monopolies on currently accessible information that could be created by the database proposal and the potential these proposals pose to thwart the advancement of the Global Information Infrastructure (GII) as reasons to refrain from negotiating treaties with the current proposals.

According to the associations' letter to John Gibbons, assistant for science and technology to President Clinton, "The challenges to intellectual property law which such a proposal would facilitate are so sweeping that the U.S. delegation's support for the Draft Treaty [on Intellectual Property in Respect to Databases] should be withdrawn until a complete and thorough national discussion of the merits and/or drawbacks of any related intellectual property proposal are carefully debated and considered." The library associations also said that proposals relating to database protection received no domestic hearing before being presented to WIPO last May.

"Digital technology is crucial to the future of education and commerce," said Carol Henderson, Executive Director of the American Library Association's Washington Office, "It is critically important that we take the time to develop policies which will benefit both private and public sectors."

As drafted, the proposals would inhibit browsing on the World Wide Web; significantly increase exposure of online service providers--including libraries--to copyright infringement liability; restricting copying currently permitted by law and impose liability on manufacturers of lawful machines that can be used for illegal copying (e.g. personal computers and VCRs); potentially undermine the Fair Use doctrine and related exceptions created by Congress in support of education and library activities and undermine the long standing U.S. tradition of protect content, not facts.

"It is appropriate for the U.S. to actively participate in the WIPO discussions," said Duane Webster, Executive Director of the Association of Research Libraries, "but negotiating treaties on iss}V~Vues on which there is no domestic consensus should be avoided, especially when the issues are so vital to the nation's cultural and economic future."

_________________________________________________________________

ALAWON is a free, irregular publication of the American Library Association Washington Office. To subscribe, send the message "subscribe ala-wo [your_firstname] [your_lastname]" to . 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