11th session of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and 
Technological Advice to the Convention on Biological Diversity  -  
Issue #4 

EARTH NEGOTIATIONS BULLETIN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PUBLISHED BY THE INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR 
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT (IISD) <http://www.iisd.org>

Written and edited by:

Changbo Bai 
Xenya Cherny 
Pia M. Kohler 
Elsa Tsioumani
Sarantuyaa Zandaryaa, Ph.D. 

Editor:

Pamela S. Chasek, Ph.D. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Director of IISD Reporting Services:

Langston James "Kimo" Goree VI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


Vol. 9 No. 331
Thursday, 1 December 2005

Online at http://www.iisd.ca/biodiv/sbstta11/ 

SBSTTA-11 HIGHLIGHTS: 

WEDNESDAY, 30 NOVEMBER 2005

Participants to the eleventh meeting of the Subsidiary Body on 
Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA-11) of the 
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) continued to meet in two 
working groups (WGs) throughout the day. WG-I considered: invasive 
alien species (IAS); sustainable use; guidance to promote synergy; 
and a draft recommendation on the Global Taxonomy Initiative 
(GTI). WG-II addressed: marine and coastal biodiversity; inland 
water ecosystems; and draft recommendations on refinement of the 
framework of the goals and targets, dry and sub-humid lands and 
forest biodiversity. The contact group on goals and targets met 
briefly in the evening. 

WORKING GROUP I

INVASIVE ALIEN SPECIES: SPAIN and the BAHAMAS, opposed by PERU, 
supported retaining and refining a recommendation on incentive 
schemes. JAPAN proposed that accompanying documents identify 
species contained in shipments. The REPUBLIC OF KOREA called for 
evaluating the safety of biocontrol agents. The INTERIM COMMISSION 
ON PHYTOSANITARY MEASURES expressed its readiness to cooperate in 
developing a glossary of terms. DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE highlighted 
the potential of joint work plans. The SECRETARIAT OF PACIFIC 
REGIONAL ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME stressed threats from IAS to food 
security and health. 

SUSTAINABLE USE: The Secretariat introduced relevant documents 
(UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/11/17, and INF/6 and 21). The UK, with many 
others, opposed opening discussion on terms already defined in the 
Convention. 

On indicators, COLOMBIA, supported by others, urged reference to 
developing countries' regional efforts. COLOMBIA stressed 
application of the Addis Ababa guidelines to promote agro-
biodiversity in urban areas. The AMERINDIAN PEOPLES ASSOCIATION 
noted indigenous peoples' perspective on sustainable use, and 
stressed the need for traditional knowledge indicators. 

GUIDANCE FOR PROMOTING SYNERGY: The Secretariat introduced the 
document on guidance for promoting synergy among activities 
addressing biodiversity, desertification, land degradation and 
climate change (UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/11/18). Heikki Toivonen (Finland), 
Co-Chair of the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group (AHTEG) on 
Biodiversity and Adaptation to Climate Change, presented the 
AHTEG's report (UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/11/INF/5). 

Many parties emphasized the need for capacity building to bring 
about these synergies, and CHINA warned against synergy's use as a 
pretext for reducing the total financial input to developing 
countries. JAMAICA and others underscored the need to promote 
synergies at regional levels, ARGENTINA at sub-regional, SWEDEN at 
local, and SOUTH AFRICA at the project levels. 

FINLAND and AUSTRIA asked for further elaboration of research gaps 
in the draft recommendations. PAKISTAN called for research on the 
carbon sequestration potential of species and ecosystems. 
SLOVENIA, the UK and AUSTRIA underscored the role of the Joint 
Liaison Group of the Rio Conventions. BRAZIL and PERU supported 
the development of pilot projects involving joint actions for 
meeting the objectives of the Rio Conventions. 

AUSTRALIA cautioned against CBD's involvement in mitigation 
activities. NEW ZEALAND said the CBD should focus on practical 
advice regarding adaptation activities. SWITZERLAND and CANADA 
favored recommending that COP-8 invite the UN Framework Convention 
on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to report on common issues and suggest 
joint activities. The UK welcomed the informal joint meeting of 
SBSTTA-11 and the UNFCCC's Subsidiary Body for Scientific and 
Technological Advice. NEW ZEALAND said the AHTEG should offer 
practical biodiversity-related tools, and its final report be 
approved by SBSTTA. The GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY (GEF) 
highlighted its pilot programme on adaptation. On synergy gaps, 
FRIENDS OF THE EARTH INTERNATIONAL addressed the issue of 
genetically modified (GM) trees.

GLOBAL TAXONOMY INITIATIVE: WG-I Chair Annemarie Watt (Australia) 
introduced a draft recommendation reflecting Monday's discussions. 

On capacity-building needs to address the taxonomic impediment, 
Liberia, for the AFRICAN GROUP, opposed by the EUROPEAN COMMUNITY 
(EC), called for a special fund for taxonomic capacity building 
for developing countries. After informal consultations, the EC 
presented a compromise that emphasizes the need to build and 
retain capacity to address the taxonomic impediment, and in this 
context, explore options to ensure the long-term sustainability of 
the necessary financial support, including the possibility of the 
establishment of a special fund. 

On the mobilization of financial and technical resources for 
maintaining collections of biological specimens, BRAZIL and 
MEXICO, opposed by the NETHERLANDS, called for supporting the 
repatriation of biological systems. BRAZIL and PERU supported a 
reference to megadiverse countries, the RUSSIAN FEDERATION, to 
countries with economies in transition, while JAMAICA preferred to 
refer only to the least developed countries, small island 
developing States (SIDS), and countries with economies in 
transition. After informal consultations, BRAZIL presented 
compromise text in which delegates agree: to invite parties and 
organizations to assist developing countries, the least developed 
and SIDS among them, countries with economies in transition, and 
those that are megadiverse; to build and maintain systems and 
significant institutional infrastructure in order to obtain 
collate and adequately curate biological specimens. Delegates also 
agreed to facilitate information exchange, including repatriation 
of information on the specimens' biodiversity. 

On promoting cooperation and networking for capacity building, 
SWEDEN and LIBERIA suggested a reference to publishing, through 
the CHM and other means, procedures and requirements for the 
deposition, transfer and loan of biological specimens. On 
exploring synergies between the CBD and the International Plant 
Protection Convention, the UK asked that it particularly 
addresses IAS. 

Delegates also agreed to BELGIUM's suggestion not to confine GEF 
support to its enabling activity projects. The GEF requested that 
the meeting report reflect his concern that the language of the 
recommendations overstepped the Memorandum of Understanding 
between the GEF Standing Committee and the CBD COP.

Delegates then approved the draft recommendation as amended. 

WORKING GROUP II

MARINE AND COASTAL BIODIVERSITY: The Secretariat introduced the 
relevant document (UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/11/11). Stressing that the UN 
General Assembly and the Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) 
are the appropriate fora to address these issues, MEXICO, 
supported by FRANCE and others, suggested deleting recommendations 
relating to proposed technical options, saying they prejudice the 
outcomes of the upcoming Ad Hoc Informal Working Group on Marine 
Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction. NORWAY said the need 
for new legal instruments should be considered by the UN and, with 
SWEDEN, called for prohibiting destructive practices in vulnerable 
areas. The NETHERLANDS, opposed by ARGENTINA, stressed CBD's role 
in protecting marine resources beyond national jurisdiction. GHANA 
proposed requesting the UN General Assembly and UNCLOS to resolve 
the legal impediments to establishing high seas marine protected 
areas (MPAs). CHINA considered the establishment of MPAs 
premature, stressing instead conservation and sustainable use of 
marine resources within national jurisdiction. 

TUNISIA and the UK emphasized knowledge and awareness raising on 
deep seabed biodiversity. The REPUBLIC OF KOREA and MALAYSIA 
called for facilitating developing countries' access to 
information and technology on deep seabed exploration. COLOMBIA 
highlighted degradation of coastal ecosystems and marine 
macrofauna. JAPAN proposed a reference to UNCLOS article 244 
(publication and dissemination of information and knowledge). 
Tanzania, for the AFRICAN GROUP, stressed potential threats by 
bioprospecting and, with the EC, urged applying the precautionary 
principle. CANADA said bioprospecting should contribute to 
biodiversity conservation. KIRIBATI and GREENPEACE called for a 
moratorium on deep seabed activities beyond national jurisdiction.

INLAND WATER ECOSYSTEMS: The Secretariat introduced relevant 
documents (UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/11/12 and Add.1, and11/13). 

On national reporting of work programme implementation, the UK, 
supported by many, opposed establishing an ad hoc technical expert 
group, but supported enhancing collaboration between the Ramsar 
Convention on Wetlands and the CBD on this matter. He said the 
work in this area should take a strategic approach, taking into 
consideration findings of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and 
the second Global Biodiversity Outlook. The NETHERLANDS suggested 
the Ramsar Secretariat take the lead in streamlining reporting on 
the work programme's implementation. GERMANY suggested inviting 
the Ramsar Secretariat to develop ways and means for a joint 
reporting mechanism. 

On criteria for the designation of Ramsar sites and guidelines for 
their application, SPAIN, supported by INDIGENOUS PEOPLES and 
opposed by ARGENTINA, requested reference to cultural values. 
Delegates agreed to defer this matter to SBSTTA-12. 

FOREST BIODIVERSITY: The Secretariat introduced relevant documents 
(UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/11/14 and 15, and INF/2, 3, 12 and 13). The UN 
FORUM ON FORESTS (UNFF) highlighted collaboration between CBD and 
UNFF, in particular regarding using common indicators and 
streamlining forest-related reporting. Many emphasized taking into 
account the outcomes of UNFF-6 to be held in February 2006.

AUSTRALIA called for compiling best practices on the sustainable 
use of forest biodiversity and equitable benefit-sharing. NORWAY 
and others highlighted strengthening collaboration with the 
Collaborative Partnership on Forests. CANADA highlighted 
unauthorized harvesting of forest biodiversity and, with the 
NETHERLANDS, THAILAND and NEW ZEALAND stressed forest law 
enforcement. MALAYSIA, and Tanzania for the AFRICAN GROUP called 
for capacity building. SWITZERLAND and AUSTRIA suggested referring 
to regional processes. GHANA highlighted impacts of GM trees, and 
the FEDERATION OF GERMAN SCIENTISTS proposed banning their 
commercialization. Several delegates supported extending the 
mandate of the AHTEG on review of implementation of the forest 
work programme.  

DRY AND SUB-HUMID LANDS BIODIVERSITY: Delegates considered draft 
recommendations submitted by WG-II Chair. Delegates agreed to 
remove the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for 
Food and Agriculture from a reference to relevant access and 
benefit-sharing provisions and add a reference to the CBD. They 
also added references to capacity building, proposed by BURKINA 
FASO, and to water bodies in dry lands, suggested by AUSTRALIA. 
The INDIGENOUS PEOPLES' CAUCUS emphasized indigenous and local 
communities' contribution to the development of indicators. 
Regarding incorporating climate-change considerations into the 
work programme, the EC suggested deleting a reference that 
SBSTTA's proposals do not imply obligations additional to those 
under the CBD. Delegates approved the draft recommendations as 
ammended. 

REFINEMENT OF THE FRAMEWORK OF THE GOALS AND TARGETS: Delegates 
discussed the draft recommendation submitted by WG-II Chair. 
Delegates disagreed on: the outcomes of the Friends of the Chair 
group; SBSTTA's mandate considering provisional framework goals; 
and, ways to proceed with the draft recommendation. A contact 
group, chaired by Asghar Mohammadi Fazel (Iran), was established 
to reach a compromise.

CONTACT GROUP

The contact group on the goal and targets on ABS met in the 
evening to continue discussions on the draft recommendation. A new 
proposal was tabled, deleting the paragraph transferring the 
matter to the ABS Working Group. On Goal 10, the proposal retains 
its original wording. On target 10.1, the proposal favors the 
option stating that all access to genetic resources is in line 
with the CBD. On target 10.2 on benefit-sharing, the proposal adds 
reference to the CBD's relevant provisions. Contact group Chair 
Fazel urged regional groups to consult on this proposal before the 
contact group resumes on Thursday. 

IN THE CORRIDORS

Halfway through the meeting, delegates confronted both "ghosts 
from the past" and upcoming divergences. Unresolved issues 
relating to high seas MPAs from the first meeting of the PA 
Working Group consumed the best part of WG-II's discussions, 
serving as a test round before the UN Ad Hoc Open-ended Working 
Group on Marine Biodiversity beyond National Jurisdiction in 
February 2006. As for the controversial goal on benefit-sharing, 
proposals continued to come and go, but consensus remained out of 
sight, providing, according to some, a foretaste of the ABS 
Working Group in January 2006.

The relevance of other processes to SBSTTA's work was fully 
acknowledged in discussions in both WGs and during the evening's 
informal joint meeting of SBSTTA and its UNFCCC counterpart, which 
was seen by many as cementing collaboration on linkages between 
biodiversity and climate change.





This issue of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin (c) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is 
written and edited by Changbo Bai, Xenya Cherny, Pia M. Kohler, 
Elsa Tsioumani, and Sarantuyaa Zandaryaa, Ph.D. The Digital Editor 
is Francis Dejon. The Editor is Pamela S. Chasek, Ph.D. 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and the Director of IISD Reporting Services is 
Langston James "Kimo" Goree VI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. The Sustaining 
Donors of the Bulletin are 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 Swiss Agency for 
Environment, Forests and Landscape (SAEFL), the United Kingdom 
(through the Department for International Development - DFID), the 
Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Government of Germany 
(through the German Federal Ministry of Environment - BMU, and the 
German Federal Ministry of Development Cooperation - BMZ), the 
Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the European Commission 
(DG-ENV), and the Italian Ministry of Environment. General Support 
for the Bulletin during 2005 is provided by the United Nations 
Environment Programme (UNEP), the Government of Australia, the 
Austrian Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment 
and Water Management, the Ministry of Sustainable Development and 
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Sweden, the Ministry of 
Environment and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway, the 
Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of 
Finland, SWAN International, the Japanese Ministry of Environment 
(through the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies - 
IGES), and the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry 
(through the Global Industrial and Social Progress Research 
Institute - GISPRI). Funding for translation of the Earth 
Negotiations Bulletin into French has been provided by the 
International Organization of the Francophonie (IOF) and the 
French Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Funding for the translation of 
the Earth Negotiations Bulletin into Spanish has been provided by 
the Ministry of Environment of Spain. The opinions expressed in 
the Earth Negotiations Bulletin are those of the authors and do 
not necessarily reflect the views of IISD or other donors. 
Excerpts from the Earth Negotiations 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, +1-646-536-7556 or 212 East 47th St. 
#21F, New York, NY 10017, USA. The ENB Team at SBSTTA-11 can be 
contacted by e-mail at <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.

---
You are currently subscribed to enb as: [email protected]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Subscribe to IISD Reporting Services' free newsletters and lists for 
environment and sustainable development policy professionals at 
http://www.iisd.ca/email/subscribe.htm

Reply via email to