8th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties

Curitiba, Brazil (20 - 31 March 2006)

• The 34 decisions of the COP on the Convention's website (all decisions in one pdf file)

• Twelve days in Brazil at a slow pace - Summary and evaluation of the COP
• Biopiracy or can CBD compete with WTO? - Access and benefit sharing
• Protected Areas on no man’s sea - Protected areas on high seas
• The challenge to communicate - Communcation, education and public awareness
• Games with Genes - GM trees, GURTs and LMOs (COP/MOP-3)

Twelve days in Brazil at a slow pace

It was the ever largest meeting of the ever largest biodiversity convention. Four thousand attendees, twelve days of negotiations and 34 decisions taken – in the effort to stop biodiversity decline.

Species are being lost at the fastest rate since the disappearance of dinosaurs. It is as much as 1,000 times faster than the natural rate of extinction. This was the main messages of a video on the 2010 target to reduce significantly the rate of biodiversity loss. This film launched CBD COP-8 on the 20th of March, in Curitiba, Brazil.

Among the major achievements was the adoption of the new island biodiversity work programme. In addition, the decision to confirm the COP-5 ban on field testing of the so called suicide seeds (GURTs – the Genetic Use Restriction Technologies) and reject case-by-case risk assessments was celebrated by many countries, NGOs and indigenous peoples’ representatives. Nevertheless, the meeting failed the expectations of many. From a substantive point of view, the negotiations were not as ambitious as in previous meetings.

Two topics largely dominated the negotiations: the establishment of marine protected areas (PAs) on international waters beyond national jurisdiction, and development of an international regime on access and benefit-sharing (ABS). Sadly, the outcomes rather focused on the future process of the international negotiations. "That is the multilateral pace" responded a Brazilian diplomat to complaints that the decisions reached basically postponed concrete actions for the future.

After delivering 34 decisions on numerous issues, such as PAs, ABS, traditional knowledge, private-sector engagement, incentive measures, alien species or impact assessments, now it is up to the intersessional Working Groups to move the substantive agenda forward. The next meeting will take place in 2008, Germany.

Besides official discussions, maybe even more important developments were made by individual governments. Brazil announced that it would declare 210,000 square kilometres of its rain forests a protected area in the next three years. Palau's President Tommy E. Remengesau launched the "Micronesia challenge," which aims to protect 6.7 million square kilometres of the Pacific Ocean (roughly 5 % of its surface) by 2020.

"Biodiversity may be a sideline issue for other people, but for us it's a matter of life and death," said Palau's President Tommy E. Remengesau. "The key point is to translate words into action. We need to follow commitments with real, practical action."

Biopiracy or can CBD compete with WTO?

The most complex decision reached at the Conference was on access and benefit-sharing (ABS). An international regime will be developed by 2010.

More and more revealed cases of biopiracy around the world have lead to a growing attention to the granting of patents on genetic resources and the lack of sharing benefits with indigenous communities and countries of origin. Large developing countries like India, Brazil, Pakistan and many others demand that corporations interested in having access to genetic material must disclose their country of origin and seek the prior informed consent of local people before obtaining patent rights.

Indigenous communities and small farmers argue that the plants they have cultivated and diversified for centuries are being used by corporations without their permission. This huge biological and associated cultural diversity (like the traditional knowledge about the healing characteristics of herbs and healing practices) are abused for the interest of large companies. They say that negotiations aimed at the commercial exploitation of organisms must involve them from the very start.

Even NGOs are for and against

On the other hand according to some communities, like farmers involved in the movement Vía Campesina and many NGOs, the international system for ABS would amount to the "commodification" of biological resources and traditional knowledge, a common heritage of humankind.

Developed countries and their pharmaceutical, agriculture and biotechnology industries are very strongly against the inclusion of derivatives in the scope of a future international regime. The US (which is not Party to the Convention), with huge corporate interests in the biotech and pharmaceutical companies is not even willing to provide for the disclosure of origin of genetic resources. In the opinion of Douglas Neumann, a US State Department official, the disclosure condition would cause uncertainty for the product developer and "would discourage innovation."

Developing countries are also advocating their interests in other key fora. Because the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement under the WTO allows for the patenting without ensuring compliance with the provisions of the CBD, developing countries call for its amendment. They say that if prior informed consent and benefit sharing is not possible under WTO terms, at least patents for products based on traditional or indigenous knowledge must be excluded. However, a WTO official told delegates at a meeting: "right now, we are not discussing the traditional knowledge".

Besides, developing countries ask that the issue be included in the negotiations on a substantive patent law treaty within the World Intellectual Property Organisation.

Who does actually own the knowledge?

In addition to the trade implications of ABS, another complicated and even controversial issue surrounding ABS is that of national sovereignty. It is not clear whether knowledge of plants, animals, and other organisms belong to indigenous communities or to the country as a whole, and thus who has the right to be involved in the negotiations and benefit sharing.

While the complexity of the issue and the immense opposite interests slow down the negotiations, the COP decision focused on the future negotiating framework. The COP established an expert group on a certificate of origin. Perhaps most importantly, the Parties also set a firm time frame to develop an international regime by 2010. To assist more effective future work, the conference elected two permanent Co-Chairs (Fernando Casas from Colombia and Timothy Hodges from Canada) of the ABS Working Group, which is greatly unusual to the functioning of the CBD.

Protected Areas on no man’s sea

Discussions on Protected Areas (PAs) at the conference started with the review of implementation of the PAs work programme for the period 2004-2006. Options for cooperation for the establishment of marine protected areas in areas beyond national jurisdiction were revisited as well as options for mobilizing financial resources. The parties also talked about the further development of tool kits for the identification, designation, management, monitoring and evaluation of national and regional PA systems.

However, the discussions were largely dominated by one topic, namely the establishment of high seas PAs, where a Friends of the Chair group and a contact group had to be convened to reach a compromise decision. This question specifically focuses on the Convention's mandate vis-á-vis the UN General Assembly (UNGA), particularly in view of the UNGA Ad Hoc Working Group on biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. The final decision recognizes that the CBD has a key role in supporting UNGA work in this issue, by focusing on the provision of scientific and, as appropriate, technical information and advice relating to marine biodiversity, application of the ecosystem and precautionary approaches and in delivering the 2010 target.

The challenge to communicate

Communication, education and public awareness (CEPA) were highlighted by many participants as key means for the implementation of the Convention. In their decision the Parties adopted the short-list of priority activities and the CEPA plan of implementation addressing national and international levels. The short list of priority activities includes:

• establishing an implementation structure or process for CEPA activities (like establishing focal points and national implementation bodies)
• assessing the state of knowledge and awareness on biodiversity and determining capacity for communication (which should also address awareness of biodiversity and its relationship to human well-being)
• developing key messages (including the role of biodiversity in supporting human wellbeing)
• implementing a media relations strategy (including hosting familiarization workshops and presenting key messages)
• elaborating toolkits for the development and implementation of CEPA strategies
• organizing workshops for the articulation of CEPA strategies
• strengthening formal and informal education on biodiversity

The implementation plan identifies goals, activities, targets, tools, main actors and partners at the national, regional and international levels. The COP invited the UN General Assembly to consider the proclamation of 2010 as the International Year of Biodiversity at its 61st session.

Games with Genes

Recommendations on Genetic Use Restriction Technologies (GURTs) and genetically modified (GM) trees were the positive outcomes of the COP8. Meeting of the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety finally reached the agreement on the issue of the detailed documentation requirements for living modified organisms for food, feed, or processing (LMO-FFPs).

Rejecting GURTs, accepting farmers’ rights

In addition to ABS, the Genetic Use Restriction Technologies (GURTs) have been in the focus point of debates between developed and developing countries, small holder farmers / indigenous peoples and agrocorporations in recent years. GURTs produce genetically engineered organisms with the potential to turn genes on and off depending on the conditions. Though the technology clearly bears some risks that have not been duly assessed until now, other aspects in addition to environmental and health risks are brought up in the case of "suicide" seeds. This would largely increase the dependence of farmers on multinational corporations, because they would need to buy the seeds for farming year after year, without the possibility and right to preserve them for next year cultivation.

In 2000 the CBD COP-5 adopted a de facto moratorium, when it recommended that "in the current absence of reliable data on genetic use restriction technologies, without which there is an inadequate basis on which to assess their potential risks, and in accordance with the precautionary approach, products incorporating such technologies should not be approved by Parties for field testing".

However, research is still being carried out in Canada, the United States and Europe in laboratories and in one case, even in a greenhouse, said Karen Pederson, women's president of the National Farmers Union in Canada at COP-8.

Now COP-8 in Brazil reaffirmed this recommendation on the moratorium and encouraged Parties and others to respect traditional knowledge and farmers' rights to seed preservation and continue to undertake further research.

No GM trees for now!

Genetic modification came up on another agenda item of the Conference, namely within the discussions of forest biodiversity. Here the COP recommends parties to take a precautionary approach on the use of genetically modified trees, which actually means a moratorium on their release into the environment. Besides, the COP requests the Executive Secretary to collect and collate existing information, including peerreviewed published literature on the impacts and risks associated with GM trees, which will provide input into the next discussions at COP-9.

"Because there is insufficient scientific data regarding the biological impacts of transgenic trees, as well as an absence of socio-economic and cultural impact assessments, it is good scientific practice to invoke the Precautionary Principle, which is enshrined in the CBD," stated Dr. Ricarda Steinbrecher of the Federation of German Scientists. "This means no release of transgenic trees into the environment whilst this research is ongoing," she added.

In July, 2005 the FAO published a report entitled "Preliminary Review of Biotechnology in Forestry Including Genetic Modification." In it, over half of researchers surveyed reported the environmental threat of escape of transgenic pollen or plants into native ecosystems and forests and their impacts on non-target species as a major concern.

Temporary agreement on documentation requirements for LMOs

The third Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (COP/MOP-3) took place between 13-17 March, right before CBD COP-8 in Curitiba, Brazil. Approximately 1000 representatives from parties to the Protocol and other governments (most importantly from the US), UN agencies, intergovernmental and nongovernmental organizations, academia and industry were present at the meeting. Last years' developments in more and more LMO use and international trade were also proved by the increased participation of representatives of trade and finance ministries in many national delegations.

The core focus of the five-day meeting was without doubt the issue of the detailed documentation requirements for living modified organisms for food, feed, or processing (LMO-FFPs). After unsuccessful negotiations on this same issue last summer at COP/ MOP-2, failing to reach an agreement on this question could have sounded the death knell of the Protocol. Finally, Parties agreed on a compromise agreement that, as many delegates noted, balanced the interests of importing and exporting, as well as developed and developing parties. The decision requires that in cases where the identity of the LMO is known through identity preservation systems, the documentation states that the shipment "contains" LMO-FFPs, while in cases where the identity of the LMOs is not known, it should state that the shipment "may contain" one or more LMO-FFPs. However, "may contain" documentations should be phased out by 2012, by considering further decision of COP-MOP-6 after reviewing relevant experiences.

Other and less debated issues on the agenda were risk assessment, the rights and responsibilities of transit parties, the financial mechanism and capacity building. Parties often agreed to revisit the topics at future COP/MOPs.