traditional knowledge (TK): BRAZIL affirmed that no continued use of repatriated knowledge should be allowed without prior informed consent (PIC) and mutually agreed terms (MAT), and supported the development of best-practice guidance for international repatriation. JAPAN suggested deleting a proposed interpretation of TK under the Convention because of ongoing work on a definition of TK under the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).

The AFRICAN GROUP proposed removing brackets around language on the repatriation of TK not impeding the continued use of such knowledge in the repatriating party, while COLOMBIA preferred deletion of such language. The AFRICAN GROUP further suggested removing brackets concerning interpreting repatriation in light of CBD Articles 8(j) and 17(2) (exchange of information, including TK).

Sustainable customary use: INDIA called for flexibility in the use of a new indicator on land-use change and land tenure in ILCs’ traditional territories.

On a list of indicative tasks for a plan of action on sustainable customary use, the AFRICAN GROUP, PACIFIC ISLANDS and BRAZIL supported a review of national and sub-national policies to ensure protection and encouragement of sustainable customary use. The AFRICAN GROUP and PACIFIC ISLANDS also supported guidelines on developing legislation to respect, protect and promote sustainable customary use and TK, with BRAZIL suggesting reference to “according to national legislation and circumstances.” INDIA recommended that the guidelines allow for consideration of national circumstances. The IIFB preferred “to develop mechanisms to recognize and respect customary laws, community protocols and procedures and traditional institutions and authorities in national and sub-national legislation” and “to review and revise national and sub-national laws and policies taking into consideration customary laws and practices.” CANADA proposed instead compiling information on case studies on customary land use and community resource management practices, and providing tools and networks to enable ILCs to map their customary use; and inviting IUCN to initiate work on best practices on governance, harvesting, access to sacred sites and ILCs’ benefit-sharing in the context of IUCN PA categories. The AFRICAN GROUP, PACIFIC ISLANDS and the IIFB, opposed by BRAZIL, supported an indicative task to explore the relationship between climate change, sustainable customary use and TK.

DRYLAND BIODIVERSITY: The Secretariat introduced the item (UNEP/CBD/COP/11/25). ARGENTINA pointed to differences in terminology between the CBD and the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), and YEMEN underscored the need for harmonization.

KENYA highlighted the role of pastoralists, indigenous peoples and TK. FAO highlighted the recently adopted voluntary guidelines on tenure governance. The EU said the database of scientific knowledge between biodiversity conservation and sustainable use, and organic carbon stock conservation and restoration should be used for priority setting. Saudi Arabia for the ARAB GROUP underscored the need to document TK systems to preserve organic carbon stocks and the sound management of ecosystems.

INLAND WATERS: The Secretariat introduced the item (UNEP/CBD/COP/11/30 and INF/2). Parties addressed SBSTTA Recommendation XV/5. Many supported further synergies and cooperation among Secretariats of relevant agreements. The EU called for using common definitions and terms throughout conventions. NORWAY and NEW ZEALAND suggested recognizing the importance of the water cycle to most areas of the Convention and to achieving the Aichi targets. CANADA requested the Secretariat develop initiatives for water management prior to COP 12. The REPUBLIC OF KOREA suggested reference to the relevance of water as considered in the Rio+20 outcome. PERU supported including a reference to ecosystems that are shared and part of an area of international relevance.

PROTECTED AREAS: The Secretariat introduced the item (UNEP/CBD/COP/11/2 and 26). Several developing countries stressed the need for financial support to achieve Aichi Target 11 (PAs). The EU emphasized the need to: start negotiations of a new UNCLOS implementing agreement under UNGA in relation to marine PAs beyond national jurisdiction; establish a link between Nagoya Protocol Article 9 (contribution to conservation and sustainable use) and PAs; and provide capacity building to ILCs. The AFRICAN GROUP drew attention to the effectiveness of PA management, livelihood issues, and support for harmonized management of transboundary PAs. BOLIVIA underscored the need to promote and financially support ILCs’ participation in achieving Aichi Target 11.

CANADA queried reference to “extractive reserves” among community-based approaches for biodiversity. The PHILIPPINES supported the voluntary use and further development of the global registry of indigenous and community conserved areas (ICCAs) managed by UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC). COLOMBIA proposed strengthening the recognition and support to community-based approaches to biodiversity conservation, including ICCAs and other community areas classified under the IUCN PA categories.

SWITZERLAND called on the Secretariat and IUCN to provide guidance on qualifiers in Aichi Target 11 such as ecological representativeness and management effectiveness. THAILAND proposed inviting parties to assess the current status of ecosystems and prioritize degraded areas within PAs. The IIFB called for the free PIC of indigenous peoples and local communities before PA establishment.

WORKING GROUP II

NAGOYA PROTOCOL: All delegates supported reconvening ICNP for a third meeting, with SOUTH AFRICA and GHANA calling for strict timelines for completing its work. MALAYSIA, INDIA and TURKEY supported holding an expert meeting on the global multilateral benefit-sharing mechanism. The EU suggested that COP 11 invite submissions on model clauses, codes of conduct and guidelines.

MICRONESIA highlighted its recent ratification of the Nagoya Protocol. MOROCCO, INDONESIA, SOUTH AFRICA, NAMIBIA, ECUADOR and INDIA reported on their imminent ratification. SUDAN and SENEGAL underscored workshops for capacity building and awareness raising targeted at decision makers. UGANDA suggested adding text to encourage parties to ratify the Protocol. IUCN suggested an analysis of obstacles to ratification and implementation.

GRULAC underscored the key role of ILCs for implementation and the need for building their capacities and suggested that activities to support implementation and early entry into force be supported by the core budget. ARGENTINA drew attention to translation of the Protocol into four indigenous languages.

JAPAN highlighted the importance of establishing an ABS clearing-house, and SWITZERLAND called for additional resources from the core budget. The PHILIPPINES suggested that access-related initiatives by research organizations should not be funded by the GEF in case the provider country has not set up its regulatory framework. BANGLADESH urged establishing a fast-track process within the NPIF. SENEGAL, GABON, NAMIBIA, COSTA RICA, ECUADOR, BENIN and PERU, opposed by CANADA, called for establishing a special window for ABS in GEF’s STAR system.

The FAO COMMISSION ON GENETIC RESOURCES FOR FOOD AND AGRICULTURE (CGRFA) reported on the outcome of the first session of its Working Group on ABS for food and agriculture, held in September 2012 in Norway. The INTERNATIONAL TREATY ON PLANT GENETIC RESOURCES FOR FOOD AND AGRICULTURE (ITPGR) said implementation of the Protocol provides an opportunity to reinvigorate the dialogue between environment and agriculture experts with regard to plant genetic resources.

COOPERATION: The Secretariat introduced documents on the UN Decade on Biodiversity and cooperation with other organizations, including on agricultural and forest biodiversity (UNEP/CBD/COP/11/4 and 16, 17 and 32, and INF/11, 27, 30, 31, 41, 44, 46 and 52/Rev.1).

UN Decade on Biodiversity: BELARUS proposed text calling on parties to step up activities related to the UN Decade and report on them annually.

Cooperation with international organizations: THAILAND proposed text to strengthen and enhance synergies between the CBD and the UNFCCC on low-carbon cities. The EU called for enhanced use of the guidelines on biodiversity and tourism development. On the joint work programme with UNESCO on biological and cultural diversity, AUSTRALIA proposed language on consistency with international obligations, while INDIA called for considering specific national contexts. SOUTH AFRICA said parties should “commit” to using IPBES.

Many called for coordination at the national level, and INDIA said NBSAPs can assist in ensuring policy coherence. YOUTH called for their participation in decision-making processes at all levels.

Forest biodiversity: The INTERNATIONAL TROPICAL TIMBER ORGANIZATION (ITTO) presented on projects on tropical forest biodiversity. NEW ZEALAND highlighted collaboration with FAO on the 2015 global forest resources assessment. Many proposed continuing cooperation with the ITTO to expand work on tropical forest biodiversity. The EU proposed lifting brackets on text inviting parties to provide funding for a joint staff position between CBD and the UN Forum on Forests (UNFF).

Agricultural biodiversity: The PHILIPPINES urged that implementation of the joint work plan between the CBD, FAO and CGRFA Secretariats takes into account farmers’ rights. PRACTICAL ACTION called for collaboration with the FAO Committee on World Food Security. The IIFB called for revitalization of traditional agricultural systems. The FAO highlighted endorsement of the Global Soil Partnership by the FAO Council.

Business and biodiversity: The Secretariat introduced the item (UNEP/CBD/COP/11/18/Add.1). Egypt for the ARAB GROUP recommended that partnership initiatives focus on national plans and actions, with financing from the private sector. AUSTRALIA suggested that CBD business-related policies be flexible, voluntary and recognize national circumstances. GRULAC said any measures must be based on standards elaborated by recognized international institutions. SWITZERLAND encouraged businesses to report on their impacts on biodiversity.

Stakeholder engagement: The Secretariat introduced the item (UNEP/CBD/COP/11/18 and 32, and INF/1, 43 and 57). MEXICO called for capacity building for local authorities to develop local plans to implement the Aichi targets. SINGAPORE called for cities to develop indicators to monitor progress in implementation. INDIA, CANADA and the EU supported draft text on the gender plan of action. CAMEROON proposed inviting parties’ submissions on indicators to monitor gender mainstreaming.

IN THE CORRIDORS

Traditional knowledge (TK) was woven throughout deliberations during the third day of the COP. In WG I, an enthusiastic applause followed Norway’s proposal for the CBD to refer to “indigenous peoples and local communities,” adopting the terminology used by UNGA and several other environmental and human rights fora. Many countries also expressed support for indigenous and community conserved areas, while a “happy family” feeling pervaded the update on the preparations for the entry into force of the Nagoya Protocol in WG II. Less positive, however, were the vibes in the evening contact group on Article 8(j), where controversies continued over CBD work on national legislation on TK, international repatriation and the relationship between climate change and TK. Outside the Hyderabad International Conference Center, the global conference of the International Partnership for the Satoyama Initiative showcased that traditional knowledge remains, as one participant put it, “more relevant than ever” for biodiversity and sustainable livelihoods, providing a reminder that TK is the warp of the “rich tapestry of life.”

^ up to top
Back to IISD coverage
This issue of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin © <enb@iisd.org> is written and edited by Kate Louw, Elisa Morgera, Ph.D., Dorothy Wanja Nyingi, Ph.D., Teya Penniman, Eugenia Recio and Elsa Tsioumani. The Digital Editor is Francis Dejon. The Editor is Pamela S. Chasek, Ph.D. <pam@iisd.org>. The Director of IISD Reporting Services is Langston James “Kimo” Goree VI <kimo@iisd.org>. The Sustaining Donors of the Bulletin are the European Commission (DG-ENV), the Government of the United States of America (through the Department of State Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs), the Government of Canada (through CIDA), the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU), and the Government of Australia. General Support for the Bulletin during 2012 is provided by the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Environment of Sweden, the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, SWAN International, the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN), the Finnish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, the Japanese Ministry of Environment (through the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies - IGES), the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (through the Global Industrial and Social Progress Research Institute – GISPRI), and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Specific funding for coverage of this meeting has been provided by the Belgium Federal Public Service for Health, Food Chain Safety and Environment, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, the Indian Ministry of Environment and Forests, the Global Environment Facility (GEF), and the Finnish Ministry of the Environment. Funding for translation of the Bulletin into French has been provided by the Government of France, the Belgium Walloon Region, the Province of Québec, and the International Organization of the Francophone (OIF and IEPF). The opinions expressed in the Bulletin are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of IISD or other donors. Excerpts from the Bulletin may be used in non-commercial publications with appropriate academic citation. For information on the Bulletin, including requests to provide reporting services, contact the Director of IISD Reporting Services at <kimo@iisd.org>, +1-646-536-7556 or 300 East 56th St., 11D, New York, NY 10022, USA. The ENB Team at CBD COP 11 can be contacted by e-mail at <elsa@iisd.org>.
| Back to IISD RS "Linkages" | Visit IISDnet | Send e-mail to IISD RS |
© 2012, IISD. All rights reserved.