Daily report for 5 September 1996

The Plenary met on the morning of the fourth day of the second session of the SubsidiaryBody on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA-2). Working Groups 1and 2 convened afternoon sessions to adopt recommendations, and continueddeliberations at 9:00 p.m. in evening sessions.

PLENARY

The CHAIR introduced Agenda Item 4, modus operandi,(UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/2/16). On frequency and timing of meetings, CANADA and SWITZERLAND called for more time between COP meetings; a large number ofcountries called for earlier SBSTTA meetings but cautioned against setting dates thatconflict with other meetings. Most countries favored the 5-day schedule of SBSTTAmeetings, but EQUATORIAL GUINEA and the PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF LAOScalled for extensions. Numerous countries urged earlier document distribution.COLOMBIA, FRANCE, COTE D’ IVOIRE, MONACO, MEXICO, EQUATORIALGUINEA and COSTA RICA called for documents in Spanish and/or French. CHINAsuggested on-line dissemination.

GERMANY, the UK and MALAYSIA called for thematic approaches for futuremeetings. FRANCE spoke against permanent agenda items, several countries called forpriority setting. GERMANY, INDIA, the UK and SAMOA recommended theSecretariat’s attendance at other processes’ meetings. The UK and COLOMBIA called forincreasing the scientific content of SBSTTA and leaving political issues to COP.GERMANY, MALAYSIA, SAMOA, SWITZERLAND, INDONESIA and SOUTHKOREA favored Bureau elections at the end of SBSTTA meetings. SAMOA,SWITZERLAND, INDONESIA, JAPAN, COTE D’IVOIRE and NEW ZEALANDsupported two-year terms.

CANADA and NEW ZEALAND called for Bureau meetings with the Executive Secretaryafter COP meetings. Intersessional work was favored by many countries, but opposed byINDIA. MALAYSIA objected to the concept of a SBSTTA “seal of approval” forresearch initiatives. NEW ZEALAND and the US supported holding scientific andtechnical panels at SBSTTA meetings. Several countries called for careful selection ofexperts, COLOMBIA called for transparency. On expert work, GERMANY proposedinformal electronic networks and CHM collaboration with other organizations.

MALAYSIA, SAMOA, COLOMBIA, the MARSHALL ISLANDS, the UK andSWITZERLAND opposed proliferation of ad hoc panels. COLOMBIA, NORWAY,COTE D’ IVOIRE and JAPAN supported informal, open-ended liaison groups.Guidelines and terms of reference for liaison groups were requested. SAMOA asked forfinancial assistance for attendance, and balanced representation. The MARSHALLISLANDS suggested that nominations of experts by Parties include NGO experts. Severaldelegations opposed the NETHERLANDS’ proposals to limit expert panels to 10members and to rule out regional meetings. COLOMBIA, the MARSHALL ISLANDS,NEW ZEALAND, PAPUA NEW GUINEA, and SAMOA supported regional workshops.COLOMBIA opposed recommendations on “centres of excellence”. FRANCE expressedconcern about the expense involved in the proliferation of new groups and ruled out aspecial committee to liaise with other institutions. NEW ZEALAND cautioned that arequirement for early translation and circulation of documentation could interfere with thequality of the preparation of sessions and called for representation from indigenouspeoples on expert groups. The CHAIR invited the Secretariat to prepare a revised text onthe modus operandi and convened a Friends of the Chair group to resolveconflicting proposals.

The US suggested involving scientific societies in a peer review of documents. MALAWIdrew attention to difficulties created by the recent relocation of the Secretariat inMontreal. AUSTRALIA and SWITZERLAND proposed the creation of a global calendarof relevant institutional meetings. NGOs invited SBSTTA to draw on the expertise ofIGOs, NGOs, related international institutional processes and social scientists, and drewattention to the social, political and cultural dimensions of the ultimate causes ofbiodiversity loss. PERU suggested technical panels to augment SBSTTA’s capacity .

The meeting then considered the medium term work programme(UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/2/17). Many delegations called for a focused programme driven bythe COP. CANADA, MALAWI and COLOMBIA suggested inland water ecosystems asthe terrestrial biodiversity theme. INDONESIA and SWEDEN suggested forests.AUSTRIA asked for clarification on priorities. It was proposed that the SBSTTA andCOP Bureaus communicate closely to prioritize work. The UK requested flexibility inresponding to COP decisions.

The meeting also considered the draft provisional agenda for SBSTTA-3(UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/2/18). INDIA suggested priorities and COLOMBIA asked forbalance on the SBSTTA-3 agenda to include all CBD objectives. The Chair agreed tobriefly attend the upcoming COP Bureau meeting.

The CHAIR proposed the adoption of UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/ WG.1/CRP.1/Rev.1 onItems 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 (assessment, monitoring, and indicators). The text was adoptedwith an addition by DOMINICA on funding for capacity building and institutionalstrengthening.

The CHAIR then proposed adopting UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/2/ WG.1/CRP.2, arecommendation on Agenda Item 3.12 (coastal and marine biodiversity). The UKproposed that the meeting of experts have regard to “the views of”, rather than “using”,the roster of experts more widely. AUSTRALIA proposed noting that “little”, rather than“no”, substantial action in the area of marine and coastal biodiversity occurred this year.After comments by DOMINICA, JAMAICA and CANADA, the CHAIR proposedamending the final paragraph to clarify that the COP should ensure the availability ofresources to fill posts within the Secretariat. AUSTRALIA, supported by CANADA andSWEDEN, proposed deleting “including document UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/2/14, of whichthe SBSTTA takes note”, but DOMINICA objected. GERMANY, supported byJAMAICA and MONACO, suggested retaining only the reference to the document.AUSTRALIA, supported by GERMANY, JAMAICA, and NEW ZEALAND, suggested“which the SBSTTA had before it”. DOMINICA expressed concern. The document wasadopted as amended.

The CHAIR then proposed adopting the revised text produced by the contact group onagriculture and biodiversity. He noted that this text, which contained a bracketed referenceto the GEF, represented a “delicate equilibrium”. NEW ZEALAND deleted a reference to“local breeding activities” from the paragraph on farmers’ knowledge, and replaced areference to “SBSTTA” with text on the Secretariat’s role in initiating the workprogramme. CANADA introduced a related amendment on FAO collaboration and therole of the Secretariat. Supported by GERMANY and MOROCCO, and withNETHERLANDS' agreement, he also proposed removing brackets from a reference to theGEF. MALAWI objected to the removal.

SWEDEN and GERMANY reserved on a paragraph on the benefits to biodiversity which“have accrued from sustainable intensification of agriculture.” He said the paragraph doesnot reflect the current state of knowledge. GERMANY said agroindustry has created amultitude of environmental problems. The UK, supported by GERMANY, recommendedthat international funding agencies report to the COP, and not SBSTTA.SWITZERLAND introduced a new introductory paragraph on the important role ofscience in understanding the “dynamic, evolutionary and environmental processes whichshape biodiversity”. The AFRICAN GROUP, supported by MALAWI and COSTARICA, then called for an additional reference recognizing the status and role of indigenouspeople’s science. MOROCCO added resource management to a list of items for gapanalysis. THAILAND replaced a reference to “bees” with "insect pollinators". PERUadded a recommendation on strengthening indigenous communities’ in situconservation. CUBA added a reference to soil biota in a paragraph on soil biologicaldiversity. The draft recommendations were adopted as amended.

The CHAIR proposed the adoption of UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/ WG.1/CRP.1/Rev.1 onItems 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 (assessment, monitoring, and indicators). The text was adoptedwith an addition by DOMINICA on funding for capacity building and institutionalstrengthening.

The CHAIR then proposed adopting UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/2/ WG.1/CRP.2, arecommendation on Agenda Item 3.12 (coastal and marine biodiversity). The UKproposed that the meeting of experts have regard to “the views of”, rather than “using”,the roster of experts more widely. AUSTRALIA proposed noting that “little”, rather than“no”, substantial action in the area of marine and coastal biodiversity occurred this year.After comments by DOMINICA, JAMAICA and CANADA, the CHAIR proposedamending the final paragraph to clarify that the COP should ensure the availability ofresources to fill posts within the Secretariat. AUSTRALIA, supported by CANADA andSWEDEN, proposed deleting “including document UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/2/14, of whichthe SBSTTA takes note”, but DOMINICA objected. GERMANY, supported byJAMAICA and MONACO, suggested retaining only the reference to the document.AUSTRALIA, supported by GERMANY, JAMAICA, and NEW ZEALAND, suggested“which the SBSTTA had before it”. DOMINICA expressed concern. The document wasadopted as amended.

The CHAIR then proposed adopting the revised text produced by the contact group onagriculture and biodiversity. He noted that this text, which contained a bracketed referenceto the GEF, represented a “delicate equilibrium”. NEW ZEALAND deleted a reference to“local breeding activities” from the paragraph on farmers’ knowledge, and replaced areference to “SBSTTA” with text on the Secretariat’s role in initiating the workprogramme. CANADA introduced a related amendment on FAO collaboration and therole of the Secretariat. Supported by GERMANY and MOROCCO, and withNETHERLANDS' agreement, he also proposed removing brackets from a reference to theGEF. MALAWI objected to the removal.

SWEDEN and GERMANY reserved on a paragraph on the benefits to biodiversity which“have accrued from sustainable intensification of agriculture.” He said the paragraph doesnot reflect the current state of knowledge. GERMANY said agroindustry has created amultitude of environmental problems. The UK, supported by GERMANY, recommendedthat international funding agencies report to the COP, and not SBSTTA.SWITZERLAND introduced a new introductory paragraph on the important role ofscience in understanding the “dynamic, evolutionary and environmental processes whichshape biodiversity”. The AFRICAN GROUP, supported by MALAWI and COSTARICA, then called for an additional reference recognizing the status and role of indigenouspeople’s science. MOROCCO added resource management to a list of items for gapanalysis. THAILAND replaced a reference to “bees” with "insect pollinators". PERUadded a recommendation on strengthening indigenous communities’ in situconservation. CUBA added a reference to soil biota in a paragraph on soil biologicaldiversity. The draft recommendations were adopted as amended.

WORKING GROUP 1

The CHAIR proposed the adoption of UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/ WG.1/CRP.1/Rev.1 onItems 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 (assessment, monitoring, and indicators). The text was adoptedwith an addition by DOMINICA on funding for capacity building and institutionalstrengthening.

The CHAIR then proposed adopting UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/2/ WG.1/CRP.2, arecommendation on Agenda Item 3.12 (coastal and marine biodiversity). The UKproposed that the meeting of experts have regard to “the views of”, rather than “using”,the roster of experts more widely. AUSTRALIA proposed noting that “little”, rather than“no”, substantial action in the area of marine and coastal biodiversity occurred this year.After comments by DOMINICA, JAMAICA and CANADA, the CHAIR proposedamending the final paragraph to clarify that the COP should ensure the availability ofresources to fill posts within the Secretariat. AUSTRALIA, supported by CANADA andSWEDEN, proposed deleting “including document UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/2/14, of whichthe SBSTTA takes note”, but DOMINICA objected. GERMANY, supported byJAMAICA and MONACO, suggested retaining only the reference to the document.AUSTRALIA, supported by GERMANY, JAMAICA, and NEW ZEALAND, suggested“which the SBSTTA had before it”. DOMINICA expressed concern. The document wasadopted as amended.

The CHAIR then proposed adopting the revised text produced by the contact group onagriculture and biodiversity. He noted that this text, which contained a bracketed referenceto the GEF, represented a “delicate equilibrium”. NEW ZEALAND deleted a reference to“local breeding activities” from the paragraph on farmers’ knowledge, and replaced areference to “SBSTTA” with text on the Secretariat’s role in initiating the workprogramme. CANADA introduced a related amendment on FAO collaboration and therole of the Secretariat. Supported by GERMANY and MOROCCO, and withNETHERLANDS' agreement, he also proposed removing brackets from a reference to theGEF. MALAWI objected to the removal.

SWEDEN and GERMANY reserved on a paragraph on the benefits to biodiversity which“have accrued from sustainable intensification of agriculture.” He said the paragraph doesnot reflect the current state of knowledge. GERMANY said agroindustry has created amultitude of environmental problems. The UK, supported by GERMANY, recommendedthat international funding agencies report to the COP, and not SBSTTA.SWITZERLAND introduced a new introductory paragraph on the important role ofscience in understanding the “dynamic, evolutionary and environmental processes whichshape biodiversity”. The AFRICAN GROUP, supported by MALAWI and COSTARICA, then called for an additional reference recognizing the status and role of indigenouspeople’s science. MOROCCO added resource management to a list of items for gapanalysis. THAILAND replaced a reference to “bees” with "insect pollinators". PERUadded a recommendation on strengthening indigenous communities’ in situconservation. CUBA added a reference to soil biota in a paragraph on soil biologicaldiversity. The draft recommendations were adopted as amended.

WORKING GROUP 2

On the draft recommendations on Agenda Item 3.5 (technology transfer),SWITZERLAND called for a reference to incentive instruments and a liaison person toreinforce the exchange of information with the private sector in the already adoptedrecommendation.Draft recommendations on Item 3.7 were adopted, taking intoconsideration concerns expressed by ANTIGUA & BARBUDA and INDIA that GEFfunding should only be referred to in connection with capacity building in biosafety.

The draft recommendations on Agenda Item 3.8 (the CHM), contained inUNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/2/WG.2/CRP.3, were adopted. MALAWI called for GEF fundingfor implementing the CHM at sub-regional and regional level, INDIA urged the financialsupport primarily at the national level. CANADA emphasized GEF support beyond thepilot phase. The meeting discussed draft recommendations submitted by the Chair onAgenda Item 3.4, capacity building for taxonomy. The paragraph recognizing a lack oftaxonomists, advocating regional centres in developing countries and calling for a practicaldirection to taxonomy was amended to mention taxonomic collections, to link capacitybuilding to implementing the CBD, and to call for identifying areas of high diversity asnational priorities.

The paragraph urging taxonomic needs assessments and action plans was modified to callfor needs assessments “where appropriate”. The paragraph calling for the return ofexisting taxonomic knowledge to countries of origin was modified by COLOMBIA, whoadded taxonomic “data”, and by AUSTRALIA, who added taxonomic collections “onoccasion” as well. The paragraph calling for information on capacity building in the CHMwhile avoiding duplication of existing information was modified to call for making existinginformation “readily accessible worldwide”. SWEDEN proposed language on furtheringthe objectives of the CBD, while AUSTRALIA proposed recognizing the value ofincorporating “traditional taxonomic systems” into the knowledge base.

COLOMBIA proposed augmenting the paragraph that mentions general guidelines forfunding with a specific list of priorities, including training and data dissemination fundedby the GEF for developing countries. CANADA suggested a more general reference tosupport adequate long-term housing of collections and research programmes in allcountries. INDIA suggested adding a paragraph on serving national priorities through thefinancial mechanism.

The meeting adjourned by 7:00 p.m. and was scheduled to reconvene at 9:00 p.m toconsider draft recommendations on economic valuation, Agenda Item 3.11. The CHAIRproposed simultaneously convening a small group to add delegates’ recommendations toan informal paper on indigenous knowledge.

IN THE CORRIDORS

Some delegations and NGO representatives, who had sought a “balanced” view of theimpact of agro-industry on biodiversity, expressed some disappointment over the late-night and all-morning contact group on agricultural biodiversity. It was suggested by someparticipants that formal reservations to a paragraph on agro-industry in the Chair’s draftrecommendations, tabled in Working Group 1, would more accurately reflect the “currentstate of knowledge” on the issue. Others noted that the negotiations of the contact grouphighlighted the difficulty of avoiding a political- rather than knowledge-based approach tothe issue, referring to the ongoing debate over whether SBSTTA functions as a technicalbody or a “mini-COP.” One participant pointed to the large number of delegates fromnon-technical ministries attending this SBSTTA session.

THINGS TO LOOK FOR TODAY

PLENARY: The Plenary is scheduled to convene at 10:00 a.m. in room 407A.