. ALAWON archives gopher.ala.org; select ALA Washington
Office Newsline. Visit our Web site at http://www.alawash.org/
ALA Washington Office 202.628.8410 (V)
1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, #403 202.628.8419 (F)
Washington, DC 20004-1701 Lynne E. Bradley, Editor
Contributors: Carol C. Henderson
Adam Eisgrau
Deirdre Herman
All materials subject to copyright by the American Library
Association may be reprinted or redistributed for noncommercial
purposes with appropriate credits.
=================================================================
BACK TO
*********************************************************************
The role of low-cost plastic tube biodigesters in integrated
farming systems in Vietnam: Part I
The role of low-cost plastic tube biodigesters in integrated
farming systems in Vietnam: Part I
*********************************************************************
Second FAO Electronic Conference on Tropical Feeds
Livestock Feed Resources within Integrated Farming Systems
THE ROLE OF LOW-COST PLASTIC TUBE BIODIGESTERS IN INTEGRATED FARMING SYSTEMS
IN VIETNAM (Part I)
Bui Xuan An
University Agriculture & Forestry, Thu Duc, Ho Chi Minh City
Vietnam
E-mail: an%sarec%ifs.plants@ox.ac.uk
INTRODUCTION
For the past 10 years or so, Vietnam has adopted modern farming techniques
that use imported agro-chemicals and fossil-fuel products in order to
increase exports of agricultural products and feed its population which has
grown SBSTTA was requested to provide scientific advice and
guidance to COP4 (to be held in May 1998), to assist in the
implementation of Article 7. Parties have been requested to make readily
available the taxonomic information present in ex-situ collections
world-wide, in particular to countries of origin (from where the
biodiversity has been collected).
The institutional structure of the financial mechanism (currently the
GEF; see below Financial Mechanism/Measures) was requested to provide
resources to assist developing countries in capacity building, and in
carrying out assessments for designing implementation and monitoring
programmes.
What is however missing is reference to traditional methods of
classification which can make important contributions to the taxonomic
identification of biodiversity, as well as to identification of
activities which are a significant threat to biodiversity.
Follow-up by India: India needs precise identification of the components
of biodiversity under various degrees and kinds of threat; it has a
substantial traditional and modern scientific base to build on, but much
remains to be done. Urgent actions necessary include a consolidated
database of all recorded plant, animal and micro-organic species; studies
on the status of these species; and identification of the most critical
threats to biodiversity and ways of tackling them.
2. Implementation of Articles 6 and 8 of the CBD
Summary: Urges parties to develop and implement national strategies,
plans and programmes in accordance with Article 6, and requests interim
financial mechanism (currently the GEF) to facilitate the same as a
priority. The framework set out in Article 8 for in situ conservation to
be implemented in a coherent manner. The important role of the Clearing
House Mechanism in facilitating sharing of information recognised.
Parties to submit national reports on time.
COP3 stressed the mandate of Article 6 which requires all Parties to
ensure that their national strategies, laws, policies and programmes for
conservation and sustainable use, reflect the measures set out in the
CBD. The interim financial mechanism (GEF) had been asked by COP2 to
facilitate the urgent implementation of Article 6, and this was
reiterated at COP3. In implementing the various parts of Article 8 on
conservation, sustainable use and restoration of habitats and their
biological diversity are to be addressed. Disseminating information for
implementing Articles 6 and 8 should complement and not duplicate
existing efforts. The CHM has an important role in this regard. Parties
were also asked to ensure the cross-border co-ordination of their
respective strategies, on a bilateral as well as regional basis.
The CBD Secretariat was asked to prepare a paper for the SBSTTA,
identifying existing conventions and other international agreements
relevant for implementing Article 8. The work areas recommended to the
Parties for further action were: methodologies for evaluating and
mitigating threats to biodiversity; ways to mitigate incentives that have
an adverse impact on biodiversity; alien species; and protected areas.
Missing in the decision was reference to and further elaboration of
COP2's decision on Article 6, which stated the need to identify driving
forces of biodiversity loss. These forces include: processes of
development, trade inequalities, aid programmes, wasteful consumerism,
patterns of land control, etc. These issues were not referred to at all
at COP3, which is unfortunate, as any action towards conservation and
sustainable use without addressing these root causes of destruction, will
be superficial.
Follow-up by India: India needs to do a thorough analysis of the various
changes which will be needed in its development planning process and in
its international relations, to actually achieve conservation and
sustainable use. Such changes are obviously difficult and long-term, but
are essential if the commitments under the CBD have to be met. India also
needs to consider ways of influencing the international processes
relating to destruction and conservation of biodiversity. The specific
points referred to in Articles 6 and 8, as well as in Annex 1 of the CBD,
provide the broad framework for further action at the national level.
A process to make a National Biodiversity Action Plan, which could start
addressing some of the above points, was started by the Indian Ministry
of Environment and Forests in 1994; considerable work was done by teams
of experts from within and outside the government, and a draft was
produced in 1995. Since then, however, the proposed action plan has
remained buried. It is imperative that the plan is finalised as soon as
possible, in widespread consultation with people's organisations and
communities.
Finally, India should start the process of preparing its national report,
to be presented at COP4. This process should be as participatory as
possible, with inputs being sought from a wide range of people and
agencies, especially local community organisations. Given that there is
more than an year to do this, there should be no excuse to short-circuit
such a process; certainly, a national report which is prepared solely by
government will be unacceptable.
3. Access to Genetic Resources
Summary: Countries urged to develop access and benefit sharing measures,
and disseminate information on these; and conclude the International
Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources and adapt it to bring it in
harmony with the CBD, in particular, providing solutions to the problem
of access to ex-situ collections. The relation between Article 15 (on
access) and the TRIPs agreement also to be studied.
COP3 took forward the decision on access to genetic resources arrived at
COP2 and emphasised the importance of national and regional efforts. The
fact that Article 15 was linked to various other provisions of the CBD,
including Articles 8(j), 11, 16.2, 16.5, 17.2, 19.1 and 19.2, was
recognised. The Executive Secretary was asked to prepare a note for COP4
summarising legislative, administrative and policy measures, including
guidelines and regional and sectoral measures for the activities covered
by Article 15, and in particular on the elements involved in access and
benefit sharing, both under development and adopted. The importance of
case studies to elucidate national experiences in the development and
implementation of such measures was also highlighted. The role of the CHM
in disseminating this information was stressed.
Governments, regional economic integration organisations, the interim
financial mechanism, and other competent international, regional and
national organisations were urged to support capacity building programmes
as part of the implementation process, targeting Governments, NGOs, and
local and indigenous communities.
Governments and regional economic organisations were also urged to bring
to a rapid conclusion the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic
Resources (IUPGR), currently being revised under the aegis of the FAO, to
bring it into conformity with the CBD. Specifically, this process should
address the issue of access to ex-situ collections not acquired in
accordance with the CBD (estimated at over half a million in the centres
of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research alone,
most of these collected from tropical countries). Article 15 (3) states
that the genetic resources covered by it are only those provided by
Parties which are countries of origin of such resources, or by Parties
that have acquired the resources in accordance with the Convention. This
leaves out ex-situ collections which were obtained prior to the
conclusion of the CBD. A speedy resolution of the status of these
collections and the right of the countries from which they have been
taken, is necessary.
Co-operation between the CBD process and the WTO was sought with regard
to the interlinkages between Article 15 and the TRIPs agreement. This is
significant from the point of view of the countries of origin of genetic
resources, which need to ensure that IPRs obtained over genetic resources
from their territory do not violate their interests (see also
Intellectual Property Rights, below). Stronger text on the issue of ex
situ collections and on the possible negative relations between GATT and
the CBD was suggested by some countries and most NGOs. However, this was
not accepted in the final decision.
Though progress has been made on certain issues, a major weakness remains
with regard to the issue whether the burden of developing a legislative
and policy framework should lie only on the countries which provide
access to genetic resources, or whether there is an obligation on
recipient countries to ensure that their collection of genetic material
is in accordance with Article 15, even in the absence of any specific law
in the source country.
Follow-up by India: India does not as yet have a regime regulating access
to its genetic resources. But substantial work has been done on this by
an expert committee set up by the Ministry of Environment and Forests
(MOEF) in 1994-5. A draft notification requiring prior approval for every
genetic resource proposed to be taken out of the country, has been
gathering dust with the Government of India for the last two years; it is
high time it was promulgated. Also needed is the formulation of model
Material Transfer Agreements (MTAs), which lay out a contractual
agreement between the provider and recipient of the biodiversity
resource/knowledge. Other aspects which have to be addressed by the MTAs
is access to the biological resources and related knowledge of local
(especially tribal) communities, so as to ensure their rights and a share
for them of the benefits arising from the commercial use of such
resources and knowledge. Given the increasing evidence of Indian
biological resources being used for patents by foreign agencies and
corporations, these measures are extremely urgent.
4. Access to and transfer of Technology
Summary: COP4 to consider this issue with respect to issues such as
benefit-sharing, and in particular the distribution of benefits from
biotechnology in accordance with Article 19.
Article 16 seeks to facilitate transfer of relevant technologies,
especially on fair and favourable terms to countries which provide
genetic resources; Article 19 provides for the participation in
biotechnological research, of such countries, and emphasises the need to
promote fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from
biotechnologies. COP3 endorsed the decision of the second SBSTTA
meeting, to examine technologies from the point of view of the major
thrust of the CBD, to identify relevant technologies based on country
needs and towards enhancing the value of genetic resources, and to
involve the private sector. COP3 noted that further work on these will be
done in the context of consideration of Articles 16 and 19 at COP4.
Follow-up by India: India needs to clearly define its stand on this issue
when it comes up for discussion at COP4. In particular, there are serious
questions related to which foreign technologies are relevant and
appropriate for Indian conditions; we should not be rushing blindfold
towards technologies which may harm us in the long run, and displace
indigenous technologies which may be more sustainable. At the same time,
formal and informal mechanisms of identifying relevant outside
technologies need to be developed. Finally, the
links between transfer of technology and IPR regimes need to be explored.
5. Intellectual Property Rights
Summary: Case studies to be undertaken to examine impacts of existing
IPRs for the CBD; need to understand relationship between the CBD and
TRIPs; development of sui generis systems of protection, consistent with
international obligations, to be undertaken; CBD Secretariat to apply for
observer status with the WTO-CTE.
COP3 has called for understanding the relationship between TRIPs and the
CBD, for the submission of case studies on the impact of IPRs on
biodiversity, and for the exploration of new IPR systems which could meet
the objectives of the CBD, so long as these are consistent with existing
international regimes.
This was a controversial issue on which the COP saw acrimonious debate,
and only weak progress. Several countries (Malaysia, India, Philippines,
Brazil, others) pointed out that existing IPR systems, including those
promoted by the Trade Related Intellectual Property (TRIPs) part of the
GATT treaty, would result in violating the aims of conservation and
sustainable use, and would continue the piracy of traditional community
knowledge and the monopolisation of community knowledge. NGOs
dramatically illustrated their arguments by bringing up examples of the
unethical patenting of human genetic material, and of traditionally held
knowledge of plant medicines, by corporations and scientists in
industrial countries. At the very least, they called for a critical
analysis of the impact of such IPRs on biodiversity, and of the
relationship between TRIPs and the CBD. But some successful blocking by
industrial countries like the USA resulted in a decision which is so
carefully worded that it could amount to very little. This weak decision
was also partly based on two notes prepared by the CBD Secretariat, which
distinctly gave the benefit of doubt to the TRIPs agreement as far as a
potential clash between it and the CBD was concerned.
Follow-up by India: India needs to urgently initiate studies of the
actual and potential impacts of IPRs on biodiversity conservation,
sustainable use, and equitable benefit- sharing. In particular, the
impacts of IPRs on local communities (including farmers), and on the
indigenous seed and pharmaceutical industry, are subjects requiring
analysis. Such analysis must then be forwarded to the CBD Secretariat for
circulation, and consideration at COP4. Also, India needs to examine the
issue of developing sui generis systems and approaches that recognise the
knowledge of indigenous and local communities, and act as an effective
counter to the increasing monopolisation of knowledge and resources by
the private sector.
In addition, India must ensure that its own development of its patent
law, currently under amendment under pressure from GATT, does not violate
the provisions of the CBD. Specifically, it must exclude all life forms
from patentability.iii
India had the opportunity to follow up on most of the above suggestions
last year as well, and hence taken a stronger and more effective stand at
COP3. It did not do so. It is hoped that steps will be taken to ensure
the above before COP4, so that it will not again be a case of lost
opportunities.
6. Local and indigenous communities [Article 8 (j)]
Summary: Recognises rights under national legislation of indigenous and
local communities to control access to their knowledge, innovations and
practices; traditional knowledge to be given the same respect as any
other form of knowledge; case studies to be conducted on this aspect, and
on impact of laws and policies on knowledge, innovations and practices of
these communities; post of programme officer for indigenous peoples to be
filled at the CBD Secretariat; interim financial mechanism asked to
support projects for indigenous and local communities; inter-sessional
work process on Article 8(j) to be established, including a five-day
workshop funded from the CBD budget.
COP3 recognised the close relationship between Article 8(j) and other
articles, in particular Articles 10(c), 17.2 and 18.4, and that the
implementing process should take this into account. Rights of indigenous
and local communities as enshrined in other international instruments
were also recognised as relevant for implementing Article 8(j). State
parties were asked to supply information in their national reports on
implementing Art. 8(j) at the national level through laws, policies and
incentive measures.
An inter-sessional work process is to be established to advance work on
implementing 8(j), with a view to preparing a report for COP4.
Governments, NGOs and representatives of local and indigenous communities
have been invited to submit case studies on measures taken to develop and
implement the CBD's provisions relating to indigenous and local
communities, and address, inter alia: interactions between traditional
and other forms of knowledge relating to conservation and sustainable use
of biodiversity; and the influence of current laws and policies on the
knowledge, innovations and practices of local and indigenous communities.
These studies are to be presented at a five-day workshop to be held prior
to COP4; a specific budget has been set aside for this workshop.
The interim financial mechanism was asked to examine the issue of support
for capacity-building projects for indigenous and local communities. The
indigenous knowledge post at the Secretariat was asked to be filled at
the earliest. The Executive Secretary was also asked to prepare a
background document for COP4 addressing the following issues:
consideration of linkages between 8(j) and related aspects such as
technology transfer, access to genetic resources, IPRs, alternative
systems of protection of knowledge, innovations and practices,
incentives, Article 6 and 7, and the remainder of Article 8.
The decision on implementation of Article 8(j) can be seen as a step
forward by COP3. The process of arriving at it was itself significant.
Representatives from five indigenous peoples groups from different parts
of the world were allowed to make the first interventions, an
unprecedented step. The decision arrived at thereafter, though ambiguous
and weak on certain aspects, represents an important starting point for
incorporating concerns of indigenous and local communities in
implementing different parts of the CBD.
One major weakness of the decision is that nothing concrete could be
decided on the aspect of funding the inter-sessional work process, except
the workshop. The demand of indigenous peoples and NGOs to set up a
Working Group for intersessional activity was not accepted. Also, the
rights of these communities continue to be recognised only "subject to
national legislation", though it is hoped that the process initiated
under the decision will act as a pressure point to facilitate realisation
of these rights even in countries whose current laws do not provide for
them.
Follow-up by India: The processes referred to above in relation to access
to genetic resources and IPRs, will be equally relevant for indigenous
and local communities. For instance, the MTAs developed as part of the
access legislation would have an important role to play in ensuring that
the approval and involvement of local and indigenous communities is
ensured in providing access to their knowledge and resources. The
Government should also consider giving financial and legal support to
programmes such as the Community Biodiversity Register, being prepared by
some NGOs to help communities document their own knowledge, innovations
and practices. Further, national laws and policies dealing with wildlife
and forest conservation need to be re-examined in order to integrate the
conservation and sustainable use practices of local and indigenous
communities.
The Indian Minister of State for Environment and Forests, Cptn. Nishad,
in his speech at the COP mentioned the need for "systems and mechanisms
to... protect rights of and provide rewards for traditional knowledge
systems, practices and innovations". Unfortunately, this has become more
rhetoric than reality in India, as the access and rights of local
communities to natural resources, have actually been increasingly curbed.
Guaranteeing secure tenure to land, rights to forest and wetland
resources, and central participation in the planning and implementation
of conservation and development programmes, are essential if social
justice is to be achieved and biodiversity is to be conserved. Joint
Forest Management programmes, though a step forward, need far more
empowerment of the villagers, and similar participatory management
systems have to be built for protected areas.
7. Agricultural Biodiversity
Summary: Establishment of a multi-year programme on agricultural
biodiversity to promote conservation, sustainable use of genetic
resources and the equitable sharing of benefits arising out of
utilisation of genetic resources; parties to develop national strategies
to enhance sustainable agriculture through targeted incentive measures;
development of farming practices to increase productivity and arrest
degradation, promote organic farming, integrated pest management,
biological control and agro-forestry.
COP3 adopted a detailed text on agricultural biodiversity, accepting the
need to reduce destructive monocultures and chemical uses in modern
agriculture, and urging countries to take up measures to conserve crop
and livestock diversity, especially by facilitating farmers to do this on
their farms and pastures. This marks a significant departure from the
chemical-intensive, laboratory-dependent agriculture represented by the
Green Revolution. COP3 endorsed the Global Plan of Action on genetic
resources adapted earlier this year in a technical conference organised
by FAO (at Leipzig, Germany), and also called for early resolution of the
issue of ownership of genetic resources collected from developing
countries and held in international gene banks. COP also expressed its
willingness to consider the adoption of the IUPGR as a protocol to the
CBD.
On the issue of the impact of trade on agricultural biodiversity, one of
the alternative texts preceding the final decision requested the CBD
Secretariat to conduct a study on the impact of trade liberalisation
(especially under GATT) on agricultural biodiversity, and on how the
TRIPs agreement relates to the provisions of the CBD. This however
appears in a much diluted form in the final text of the decision adopted
by the COP, which states that the WTO through the CTE should consider
developing a better appreciation of the relationship between trade and
agricultural biodiversity, and in this regard, collaborate with the CBD.
Follow-up by India: India is very far from taking action to conserve its
own agricultural biodiversity; basically, the entire Green Revolution
mode of farming and pastoralism is unsustainable and destructive. The
move towards further commercialising and 'industrialising' agriculture as
part of the economic liberalisation policies of the 1990s is only causing
further erosion of this diversity. A drastic review of policy is needed,
to remove negative incentives and incorporate positive ones. Urgent
programmes to encourage on-farm use of crop and livestock diversity, in
conjunction with attempts to increase productivity, need support. India
would do well to act on the COP's urging that countries adopt more
biologically diverse forms of organic farming. This means banning
large-scale monocultures (sugarcane, eucalyptus), phasing out the use of
chemicals, focusing on research that is relevant to small farmers,
providing positive incentives for conservation of, and innovations
related to, crop and livestock diversity, and building up on the
multi-purpose productivity (staple and supplementary foods, fibre,
fodder, cultural resources, etc.) of traditional farming rather than
focus only on one aspect of production (grain, milk).
8. Terrestrial Biodiversity
Summary: CBD to work in a complementary way with the Intergovernmental
Panel on Forests and other forest-related fora; need to incorporate
traditional systems of forest biodiversity conservation; SBSTTA's role
in developing criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management
and analysing impact of human activity on the loss of forest biological
diversity, endorsed; need for an integrated approach to the planning and
management of land resources stressed; efforts under the CBD to
complement existing efforts and not duplicate them.
COP3 affirmed the mandate of the CBD over forest biological diversity. It
laid emphasis on cooperation between both the CBD and the
Inter-governmental Panel on Forests (IPF), and the need for
complementarity between the two and other forest related fora, in order
to avoid duplication of effort. The Executive Secretary was asked to
develop a draft work programme on forest biological diversity and give
guidance to the SBSTTA on research priorities. The second SBSTTA meeting
recommendation on input into the IPF was endorsed. This recommendation
included: the need for the IPF to integrate biodiversity considerations
into its proposals; and strategies for sustainable forest management to
be based on an ecosystem approach. A set of research and technological
priorities were also identified, including the need for development of
criteria for sustainable forest management, scientific analysis for
assessing the impact of human activities on forest biodiversity, and
development of an integrated approach to the planning and management of
land resources. Among the optional elements of the Executive Secretary's
work programme is the incorporation of traditional systems of forest
biodiversity conservation.
The decision, while commendable for its detailed approach towards the
issue and for concretising some of the elements of COP2's decision of
forests, does not address some other critical issues which affect forest
biodiversity. A number of countries and most NGOs have for years been
pointing to the need for immediate action to address the fundamental
causes of deforestation: unsustainable consumption by industrial
countries and the rich in developing countries, inequitable trade
relations which force forest-rich countries to export enormous amounts of
timber, land tenure policies and laws which force poor people to encroach
into forest lands, and others. Yet a handful of industrial and
industrialising countries continue to systematically block such action.
At COP3, some countries --- notably Canada, USA, Brazil, and Malaysia ---
stonewalled any attempts to put such issues squarely on the agenda of
implementation. Most substantial issues were left to the
Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF), a parallel international
process. NGOs rightly pointed out that this was unacceptable, since the
IPF had so far focused mainly on issues of use and trade, ignoring
substantial aspects of conservation and the rights of forest-dwelling
communities. Forests contain the bulk of the world's biodiversity, and
the CBD is the legitimate forum to deal with all aspects related to their
conservation and use, but governments remain loath to act on this.
Follow-up by India: While satellite imagery seems to suggest that the
large-scale deforestation that India witnessed in the last few decades
may not be continuing, what it hides is that there is widespread
degradation still taking place. Dense forests are becoming sparse,
natural forests are being cut and compensation is only taking place
through plantations of a few species, and all forests are losing
diversity especially in ground cover and associated wildlife. The root
causes of this degradation are the same as existing world-wide:
unsustainable development and consumer pressures, inequitous landholding
patterns, alienation of forest-dwellers and centralised decision-making,
and growing population of humans and livestock. Governmental efforts at
tackling this are only half-hearted; it needs to squarely tackle the
above causes if it is serious at reversing deforestation and degradation.
The CBD's provisions regarding conservation are therefore of utmost
importance, and the National Biodiversity Action Plan must be able to
fulfil them.
In addition, there is an urgent need to review existing forest
legislation to make it more conservation-oriented and more amenable to
the central participation of local communities in and around forest
areas. Forestry curricula also need drastic modification towards this
end, especially to inculcate the principles of the 1988 Forest Policy,
and to give the same importance to traditional forest-based knowledge as
is given to modern forestry science.
9. Biosafety
Summary: Encourages application of UNEP Technical guidelines, and affirms
work by Working Group set up at COP2 to develop a protocol on biosafety;
recognises importance for funding for capacity-building in biosafety.
COP2 had given the green signal to the development of a legally binding
protocol on the safe transfer, handling, and use of genetically
engineered organisms (called "living modified organisms" or LMOs). This
protocol will focus specifically on "transboundary movement, of any
living modified organism resulting from modern biotechnology that may
have adverse effect on the conservation and sustainable use of biological
diversity". An open-ended working group, to which any of the CBD's party
countries can send representatives, was established at COP2 to develop
this protocol. COP3 considered the interim report of this working group
and suggested that the group could meet more often if need be, in order
to finish by its deadline of 1998.
Follow-up by India: India needs to urgently identify the kinds and levels
of transfers of LMOs that may have already taken place from other
countries to India, to assess their possible impacts and report their
results to the CBD Secretariat. It should also specifically ban any such
transfers till the protocol is in place.
10. Clearing House Mechanism
Summary: GEF and other funding institutions to provide funding for
Clearing House Mechanism (CHM); CHM to be compatible with national
capacities, needs-driven, decentralised in nature, involving the private
sector; ownership of all information provided to the CHM to vest with the
provider of the information; CHM also to facilitate fair and equitable
sharing of benefits through linkages with patent offices in each country.
COP3 carried forward the process initiated by COP2 regarding the CHM. The
pilot phase for 1996-97 initiated by the COP2 decision has been extended
till 1998. An effective CHM could go a long way in ensuring technical and
scientific co-operation and contribute to the implementation of the CBD.
Apart from this it is also envisaged as a means to disseminate
information on policy and management issues. COP3 stressed the need to
develop modalities other than the Internet for dissemination of
information, to ensure that countries without Internet access are not
excluded. It also emphasised that the GEF should provide priority funding
for capacity building for the purposes of the CHM, and for initiating
country driven projects in developing countries in the pilot phase of the
CHM.
The need to hold regional workshops, funded by Government and relevant
financial, technical and scientific institutions, was emphasised with
view to assessing needs, priorities and national capacities. The fact
that the ownership of all information provided to the CHM shall remain
with the provider of the information was emphasised.
COP also recommended that one of the important roles of the CHM at the
national level was to provide relevant information linkages to the
national focal points, in order to facilitate the fair and equitable
sharing of the benefits arising out of utilisation of genetic resources.
One mechanism suggested was through linkages to patent offices of each
country, for up-to-date information on new patent registrations and
patents in the public domain.
The fundamental role of the CBD Secretariat with regard to the successful
functioning of the CHM was recognised, and the need to fill the CHM posts
within the Secretariat was emphasised.
Follow-up by India: India needs to examine issues such as how best to use
the CHM mechanism to facilitate information exchange, fair and equitable
benefit-sharing, technology transfer, and access to IPR and other
relevant records world-wide. For instance, it should ask the CHM to
provide a search function for all patents/IPRs claimed on biological
resources taken from India in the past. It could also, through the CHM,
consider using the defensive patenting mechanism to prevent patenting of
anything derived by using the knowledge and resources obtained from our
country.
11. Financial Mechanism/Measures
Summary: GEF once again retained as the interim mechanism; priority
areas identified for funding by GEF; review of GEF's work to be done
before COP4; information from both Parties and NGOs to be used for the
review; Secretariat to put together information on effectiveness of
GEF-funded activities on objectives of the CBD, and to conduct field
visits to analyse this; identification of alternative sources of funding
to be undertaken; all funding institutions to inform how their activities
support the CBD.
The Global Environment Facility (GEF), as expected, was retained as the
interim financial mechanism for the CBD. It was asked to provide
financial resources to developing country parties as a priority in the
areas including capacity building for biosafety and taxonomy; supporting
efforts in the area of agricultural biodiversity; and for facilitating
implementation of the CHM. What is interesting is the need recognised for
reviewing the work of GEF in the light of its impact on the objectives of
the CBD. Apart from annual reviews from the GEF and from state parties,
the role of NGOs was also recognised as important in providing
information for such a review. The Secretariat was asked to compile this
information as well as ensure field visits in state parties in order to
assess the funding process. Emphasis was also placed on identification of
alternate sources of funding. All funding institutions were asked to
strive to make their activities supportive of the CBD, and encouraged to
inform the Secretariat about the same.
One significant feature of this decision was that it recognises the
importance of Article 20 (4) of the CBD, according to which the extent to
which developing country Parties effectively implement their commitments
under the CBD, is made contingent upon the extent to which developed
country Parties fulfil their commitments related to financial resources
and transfer of technology. The major stumbling block for the further
implementation of many of the provisions of the CBD has been,
predictably, that of funding. Developing countries have argued that
biodiversity conservation requires substantial additional financial
resources, and have sought relevant commitments from industrial
countries. While the CBD provides for such commitment, the true colours
of several industrial nations were revealed at COP3, where they refused
to commit any substantial new funds for most activities. NGOs at the COP
even showed that international funding for biodiversity has gone down in
the last few years, and rather than providing new funds, most
industrial countries are simply diverting some existing development
aid into support for environmental projects. This argument, however, did
not move most of the rich countries. This is likely to remain a major
hurdle for implementation of the CBD (though perhaps exaggerated, since
fundamental changes in the political and economic relations between and
within countries are far more important than mere transfer of funds, in
ensuring that biodiversity is conserved and sustainably used).
It remains disappointing that the opposition to the GEF as the permanent
financial mechanism under the CBD, voiced by so many southern countries
and NGOs, continues to be dismissed by the industrial nations. The latter
have been stubbornly insisting on the GEF as the only acceptable
mechanism, despite considerable evidence suggesting that it is not truly
responsive to the needs of southern countries, and remains heavily
dominated by the World Bank. It seems that the CBD is resigned to having
the GEF as the "permanent interim" financial mechanism.
Follow-up by India: India should commission an independent examination of
how its own role in GEF, and the use of GEF funds within India, has or
has not helped to achieve the objectives of the CBD. Even more
critically, it should actively suggest and provide workable models on
additional sources of funding, including taxation, and urge the
Secretariat to include these in its report to the next Conference of
Parties. At COP2, India had made a statement supporting the
consideration of an international taxation on the biodiversity-based
industry; additionally, its draft National Biodiversity Action Plan has a
provision for a domestic tax on this industry. However, since then, no
further concrete step has been taken to develop these ideas; this should
now be done, if need be by setting up an inter-disciplinary group of
economists and biodiversity experts.
12. Incentive measures
Summary: Parties to review existing laws and economic policies to
identify and promote incentives for the conservation and sustainable use
of biodiversity and take appropriate action on incentives that threaten
biodiversity; incorporation of market and non-market values of
biodiversity into plans, policies and programmes; training and capacity
building programmes to be initiated; local and indigenous communities and
the private sector to be involved in the implementation of incentive
measures; EIA considerations to be taken in designing and implementing
incentive measures; parties to share experiences and initiate case
studies; GEF to fund incentive measures as a priority area.
The decision on incentive measures affirms the importance of the same in
the implementation of the CBD's provisions. The country-specific nature
of the same was recognised, and so was the need to take into account
differences in socio-economic and cultural conditions. Parties were asked
to review their policies and laws on incentive measures in order to
identify their impacts on the conservation and sustainable use of
biodiversity. The market and non-market values of biodiversity are to
inform policies, strategies, national accounting systems and investment
strategies. The importance of local and indigenous communities and the
private sector in the design and implementation of incentive measures was
recognised. Training and capacity-building programmes were also
highlighted. In designing and implementing incentive measures, Parties
were asked to incorporate biodiversity considerations into environment
impact assessments. The GEF was asked to fund incentive measures as a
priority area.
Article 11 of the CBD broadly states that the incentive measures that
countries adopt for the conservation and sustainable use of biological
diversity should be economically and socially sound. COP3's decision in
this regard is commendable in that it attempts to identify the elements
of critical importance while introducing incentive measures. What the
decision provides can be seen as a starting point to evaluate incentive
measures in the light of the goals of conservation and sustainable use of
biodiversity. A great deal would however depend on the funding available
to implement these.
Follow-up by India: Like any other country, India's current economic
system provides several negative incentives which result in the
destruction of biodiversity (e.g. subsidies for Green Revolution
agriculture). These should be urgently examined, and positive incentives
for conservation and sustainable use to be explored. For instance,
incentives which could spur farmers to retain or revive indigenous seed
diversity, or encourage forest-dwellers to protect patches of forests
rather than converting them into fields, or enable fisherfolk to continue
traditional methods of fishing rather than switch to destructive
mechanised methods, need exploration. Such actions can be taken in the
form of case studies, as suggested by COP3, by a review of relevant
laws, policies, and programmes, and by extending EIA processes to include
economic incentives.
13. Involvement of Local Communities and NGOs
Summary: COP3 a mixed experience for NGO/community involvement; such
involvement endorsed, but no substantial progress over COP2.
The CBD process has become established as one with a great amount of NGO
input (and to a lesser degree, direct input of local communities). At
COP2, upwards of 140 NGOs were registered with over 350 participants;
they were constantly lobbying with government delegates, producing
reading material including a couple of regular newsletters, holding
informal workshops and discussions, helping delegates in framing
statements, protesting unwelcome decisions and viewpoints, and making
statements at the formal sessions. This continued at COP3, with several
hundred NGO representatives, including a very impressive contingent of
indigenous peoples. While not all governments welcomed such active
involvement, there was general appreciation from delegates and the CBD
Secretariat that the process would be greatly impoverished in the absence
of NGOs.
However the experience with how active NGO participation could be at the
negotiating sessions, was mixed. A few countries such as Canada and
Brazil had NGO representatives as part of the official delegation. Others
such as Sri Lanka were highly receptive to suggestions from their NGOs
regarding the positions to be taken at the COP. Some Working Group
sessions at COP3, which were responsible for drafting the final
decisions, were open to NGOs; but there were also sessions which
specifically barred NGOs from attending. NGO representatives intervened
at most of the sessions of the official negotiations. As has been
mentioned earlier, members of indigenous peoples groups made valuable
contributions to the discussions on Article 8(j). The NGOs also had a
meeting with the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole of COP3, which
was a positive aspect.
Follow-up by India: While initially, the processes within India relating
to the CBD were restricted to the government, they have increasingly
opened out. However, widespread consultation with local communities and
NGOs is still far from being achieved. In matters like the rights of and
benefit-sharing with local/indigenous communities, access and IPRs,
forest and marine biodiversity conservation, such consultation is
critical.
A number of steps are recommended for this:
(i) Translation of the CBD and related documents into local languages,
and their widespread distribution.
(ii) Workshops on major issues on which India has to act/respond by COP4,
including those mentioned above. Focal point organisations or individuals
could be assigned the responsibility of preparing background paper(s) for
discussion; subsequently workshops at regional/state level should be
organised; at the end of this process, final position papers could be
prepared for submission to the CBD Secretariat, SBSTTA, and COP4.
(iii) Public hearings at various locations, especially in order to
facilitate local community representation, on issues that directly
concern such communities. This would include especially aspects of access
to genetic resources, intellectual rights, rights to common property
resources like forests and aquatic ecosystems, and share in the
management of protected areas.
(iv) The creation of a loose network of organisations and individuals,
sponsored by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, which can work on
the major issues. This network could feed both SBSTTA and the CHM,
through official Indian delegates, as also build linkages with the CBD
process in general. The network should be open to all; information
exchange on it should be through both regular mail and electronic mail
methods. A node could be established at the Ministry or, preferably, at
some other institutional base which has the capacity to take on the
function of facilitating a network.
(v) Greater interaction at the official CBD meetings. The head of the
Indian delegation, unfortunately, was not open to the idea of interacting
with NGOs at COP3; hopefully this will not be the case with future
meetings, either inter-sessionally before COP4 (e.g. SBSTTA), or at COP4
itself.
i Grateful thanks are due to R.V. Anuradha for help in writing this
article.
ii See, Ashish Kothari, "The Biodiversity Convention: Implications for
India and Options for Action", Vikalp Vol. V No. 4, 1996; Ashish
Kothari, "Convention on Biological Diversity: Progress on Major Issues at
the Second Conference of Parties and Recommendations for Follow-up
Action", ILG Circular, No. 8, January 1996; Ashish Kothari, Conserving
Life: Implications of the Biodiversity Convention for India, Kalpavriksh,
New Delhi, 1995.
iii For a detailed discussion on how IPRs on life forms potentially
violate the spirit and letter of the CBD, see Ashish Kothari and R.V.
Anuradha, "Biodiversity and Intellectual Property Rights", to be
published by Biopolicy Journal, Bioline Publications, URL:
http://www.bdt.org.br.bioline/
BACK TO