SUBJECT: ENB Coverage of the Open-ended intersessional meeting on the Strategic Plan, National Reports and the implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity

bioplan
"David Duthie" <David.Duthie@unep.org>

Dear BIOPLANNERS,

The ENB summary of the Open-ended intersessional meeting on the Strategic
Plan, National Reports and the implementation of the Convention on
Biological Diversity contains important pointers towards the possible
future(s) of the CBD. As a now "mature" convention with very high
participation, it is time for the convention to become more assertive and
begin to influence the world outside of the convention's sphere of origin.
Serious talk of biodiversity conservation and sustainable use has to spread
beyond national biodiversity units and into the corridors of ministries of
agriculture, forestry, fisheries, tourism, etc. The CBD has to send clear
and unambiguous messages to these sectors about what is needed to both
conserve biodiversity and meet other development goals at the same time.
Adoption of a strong strategic plan could be the start of this
transformation but, as ENB notes below, a failure to generate a real sense
of purpose for the Convention could condemn it to the margins of the
development agenda.

The original ENB summary is rearranged as follows:

Introduction
1. A BRIEF ANALYSIS OF THE MSP
2. MSP REPORT
3. THINGS TO LOOK FOR BEFORE COP-6
4. A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY

Best wishes
 

David Duthie
(david.duthie@unep.org)

*******************************************************
MSP Final Summary

EARTH NEGOTIATIONS BULLETIN <enb@iisd.org>

PUBLISHED BY THE INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT (IISD) <info@iisd.ca>

Written and edited by:

Jacob Andersen <ja@nepenthes.dk>
Changbo Bai <changbobai@hotmail.com>
Teya Penniman <teya@iisd.org>
Elsa Tsioumani <elsa@iisd.org>

Editor:

Pamela S. Chasek, Ph.D. <pam@iisd.org>

Director of IISD Reporting Services:

Langston James "Kimo" Goree VI <kimo@iisd.org>
 

Volume 09, Number 222
Monday, 26 November 2001

Coverage of the Open-ended intersessional meeting on the Strategic
Plan, National Reports and the implementation of the Convention on
Biological Diversity, can be found at:
http://www.iisd.ca/linkages/biodiv/msp/

SUMMARY OF THE OPEN-ENDED INTER-SESSIONAL MEETING ON THE STRATEGIC
PLAN, NATIONAL REPORTS AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CONVENTION ON
BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY:

19-21 NOVEMBER 2001

The Open-Ended Inter-Sessional Meeting on the Strategic Plan,
National Reports and Implementation (MSP) of the Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD) met from 19-21 November 2001, in
Montreal, Canada. Over 180 participants from 100 governments,
joined by representatives from intergovernmental, non-
governmental, and academic organizations attended the meeting.
Delegates met in two working groups. Working Group I considered
the strategic plan. Working Group II addressed implementation and
operations of the Convention, national reports and the World
Summit on Sustainable Development.

Disagreement over the strategic plan's vision and operational
goals resulted in bracketed text. However, some delegates
considered discussions to be a useful starting point, with
consensus to be built at the sixth meeting of the Conference of
the Parties (COP-6). Delegates seemed generally satisfied with
their accomplishments on the more manageable tasks of providing
recommendations towards increasing the efficiency and performance
of CBD operations and reporting processes. The recommendations
from MSP will be forwarded to COP-6, to be held from 8-19 April
2002, in The Hague, the Netherlands.
***************************************************

1. A BRIEF ANALYSIS OF THE MSP

Many consider the development of the strategic plan as one of the
most important activities undertaken by the Convention on
Biological Diversity since its adoption in 1992. Following SBSTTA-
7's lengthy and rather technical discussions on the forest work
programme, MSP delegates faced tasks involving broader and
somewhat abstract issues.

On the strategic plan, delegates started with the basic structure
developed by a workshop in the Seychelles. Some delegates noted
that limited participation in this workshop hindered progress.
This became evident as negotiations advanced and delegates made
vast amounts of additions to the text, including a new section on
constraints, and several new cross-cutting operational goals, such
as capacity building. Though perfectly valid for a first reading
of a text, the many additions were seen by some as diluting the
plan's strategic focus, turning the session into a rewrite of the
Convention.

Debates also revealed a lack of common understanding on the
purpose of the plan. Some stressed the plan's role as an overall
strategic framework for the Convention's work, while others
apparently saw it as just another opportunity to promote national
priorities. These different perspectives were never addressed
directly and remained an underlying obstacle throughout the
meeting.

Towards the end of Working Group I's deliberations, it became
clear that no agreement on clean text could be reached, and some
delegates became successively more frustrated that last-minute
amendments led to more new brackets than they resolved.
Nevertheless, by the close of the meeting, delegates had adopted a
draft strategic plan, one which contained many unresolved issues
but also important building blocks - the overall structure and
themes.

The struggle to finalize work on the strategic plan contrasted
with the relative ease by which delegates in Working Group II
passed recommendations on general improvements to CBD
implementation, operations and national reports. Delegates managed
to produce clean text designed to help improve the Convention's
implementation without significant controversies. Some delegates
highlighted enhancing participation in CBD implementation
processes and making better use of existing resources as important
steps in the sometimes sticky process of national implementation.

At COP-6, the strategic plan will only be one of several
complicated substantive matters and discussions on the plan could
be lost among more tangible issues, such as forest biological
diversity and invasive alien species. The challenge will be to
balance conflicting interests and perceptions, while at the same
time ensuring strategic focus and simplicity. Bearing in mind
these concerns and with the World Summit on Sustainable
Development on the horizon, the question remains whether the CBD's
strategic plan will constitute a real contribution to achieving
sustainable development or merely be "another plan" for the
bookshelves.

********************************************************

2. MSP REPORT

Reuben Olembo, Chief Advisor to the Minister of Environment of
Kenya and President of COP-5, opened the meeting on Monday, 19
November. He reviewed the meeting's main objective to develop a
strategic plan covering the period of 2002-2010. He stressed the
meeting's role in helping COP-6 provide policy guidance, and noted
its importance in relation to the World Summit on Sustainable
Development (WSSD).

CBD Executive Secretary Hamdallah Zedan highlighted the
accomplishments of the SBSTTA-7, and the overall achievements of
the Convention regarding biosafety, ABS, and forest biodiversity.
He then reviewed the agenda for the meeting.

Paul Chabeda, on behalf of UNEP Executive Director Klaus Töpfer,
stressed the need for effective tools to implement the Convention
at the grassroots level and the center-stage position of global
biodiversity at the forthcoming WSSD.

SBSTTA Chair Jan Plesník (Czech Republic) noted the need for a
result-oriented strategic plan and said that the plan should
include emerging issues.

The Plenary then adopted the agenda (UNEP/CBD/MSP/1/1) and
considered the proposed organization of work, including use of two
working groups. Haiti, on behalf of the Group of Latin American
and Caribbean Countries (GRULAC), observed that most countries had
only one delegate present, and suggested meeting in Plenary
instead of two working groups. Delegates finally agreed to use two
working groups, while ensuring adequate information flow between
them. They elected Peter Schei (Norway) and Elaine Fisher
(Jamaica) as Chairs of Working Groups I and II, respectively. Esko
Jaakkola (Finland) was elected as the meeting's Rapporteur.

The Plenary reconvened in a brief session on Tuesday afternoon to
hear progress reports from the working groups' Chairs and again on
Friday to adopt recommendations from the working groups. The
working groups met from 19-21 November. Working Group I discussed
the strategic plan, including an introductory section, mission
statement, vision, operational goals, constraints/challenges, and
communication. Working Group II addressed implementation and
operations of the Convention, national reports and WSSD.

PLENARY

On Monday, 19 November, the Seychelles presented the conclusions
of a workshop on the strategic plan held from 28-30 May 2001, in
the Seychelles, and summarized in document UNEP/CBD/WS-Strategy/5
highlighting the plan's proposed structure, which formed the basis
for discussions on the strategic plan.

Delegates then made general remarks on the strategic plan
(UNEP/CBD/MSP/2). Most supported the plan's structure. Jamaica
said the plan should be restricted to issues needing collective
action by Parties, such as target-setting, implementation and
review of decisions. Mexico stressed the need for a balanced plan
that reflects priorities and, with Namibia, the need for a focus
on implementation. Colombia called for a more balanced reflection
of the Convention's objectives. The UK stressed the need for goals
and targets and noted that detailed action plans could duplicate
CBD work programmes. Japan called for further study of the
relation between the strategic plan and national plans. The
Philippines stressed that outcomes should be measurable,
realistic, obtainable, and time-bound. Panama said the plan's
mission and vision should be phrased in a positive way. Cuba noted
the goals are too broad to be feasible. Kenya and Nigeria
underlined monitoring and evaluation. Switzerland stressed the
need for a mechanism to review the plan's implementation, and,
with Algeria and Slovenia, stressed the need for further
cooperation with other international instruments.

The Netherlands and others stated the strategic plan must send a
strong signal to the WSSD regarding the importance of biodiversity
as a means to achieve sustainable development. Many delegates
addressed the need to build national capacity. Brazil, China and
Senegal noted the need to address technology transfer. Many said
the plan should help integrate biodiversity and economic and
social policies. Norway underscored the need for cooperation with
economic sectors and called for support for developing countries.

A number of delegates highlighted the need to address regional or
subregional priorities. Colombia highlighted the CHM's importance
for implementation. Togo emphasized public participation and
information sharing. UNEP noted its pilot projects on harmonizing
national reporting on a regional basis, described in
UNEP/CBD/MSP/1/INF/3. UNESCO stated its readiness to continue
contributing to the CBD's work on education and public awareness.
The EU said the plan should be reflected in a multi-year work
programme. Greenpeace International said that the ecosystem
approach should figure prominently in the plan, while Birdlife
International said the WSSD would be an opportunity to raise
awareness of biodiversity issues. The Lawyers Environmental Action
Team expressed concern about NGO involvement and called for means
to support their participation.

WORKING GROUP I - STRATEGIC PLAN FOR THE CONVENTION

Working Group I considered the strategic plan from Monday
afternoon to Wednesday, 19-21 November. On Monday, Chair Schei
introduced document UNEP/CBD/MSP/2, containing: draft elements for
the strategic plan, conclusions and draft elements of a
recommendation; and an annex on the status of biodiversity, the
international and social context, the effectiveness of the
Convention, achievements, and constraints/challenges. On the
plan's structure, delegates suggested including an introductory
section and sections on: linkages to the scientific community;
obstacles/challenges; implementation; capacity building; and a
chapeau to the proposed operational goals to address cross-cutting
issues.

On Tuesday, 20 November, delegates continued their consideration
of UNEP/CBD/MSP/2, addressing the section on operational goals.
Chair Schei introduced document UNEP/CBD/MSP/WG.I/CRP.1, based on
the previous day's discussion and which included an introductory
section, mission statement, vision, and constraints and
challenges. This document was not discussed due to lack of time.
On Wednesday, 21 November, Chair Schei introduced document
UNEP/CBD/MSP/WG.I/CRP.1/Rev.1, on draft recommendations and a
draft strategic plan. On the strategic plan, he reviewed
outstanding issues, including, inter alia, the plan's vision and a
reference to IPR. He noted his attempt to maintain the strategic
nature of the document.

The closing Plenary on Wednesday, 21 November, adopted document
UNEP/CBD/MSP/L.2, containing both the draft recommendation and a
draft strategic plan that contains bracketed text. The draft
strategic plan contained in the annex includes sections on: the
issue; mission statement; vision; constraints; operational goals;
monitoring, reporting, periodic assessment and review; and
communication.

The following summarizes delegates' discussions with respect to
the suggested recommendation and the draft strategic plan as it
appears in the final document.

RECOMMENDATION: Brazil questioned reference to the Ad Hoc Working
Group on ABS in the preambular paragraph and called for its
deletion. Others disagreed and, following debate and consultations
in a small group, delegates agreed to delete preambular references
to the Working Groups on ABS and Article 8(j). The EU suggested
that the meeting request the Executive Secretary to prepare a
multi-year programme of work up to 2010 for COP consideration,
which was accepted. Following a suggestion by Brazil, delegates
agreed to delete reference to the Annex to UNEP/CBD/MSP/2, which
contains reviews on the status of biodiversity, the institutional
context and the effectiveness of the CBD. The closing Plenary
adopted the recommendation with these amendments.

Final Text: The final recommendation (UNEP/CBD/MSP/L.2) states
that COP-6 should:

take note of the Seychelles Workshop on the strategic plan;

adopt the draft strategic plan contained in its annex;

urge Parties to review their activities in light of the plan;

adopt the schedule for assessing and reviewing progress in
the strategic plan's implementation;

hold an inter-sessional meeting in 2001 to review progress in
the strategic plan's implementation; and

decide on activities to be undertaken in order to facilitate
the appropriate review of CBD's implementation, including
identification of gaps, best practices and main difficulties in
implementation, and consideration of the level of participation of
relevant stakeholders, linkages and synergies, and strategies
established in the framework of sustainable development plans.

It requests the Executive Secretary to prepare parameters for the
plan's operational goals and prepare a multi-year programme of
work up to 2010 prior to COP-6, and invites Parties to provide
input to such parameters. With regard to implementation review, it
requests the Executive Secretary to disseminate the results of the
review through the CHM and other appropriate means.

INTRODUCTORY SECTION - THE ISSUE: On Monday, 19 November, Working
Group I Chair Schei called for suggestions on the strategic plan's
introductory section. Rwanda called for a reflection on the status
of biodiversity. Switzerland stressed the underlying causes and
accelerating rate of biodiversity loss. Haiti and Namibia called
for a reference to poverty alleviation. Argentina and Colombia
called for regional implementation and resources for capacity
building. Poland underscored the need to reflect concepts related
to the production-consumption pattern.

On Wednesday, 21 November, delegates provided comments on
UNEP/CBD/MSP/WG.I/CRP.1/Rev.1. Brazil noted that biodiversity
provides material for industry, apart from food and medicines. The
European Community (EC) suggested using language from CBD Article
19.3 to describe the Biosafety Protocol. The EU noted the
challenge to mainstream conservation and sustainable use of
biological resources across all sectors of the economy and
society. All suggestions were accepted and the section was adopted
by the closing Plenary.

Final Text: Outlining the issue, the draft strategic plan notes
that:

biodiversity is the living foundation for sustainable
development;

the rate of biodiversity loss is still accelerating;

major threats to biodiversity must be addressed; and

the CBD is an essential instrument for achieving sustainable
development.

It also notes the achievements of the Convention and challenges to
its implementation.

MISSION STATEMENT: During discussions on Monday, Hungary preferred
the mission statement to be as short as possible and, with
Bulgaria and Cuba, stressed that benefit-sharing should refer to
all biodiversity components instead of genetic resources only. The
Philippines and others suggested a reference to improving people's
lives and welfare. Egypt and Guyana called for socioeconomic
development, while Belgium and Germany emphasized sustainable
development. Australia and Kenya supported language from CBD
Article 1 (Objectives).

On Wednesday, the Seychelles proposed deleting reference to
improvement of human well-being and health. Belgium supported its
retention and, with a minor amendment, the reference was initially
accepted, with Australia, Brazil and the Seychelles noting their
concern. Tanzania proposed that sustainable use of biodiversity
should refer to use of its components, which was agreed.

In the closing Plenary, delegates provided comments on
UNEP/CBD/MSP/L.2. South Africa suggested reference to sustainable
livelihoods rather than sustainable development, while Jamaica and
Argentina opposed it. Delegates could not reach agreement and as a
result the term "sustainable development" in the original mission
statement was bracketed, and the section was then adopted.

Final Text: The mission statement states that the plan should
ensure the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity
components and fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from
the use of genetic resources. It includes references to the
improvement of human well-being and health and to sustainable
development, with the latter in brackets.

VISION: On Monday, many delegates supported a reference to the
ecosystem approach in the plan's vision. Regarding language on
reversing trends in biodiversity loss, Belgium, on behalf of the
EU and supported by others, proposed calling for a halt in
biodiversity loss, while others argued that the proposal was
overly ambitious. Regarding language on reducing unsustainable
use, delegates generally preferred more positive wording. On
benefit-sharing, many preferred reference to biological, rather
than genetic resources. Delegates then debated a reference to the
time-frame of 2010. Some delegates supported moving the reference
to a section on operational goals, stating that a vision cannot be
measured, while most called for its retention, with Canada and
Cuba noting that the operational goals could have shorter time-
frames. A drafting group was convened to reach compromise, without
success. UNEP/CBD/MSP/WG.I/CRP.1/Rev.1 included two options: the
first one contained reference to 2010 and detailed elements; and
the second one, suggested by the EU, included more general
elements and no time reference.

On Wednesday, the EU suggested keeping the two options in brackets
for COP consideration, which was accepted. Brazil suggested
including a new element in the first option, regarding the
availability of financial resources and increased access to new
technologies and capacity-building mechanisms. With this addition,
the Plenary adopted the section.

Final Text: Two alternative options for a vision to the plan are
proposed, both including three elements with language on
biodiversity loss, sustainable use, and benefit-sharing. The first
option for a vision notes that the longer-term vision is to halt
the loss of biodiversity, and stresses, inter alia, that by 2010:
the rate of biodiversity loss should be effectively reduced;
sustainable use of biodiversity should be integrated into all
sectors; and benefits should be shared equitable through
appropriate mechanisms. This option includes a fourth element on
availability of additional financial resources, technologies and
capacity building.

The second option for a vision notes that its three elements
reflect the main pillars of the Convention, and are aimed at its
coherent implementation, stressing, inter alia: that the loss of
biodiversity should effectively be halted; that sustainable use of
biodiversity should be integrated into all sectors; and that
benefits arising from the use of genetic resources should be
shared fairly and equitably.

CONSTRAINTS/CHALLENGES: On Monday, Chair Schei called for
delegates' views on constraints/challenges. Delegates highlighted
institutional, financial, legal, political, socioeconomic and
technical constraints. They also stressed the need for, inter
alia: political recognition of the CBD; information dissemination;
knowledge accessibility; societal involvement; education and
public awareness; capacity building; addressing underlying causes
of biodiversity loss; and environmental impact assessments.

On Wednesday, commenting on document
UNEP/CBD/MSP/WG.I./CRP.1/Rev.1, the EU suggested stating in the
text that many obstacles have impeded the CBD's implementation,
and proposed listing them in an appendix. Other delegates opposed
the list and, as a compromise solution, Switzerland suggested
introducing a short paragraph on constraints, stating their
categories, and then listing them in an appendix. Following a long
debate, Switzerland's proposal was accepted.

Final Text: The section on constraints mentions that CBD's
implementation has been hampered by many obstacles:

political/societal;

institutional, technical and capacity-related;

lack of accessible knowledge/information;

economic policy and financial resources;

collaboration/cooperation;

legal/juridical impediments;

socioeconomic factors; and

natural phenomena and environmental change.

A list of the constraints/challenges is included in an appendix.

OPERATIONAL GOALS: On Tuesday, Chair Schei called for comments on
the plan's cross-cutting operational goals, as included in
UNEP/CBD/MSP/2. The EU reiterated a proposal to include separate
sections on the role of science and capacity building. Regarding
language on national biodiversity strategies and action plans
(NBSAPs), Cuba proposed integrating NBSAPs with other sectoral
strategies. The EU and Poland suggested harmonizing them with
national plans on sustainable development.

On providing resources and in particular for capacity building,
Brazil and others suggested separating the two issues. Cameroon
and Haiti suggested that the GEF and other mechanisms provide
financial resources. Norway suggested referencing implementation
support mechanisms. Colombia called for facilitating cooperation
through the CHM. Poland requested reference to research
development. On integrating biodiversity considerations into
national and international sectoral and cross-sectoral plans,
delegates supported including regional plans and preferred
reference to biodiversity "concerns" over "considerations."

Regarding language on key actors affecting implementation, Ireland
and others suggested broadening the reference to include those
affecting and affected by implementation. Delegates then debated
language on the CBD's leadership role in the international arena
and support for its implementation by other international
processes. Switzerland suggested wording specifying the CBD's
leadership role with regard to biodiversity-related conventions
and ensuring that other processes support its implementation.
Argentina and Brazil disagreed and a group was formed to draft
compromise language. The agreed language states that the CBD has a
leadership role on international biodiversity issues in
cooperation with other conventions, and that other international
processes shall actively support the CBD's implementation
consistent with the respective frameworks.

On mechanisms for understanding biodiversity, management
techniques and best available science, Brazil and others suggested
deleting reference to the GTI, noting that no particular emphasis
was needed. The Netherlands called for reference to information
exchange systems, and Haiti called for research findings. Canada
suggested reference to traditional knowledge.

Turning to operational goals regarding reduction of the rate of
biodiversity loss (first element of the vision), delegates debated
reference to management of representative species, populations and
ecosystems. Delegates then proposed additional operational goals,
including establishment of a global ecological network and
mitigation of biodiversity loss due to poverty.

In the afternoon session, Chair Schei called for comments on goals
related to reducing incidence and impacts of unsustainable use
(second element of the vision). Regarding language on NBSAPs and
biosafety frameworks identifying the uses of biodiversity at the
national level in a regional context, Tanzania with others
suggested deleting reference to the regional context. Delegates
also agreed to include reference to biodiversity components, as
suggested by Colombia. Delegates then debated a suggestion by the
EU to include an element on the Biosafety Protocol's
implementation. No agreement was reached and the language remained
bracketed.

On developing tools, technologies and management systems that
facilitate sustainable production and use of biological
components, Brazil suggested explicit reference to the national
level. Delegates debated a reference to production, finally
agreeing to its deletion.

The EU proposed a new goal that would establish guidelines for
mainstreaming biodiversity concerns into relevant sectoral or
cross-sectoral plans, including accounting systems, labeling and
certification schemes, with others objecting. Following
consultations in a drafting group, the text calls for establishing
and implementing a framework for mainstreaming biodiversity
concerns into relevant sectoral or cross-sectoral plans.

On benefit-sharing (third element of the vision), delegates
debated goals on mechanisms and measures to facilitate ABS. The EU
proposed calling for implementation of the Bonn guidelines on ABS,
while Brazil, supported by many, opposed such reference. Panama's
suggestion to delete a reference to international and regional
mechanisms was accepted. On IPR, delegates discussed language
describing IPR's role in promoting the CBD objectives. Brazil
proposed that IPR should respect indigenous and local communities
as well as the country of origin to ensure benefit-sharing.
Following Germany's opposition, the formulation remained
bracketed.

Delegates debated different formulations regarding language on
assessing, inventorying and recognizing traditional knowledge.
Following consultations in a drafting group, they initially agreed
that the traditional knowledge, innovations and practices of local
and indigenous communities should be respected, preserved,
maintained, and promoted for wider application with their full and
effective involvement and approval. A new element suggested by
Colombia on promoting biotechnological and biochemical research
and development activities that utilize genetic resources in their
countries of origin remained bracketed.

On Wednesday, the EU suggested language on the availability of
financial, human and technical resources to developing-country
Parties. Following Brazil's opposition, the text remained
bracketed for COP-6 consideration. Delegates then considered
language on preventing the irreversible loss of species,
ecosystems and genetic diversity and Brazil suggested reference to
their extinction. Both options remained bracketed.

Delegates discussed the reference to the Biosafety Protocol but
did not resolve it. The EU then proposed a merged goal on
awareness of patterns in consumption and production, and economic
policies, which was generally agreed; however, a reference to
economic policy/instruments remained unresolved. On benefit-
sharing, delegates debated text calling for mechanisms and
measures on ABS, leaving references to ABS strategies and the Bonn
guidelines unresolved. Due to lack of time, delegates refrained
from debating and instead bracketed text on: IPR and other sui
generis rights; traditional knowledge; information exchange on
benefit-sharing; and research and development activities in the
countries of origin of genetic resources. The closing Plenary
adopted the section with these amendments.

Final Text: The operational goals include cross-cutting goals and
goals related to the elements contained in the three visions. The
cross-cutting operational goals include:

development of NBSAPs and their integration into sectoral
strategies;

increased capacity-building support and scientific
cooperation for the plan's implementation;

increased awareness of key actors and stakeholders;

CBD's leadership role in international biodiversity issues
and support of its implementation by other international
processes;

monitoring methods;

poverty alleviation and mitigation of the negative effect of
poverty on biodiversity;

communication, education and public awareness;

development of tools for the economic valuation of ecological
goods and services provided by biodiversity; and

a bracketed reference to availability of increased financial,
human and technical resources.

Goals related to the first element of the vision include:

monitoring populations and ecosystems under threat;

identifying and preventing significant and emerging threats
to biodiversity; and

two bracketed references to actions preventing the imminent
loss/extinction of species, ecosystems and genetic diversity, and
to the establishment of a global ecological network to address
conservation and management efforts on areas with high
biodiversity.

Goals related to the second element of the vision include:

identifying sustainable uses of biodiversity components at
the national level;

developing tools that facilitate sustainable use of
biodiversity;

establishing a framework for mainstreaming biodiversity
concerns into relevant sectoral or cross-sectoral plans; and

two bracketed references to the application of the Biosafety
Protocol and to the development of economic policy/instruments
that support sustainable use.

All the goals related to the third element of the vision are
bracketed. They include:

developing national legislation and ABS mechanisms, taking
into account the Bonn guidelines;

IPR ensuring fair and equitable sharing of benefits and
respecting the countries of origin or the rights of populations
involved;

respecting traditional knowledge;

information exchange on benefit-sharing; and

research and development activities in countries of origin.

MONITORING, REPORTING, PERIODIC ASSESSMENT AND REVIEW: These
topics were addressed by Working Group II and are included in the
summary of that group's discussions below. The final outcome is
included in UNEP/CBD/MSP/L.2 on the draft strategic plan.

Final Text: The section on monitoring, reporting, periodic
assessment and review includes a reporting schedule and review of
the strategic plan from 2001-2010 with references to submission of
national reports, thematic reports and the strategic plan reviews,
and time-frames.

COMMUNICATION: On Tuesday, Chair Schei called for comments on this
section. Norway and others suggested deleting the section,
proposing instead to address communication as a cross-cutting
operational goal. Others opposed this and the section remained
under consideration. On Wednesday, delegates accepted the text,
with a suggestion made by Brazil to delete reference to the
CBD/UNESCO Consultative Experts' Group on Biodiversity Education
and Public Awareness. The closing Plenary adopted the section with
this amendment.

Final Text: The section on communication mentions that a detailed
proposal on effective communication to all relevant sectors of
society, agencies and conventions should be considered in
accordance with the communication and outreach strategy of the
Convention.

WORKING GROUP II

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CONVENTION: On Monday, 19 November,
delegates considered document UNEP/CBD/MSP/4 on implementation of
the Convention. On development and adoption of national
biodiversity strategies and action plans (NBSAPs), Burkina Faso
said that benefit-sharing should be included in NBSAPs. Burundi
and the UK noted the need to consult with various stakeholders.
Iran suggested making NBSAPs available through the CHM. With
regard to implementation of NBSAPs, delegates supported regional,
subregional, ecoregional, and bioregional approaches.

Regarding national mechanisms for monitoring and evaluation,
Canada suggested addressing special needs of indigenous
communities. The Netherlands supported integrating biodiversity's
conservation and sustainable use into sectoral or cross-sectoral
plans. China said the plan should emphasize conservation.

On financial support for implementation of NBSAPs, Denmark
stressed bilateral assistance, while Norway highlighted support
for training and education. UNDP noted the need to identify
institutions to help with capacity building.

On Tuesday, 20 November, delegates considered a Chair's text
(UNEP/CBD/MSP/WG.II/CRP.1). Many supported consultation with
indigenous and local communities in developing NBSAPs. Mexico
noted the need for innovative ways to facilitate tracking the
status of implementation within countries.

On support for implementation of NBSAPs, Colombia requested
support to regional, subregional and bioregional reports apart
from national ones. Colombia, Grenada, and Mexico suggested a
reference to financial resources. On GEF capacity-building
activities, the Netherlands proposed integrating CBD Article 7
(Identification and Monitoring) with respect to strengthening
development and use of indicators, monitoring and assessment. New
Zealand opposed such prioritization. Denmark and Hungary proposed
reviewing biodiversity services and establishing regional
capacity-building mechanisms to support implementation of priority
actions.

On Wednesday, 21 November, Chair Fisher introduced a revised text
(UNEP/CBD/MSP/WG.II/CRP.1/Rev.1). On prioritizing capacity-
building activities for the GEF, Belgium suggested reference to
national institutional development, and cooperation among
stakeholders. Regarding identifying priority actions in NBSAPs,
the Solomon Islands suggested adding other national strategies.
Working Group II approved the text with these amendments. The
closing Plenary adopted the draft recommendation without
amendment.

Recommendation: The recommendation (UNEP/CBD/MSP/L.4) proposes
elements of a draft decision for COP-6 consideration, which would
urge Parties to:

develop and adopt NBSAPs;

integrate conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity,
as well as benefit-sharing, into relevant sectoral or cross-
sectoral plans, programmes and policies;

identify priority actions in NBSAPs;

consider local and indigenous communities' needs in
implementing, monitoring, evaluating, and revising NBSAPs; and

identify constraints and impediments to implementation of
NBSAPs.

It also encourages Parties to develop regional, subregional or
bioregional mechanisms and requests donors to support
implementation of the CBD. It further emphasizes the importance of
access to and transfer of technology.

OPERATIONS OF THE CONVENTION: On Monday, Working Group II
considered document UNEP/CBD/MSP/5 on reviewing the CBD's
operations. On review of the implementation status of COP
decisions, reference to a legal drafting group was deleted.
Colombia and Mexico called for more focused themes for future
COPs. Argentina opposed recommendations on a pilot review of COP
decisions, but the UK supported them, and the text remained. Many
supported translating the CBD Handbook into other UN languages.

On mechanisms to review implementation, Argentina, Colombia and
Japan opposed using an ad hoc working group and this approach was
deleted. France said best practices should be made available
through the CHM. Regarding review of SBSTTA's recommendations, the
EU and others said that review should be done by an independent
group of experts. Many delegates supported strengthening existing
regional and subregional implementation mechanisms and
institutions, including use of regional centers for capacity
building. Japan said establishment of new regional centers would
be premature. On administrative and financial matters, Japan
opposed transfer of funds within accounts, and the text was
deleted. Greenpeace International called for establishing an
independent monitoring body to assess each country's progress on
implementation of biodiversity-related measures.

On Tuesday, delegates considered a Chair's draft
(UNEP/CBD/MSP/WG.II/CRP.2). Colombia and others did not favor
using an independent evaluator to review SBSTTA's recommendations,
preferring assessment by Parties. Other comments addressed
SBSTTA's involvement in any review. To facilitate participation of
stakeholders in reviewing the CBD's implementation, New Zealand
and others supported adding text to address developing country
participation at meetings and on the bureaus of SBSTTA and the
COP. On regional and subregional implementation mechanisms and
institutions, Denmark proposed text that would, inter alia,
encourage Parties to strengthen regional cooperation and invite
support for developing regional processes. New Zealand suggested
deleting language on pilot regional and subregional institutions,
mechanism and networks, and this language was removed.

On Wednesday, delegates considered UNEP/CBD/MSP/WG.II/CRP.2/Rev.1.
On establishing a group of experts to review the quality of
SBSTTA's recommendations, Argentina, supported by Iran, called for
nomination of experts by the Parties. Burkina Faso and Germany
noted issues related to regional representation. Canada noted the
need to consult the COP bureaus. After informal consultations,
delegates agreed to text requesting the Executive Secretary to
undertake a review of SBSTTA's recommendations, in consultation
with the bureaus of the COP and SBSTTA.

On activities related to reviewing the Convention's
implementation, delegates agreed to Canada's proposed additional
activity of identifying major gaps in implementation. Delegates
also agreed to Hungary's proposal to include "countries with
economies in transition" along with developing countries, with
regard to particular emphasis on identifying implementation
obstacles. Regarding regional mechanisms for implementation,
Eritrea requested including specific reference to subregional
processes, which was accepted.

New Zealand and South Africa said COP-7 should review financial
support. The UK said that the issue of financial support should be
raised in COP budget discussions and should be deleted. Delegates
agreed to the amendments and a preambular language was included in
the chapeau. The EU proposed deleting text on COP review of its
subsidiary bodies, mandate and of rules of procedure. Based on
text suggested by South Africa and after informal consultations,
delegates agreed on compromise text.

The closing Plenary adopted the recommendations on the operations
of the Convention. The recommendation related to review of the
CBD's implementation were forwarded for insertion into the
recommendations on the strategic plan (see page 6 above).

Recommendation: The recommendation UNEP/CBD/MSP/L.5 requests the
Executive Secretary to, inter alia:

conduct a pilot review of the implementation and relevance of
COP decisions;

propose a list of decisions to be retired;

identify issues not yet implemented;

report to COP-6;

propose further review processes; and

investigate means to improve notifications to Parties.

The final document also recommends that the COP decide to:

encourage the Executive Secretary to seek ways and means to
make the CBD Handbook available in other languages;

review implementation status of its decisions;

request the Executive Secretary to review the SBSTTA's
recommendations in consultation with the COP and the SBSTTA
bureaus and report to SBSTTA-9 and COP-7; and

request SBSTTA to prepare proposals for improvements.

COP-6 is also expected to request the Executive Secretary to make
full use of the roster of experts and retire it once tasks have
been completed. It also: requests the Executive Secretary to
assess the potential of existing regional and subregional
instruments, institutions, networks and mechanisms for enhancing
implementation; encourages Parties to strengthen cooperation; and
invites support for regional and subregional processes. The
recommendation takes note of procedural issues raised at inter-
sessional meetings; calls for implementation of the rules of
procedure; and requests the COP and SBSTTA Bureaus to develop
proposals to improve participation by one-person delegations.

NATIONAL REPORTS: On Tuesday, 20 November, delegates discussed
documents UNEP/CBD/MSP/3, and UNEP/CBD/MSP/INF/2, 3, and 4, which
address options for analysis, harmonization, linkages, and a
preliminary synthesis of the second national reports. Delegates
also considered sections of UNEP/CBD/MSP/2 on monitoring and
reporting, and periodic assessment and review related to the
strategic plan.

Many delegations suggested that the CBD Executive Secretary
analyze the second national reports to identify obstacles in
implementation and make the results available through the CHM
before the third national reports. Portugal suggested using the
analysis for developing the next strategic plans. With regard to
harmonizing reports, New Zealand called for more effective
reporting instead of more efforts on harmonization, while the UK
said harmonization could help reduce bureaucratic burdens. Norway
requested inclusion of information regarding assistance given or
received by countries in future reporting. Iran noted the need for
periodic revisions of national and thematic reports. The Republic
of Moldova noted the absence of references to technology transfer
in most reports.
 

On the relationship between national reporting and the strategic
plan, Eritrea stressed timely release of GEF funding for
reporting, and Estonia noted a need to analyze causes for delays
or failure to report. Norway and the UK said report questions
should address targets and obstacles, while several pointed out
that some questions in the format were ambiguous.

On Wednesday, Working Group II considered a Chair's text
(UNEP/CBD/MSP/WG.II/CRP.3). Argentina, supported by many others,
added a new paragraph requesting financial support to enable
developing countries and countries with economies in transition to
draw up their national reports within the deadlines. Regarding
drawing conclusions from analysis of the second national reports,
Switzerland requested such information be made available prior to
COP-7. Delegates discussed issues related to reports and the
strategic plan. On thematic reports on mountain ecosystems,
protected areas, and technology transfer, New Zealand requested a
format to be prepared by the Executive Secretary to identify
priorities and potential areas for capacity-building cooperation.
On inter-sessional review of progress in implementation of the
strategic plan, the EU said it might be premature to decide on the
inter-sessional meeting and its time. South Africa said review
should be based not only on information contained in the reports
but also on other relevant reports and information. The UK
endorsed both interventions, which were accepted. On harmonization
of reporting, the EU suggested language calling for UNEP to
continue its work in this regard, while New Zealand maintained a
reservation to the addition, saying it is premature to focus on
harmonization. Regarding publication of the Global Biodiversity
Outlook (GBO), Argentina requested translation into all UN
languages.

Working Group II approved the text as amended, and the closing
Plenary adopted the draft recommendation (UNEP/CBD/MSP/L.3).

Recommendation: The recommendation contains two sections and an
annex on the strategic plan. The first section requests the
Executive Secretary to undertake and submit to COP-6 a full
assessment of information contained in the second national
reports, and to prepare for COP-6's consideration draft formats
for the thematic reports that will be discussed in depth at COP-7.

The second section contains draft elements for a decision by COP-
6. On national reporting, the elements include: urging Parties
that have not submitted a second national report to do so without
further delay; requesting the Executive Secretary to draw
conclusions from the analysis of the second national reports to
facilitate the CBD's implementation and to make such conclusions
available through the CHM before COP-7; and preparing a format for
the third national reports for COP-7's consideration.

The annex contains the reporting schedule and review of the
strategic plan, which is to be incorporated into the plan.

World Summit on Sustainable Development: On Monday, Denmark
proposed that COP-6 send a separate message to the WSSD and that
the MSP produce elements for inclusion in that message. The
proposal was supported by many delegates. On Tuesday, Denmark
suggested that the message address five elements: analysis of
national reports; financing biodiversity activities; CBD
leadership on biodiversity-related conventions; conclusions drawn
from the GBO; and the strategic plan.

On Wednesday, delegates considered a Chair's draft text
(UNEP/CBD/MSP/WG.II/CRP.4). The EU suggested adding a reference to
the multi-year programme of work on the element of information on
the strategic plan. Iran suggested adding text referencing
information on implementation of NBSAPs and the CHM. Working Group
II approved the text with those amendments, and the draft
recommendation was adopted by the closing Plenary.

Recommendation: The text (UNEP/CBD/MSP/L.6) recommends that COP-6
develop and adopt a message for transmission to the WSSD to
highlight the CBD's central role in implementing commitments on
sustainable development. The message's proposed elements include:

information on the state of implementation of the CBD, the
NBSAPs, and the CHM;

information on the CBD's strategic plan and its multi-year
programme of work;

the need to renew the commitment to make available financial
resources and support for capacity development to implement the
CBD;

the leadership role the CBD can play in implementing global
and regional biodiversity-related conventions and agreements; and

the GBO and the outlook for biological diversity.

CLOSING PLENARY

On Wednesday, 21 November, Reuben Olembo convened the closing
Plenary and called upon the Chairs of the working groups to report
on the their progress. Working Group I Chair Schei presented
document UNEP/CBD/MSP/L.2 containing draft recommendations and the
draft strategic plan, noting that the plan contains bracketed
text. The recommendations were adopted without amendment.
Following debate, the draft strategic plan was adopted with some
remaining sets of brackets.

Working Group II Chair Fisher reported that the group had produced
four draft recommendations on national reports, implementation and
operations of the Convention, and a message to the WSSD
(UNEP/CBD/MSP/L.3, 4, 5, and 6). The recommendations were adopted
without amendments. Rapporteur Jaakkola introduced the MSP's
report (UNEP/CBD/MSP/L.1), which was adopted without amendment.

Olembo invited NGOs to make statements. The Lawyers Environmental
Group Team said that the draft strategic plan is vague and does
not guide the Convention's implementation, and called upon the
Executive Secretary to help increase NGO participation in CBD
processes. Greenpeace International expressed disappointment with
the draft strategic plan, and urged delegates to COP-6 to focus on
a strong mission statement, the ecosystem approach, a short set of
goals, monitoring and assessment for implementation, and
communication for promoting the CBD.

Regional groups then made their statements. Belgium, on behalf of
the EU, expressed interest in adopting a short and focused
strategic plan at COP-6. Togo, on behalf of the African Group,
called upon delegates to work more closely towards a compromise
for the plan and said the regional preparatory meeting for Africa
should take place no later than a month prior to COP-6. Slovenia,
on behalf of the Central and Eastern European countries, noted the
meeting provided a starting point for strategic thinking. Syria,
on behalf of Arab countries, made reference to the destruction of
Palestinian forests. Jamaica, on behalf of GRULAC, Jordan, on
behalf of the Asian Group, and all the above-mentioned speakers,
thanked the participants, the MSP and the Working Group Chairs,
the CBD Secretariat, translators, the government of Canada, as
well as the Parties that provided financial support.

CBD Executive Secretary Hamdallah Zedan said the meeting would be
a significant contribution to the success of COP-6, and thanked
participants for their hard work and spirit of cooperation. Olembo
urged Parties to accede to and ratify the Biosafety Protocol and
stressed the importance of regional preparatory meetings for COP-
6. He closed the meeting at 5:45 pm.
 

*******************************************************
3. THINGS TO LOOK FOR BEFORE COP-6

EUROPEAN WORKSHOP ON CLIMATE PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION OF
BIODIVERSITY: This workshop will take place from 10-12 December
2001, in the Isle of Vilm, Germany. It is organized by the German
Federal Agency for Nature Conservation. For more information,
contact: Jutta Stadler; tel: +49-38-301-86130; fax: +49-38-301-
86150; e-mail: bfn.ina.vilm@t-online.de

AD HOC WORKING GROUP ON THE INTERLINKAGES BETWEEN BIOLOGICAL
DIVERSITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE: This meeting is scheduled to take
place in January 2002, in Helsinki, Finland. For more information,
contact: the CBD Secretariat; tel: +1-514-288-2220; fax: +1-514-
288-6588; e-mail: secretariat@biodiv.org; Internet:
http://www.biodiv.org

AD HOC INTER-SESSIONAL WORKING GROUP ON ARTICLE 8(j) OF THE
CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY: This meeting is scheduled to
take place from 4-8 February 2002, in Montreal, Canada. For more
information, contact: the CBD Secretariat; tel: +1-514-288-2220;
fax: +1-514-288-6588; e-mail: secretariat@biodiv.org; Internet:
http://www.biodiv.org

SIXTH CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES TO THE CONVENTION ON
BIODIVERSITY/CARTAGENA PROTOCOL ON BIOSAFETY MOP-1 or ICCP-3: CBD
COP-6 will take place from 8-26 April 2002, in The Hague, the
Netherlands. This gathering also will serve as the First Meeting
of the Parties or the third meeting of the ICCP of the Cartagena
Protocol. For more information, contact: the CBD Secretariat; tel:
+1-514-288-2220; fax: +1-514-288-6588; e-mail:
secretariat@biodiv.org; Internet: http://www.biodiv.org

********************************************************
4. A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY

The CBD, negotiated under the auspices of UN Environment Programme
(UNEP), was opened for signature on 5 June 1992, and entered into
force on 29 December 1993. To date, 182 countries have ratified
the Convention. The three objectives of the CBD are to promote
"the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of
its components, and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits
arising out of the utilization of genetic resources."

COP-1: The first meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP-1)
took place from 28 November - 9 December 1994, in Nassau, the
Bahamas. Key decisions by COP-1 included: adoption of the medium-
term work programme; designation of the permanent Secretariat;
establishment of the Clearing-House Mechanism (CHM) and Subsidiary
Body for Scientific Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA);
and designation of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) as the
interim institutional structure for the financial mechanism.

SBSTTA-1: SBSTTA-1 met from 4-8 September 1995, in Paris, France.
Delegates produced recommendations on: SBSTTA's modus operandi;
components of biodiversity under threat; access to and transfer of
technology; scientific and technical information to be contained
in national reports; contributions to the UN Food and Agriculture
Organization meetings on plant genetic resources for food and
agriculture; and marine and coastal biodiversity. SBSTTA-1
requested flexibility to create: two open-ended working groups to
meet simultaneously during future SBSTTA meetings; ad hoc
technical panels of experts, as needed; and a roster of experts.

COP-2: The second meeting of the COP was held from 6-17 November
1995, in Jakarta, Indonesia. Major outcomes of COP-2 included:
designation of the permanent location of the Secretariat in
Montreal, Canada; establishment of the Open-ended Ad Hoc Working
Group on Biosafety; adoption of a programme of work; designation
of the GEF as the continuing interim financial mechanism; and
consideration of marine and coastal biodiversity.

SBSTTA-2: SBSTTA-2 met from 2-6 September 1996, in Montreal,
Canada. The meeting produced recommendations on: monitoring and
assessment of biodiversity; approaches to taxonomy; economic
valuation of biodiversity; access to genetic resources;
agricultural biodiversity; terrestrial biodiversity; marine and
coastal biodiversity; biosafety; and the CHM.

COP-3: At COP-3, held from 4-15 November 1996, in Buenos Aires,
Argentina, delegates adopted decisions on, inter alia: elaboration
of work programmes on agricultural and forest biodiversity; a
Memorandum of Understanding with the GEF; an agreement to hold an
inter-sessional workshop on Article 8(j) regarding traditional
knowledge; an application by the CBD Executive Secretary for
observer status to the World Trade Organization's (WTO) Committee
on Trade and the Environment; and a statement from the CBD to the
Special Session of the UN General Assembly to review
implementation of Agenda 21.

SBSTTA-3: At SBSTTA-3, held from 1-5 September 1997, in Montreal,
Canada, delegates considered the implementation of the CHM's pilot
phase and formulated recommendations on: biodiversity in inland
waters; marine and coastal biodiversity; agricultural
biodiversity; forest biodiversity; biodiversity indicators; and
participation of developing countries in the SBSTTA.

COP-4: At its fourth meeting, held from 4-15 May 1998, in
Bratislava, Slovakia, the COP adopted decisions on: inland water
ecosystems; marine and coastal biodiversity; forest biodiversity;
agricultural biodiversity; implementation of the CHM's pilot
phase; implementation of Article 8(j); national reports;
cooperation with other agreements, institutions and processes;
activities of the GEF; incentive measures; access to genetic
resources and benefit-sharing (ABS); public education and
awareness; and the long-term work programme.

SBSTTA-4: During its fourth meeting, held from 21-25 June 1999, in
Montreal, Canada, delegates made recommendations on: SBSTTA's work
programme; the Global Taxonomy Initiative (GTI); guiding
principles to prevent the impact of alien species; control of
plant gene expression; sustainable use of terrestrial
biodiversity; incorporation of biodiversity into environmental
impact assessment, and approaches and practices for sustainable
use of biological resources, including tourism.

ISOC: The Inter-sessional Meeting on the Operations of the
Convention (ISOC) met from 28-30 June 1999, in Montreal, Canada,
to consider preparations for and conduct of COP meetings. ISOC
also held discussions on: ABS; ex situ collections acquired prior
to the Convention's entry into force; and the relationships among
intellectual property rights (IPR), relevant provisions of the
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights
(TRIPS), and the CBD.

ExCOP FOR THE CARTAGENA PROTOCOL ON BIOSAFETY: The first
Extraordinary Meeting of the Conference of the Parties for the
Adoption of the Protocol on Biosafety to the CBD (ExCOP) was held
from 22-23 February 1999, in Cartagena, Colombia, following the
sixth meeting of the CBD's Biosafety Working Group (14-22 February
1999). The meeting was suspended, as Parties were not able to
reach agreement. Following three informal consultations, the
resumed session of the ExCOP was held from 24-28 January 2000, in
Montreal, Canada. Delegates adopted the Cartagena Protocol on
Biosafety, which addresses the safe transfer, handling and use of
living modified organisms that may have an adverse effect on
biodiversity, with a specific focus on transboundary movements. To
date, 106 countries have signed the agreement, with seven
ratifications.

SBSTTA-5: The fifth session of the SBSTTA met from 31 January - 4
February 2000, in Montreal, Canada. SBSTTA-5 developed
recommendations on, inter alia: inland water biodiversity; forest
biodiversity; agricultural biodiversity; marine and coastal
biodiversity, including coral bleaching; a programme of work on
dry and sub-humid lands; alien species; the ecosystem approach;
indicators; the pilot phase of the CHM; the second national
reports; and ad hoc technical expert groups.

COP-5: At its fifth meeting (COP-5), held from 15-26 May 2001, in
Nairobi, Kenya, the COP adopted decisions on: dry and sub-humid
lands; the ecosystem approach; access to genetic resources; alien
species; sustainable use; biodiversity and tourism; incentive
measures; the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation; the GTI;
scientific and technical cooperation and the CHM; identification,
monitoring, assessment and indicators; and impact assessment,
liability and redress. A high-level segment on the Cartagena
Protocol on Biosafety, including a Ministerial Roundtable and a
special signing ceremony, was convened during the second week of
the meeting.

SBSTTA-6: The sixth meeting of the SBSTTA took place from 12-16
March 2001, in Montreal, Canada. SBSTTA-6 featured a streamlined
agenda with a focus on invasive alien species and emphasis on
providing background information through presentations, side
events, roundtables and additional documentation. Recommendations
were adopted on the use of: ad hoc technical expert groups; marine
and coastal biodiversity; inland water ecosystems; invasive alien
species; scientific assessments; the GTI; biodiversity and climate
change; and migratory species.

SBSTTA-7: The seventh meeting of the SBSTTA took place from 12-16
November 2001, in Montreal, Canada. SBSTTA-7's agenda had a focus
on forest biodiversity, adopting a recommendation and a draft work
programme consisting of goals, objectives and activities grouped
under three programme elements: conservation, sustainable use and
benefit-sharing; institutional and socioeconomic enabling
environment; and knowledge, assessment and monitoring. The meeting
also produced recommendations on: agricultural biodiversity,
including the International Pollinators Initiative; the plant
conservation strategy; incentive measures, indicators; and
environmental impact assessment.

This issue of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin © <enb@iisd.org> is
written and edited by Jacob Andersen <ja@nepenthes.dk>, Changbo
Bai <changbo@iisd.org>, Teya Penniman <teya@iisd.org> and Elsa
Tsioumani <elsa@iisd.org>. The Digital Editor is Franz Dejon
<franz@iisd.org>. The Operations Manager is Marcela Rojo
<marcela@iisd.org> and the On-Line Assistant is Diego Noguera
<diego@iisd.org>. The Editor is Pamela S. Chasek, Ph.D.
<pam@iisd.org> and the Director of IISD Reporting Services is
Langston James "Kimo" Goree VI <kimo@iisd.org>. The Sustaining
Donors of the Bulletin are the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, the Government of Canada (through CIDA), the United
States (through USAID), the Swiss Agency for Environment, Forests
and Landscape (SAEFL), the United Kingdom (through the Department
for International Development - DFID, and the Foreign &
Commonwealth Office), the European Commission (DG-ENV), the Danish
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Government of Germany
(through German Federal Ministry of Environment - BMU, and the
German Federal Ministry of Development Cooperation - BMZ). General
Support for the Bulletin during 2001 is provided by the Ministries
of Foreign Affairs and Environment of Finland, the Government of
Australia, the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of Sweden, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade of
New Zealand, the Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Environment of
Norway, Swan International, and the Japanese Ministry of
Environment (through the Institute for Global Environmental
Strategies - IGES.) The Bulletin can be contacted by e-mail at
<enb@iisd.org> and at tel: +1-212-644-0204; fax: +1-212-644-0206.
IISD can be contacted by e-mail at <info@iisd.ca> and at 161
Portage Avenue East, 6th Floor, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 0Y4,
Canada. The opinions expressed in the Earth Negotiations Bulletin
are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views
of IISD and other funders. Excerpts from the Earth Negotiations
Bulletin may be used in non-commercial publications only and only
with appropriate academic citation. For permission to use this
material in commercial publications, contact the Director of IISD
Reporting Services. Electronic versions of the Bulletin are sent
to e-mail distribution lists and can be found on the Linkages WWW
server at http://www.iisd.ca. The satellite image was taken above
Montreal ©2001 The Living Earth, Inc. http://livingearth.com. For
information on the Earth Negotiations Bulletin or to arrange
coverage of a meeting, conference or workshop, send e-mail to the
Director, IISD Reporting Services at <kimo@iisd.org>.
 

BIOPLAN is an electronic list server established by the UNDP-UNEP implemented
Biodiversity Planning Support Programmme and maintained by UNDP-GEF to serve the
global community involved in planning for national implementation of the Convention on
Biological Diversity. To unsubscribe (remove yourself) from this list send a message to:
majordomo@undp.org with the subject line BLANK and the following text in the body of
the message: UNSUBSCRIBE BIOPLAN followed by your e-mail address,
or go to http://stone/undpweb/bpsp/bioplan.cfm

BACK TO LISTINGS  HOME