Bridges Trade BioRes • Volume 5 • Number 22 • 9th December 2005
CBD CONSIDERS INCENTIVES TO SUPPORT BIODIVERSITY
CBD CONSIDERS INCENTIVES TO SUPPORT BIODIVERSITY
At the eleventh meeting of the Convention on Biological Diversity’s (CBD) Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA-11) held from 28 November to 2 December in Montreal, Canada, Parties to the CBD considered what measures the group could take to ensure the conservation, sustainable use and fair and equitable sharing of benefits from genetic resources. How the CBD can support positive incentives and access and benefit-sharing measures that are supportive of biodiversity was the focus of the meeting, and the CBD-WTO relationship arose on both topics. While Parties to the Convention agreed that international trade in biodiversity-related goods and services could be an important measure for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, a highly politicised debate ensued on whether the CBD should tread into the domain of the WTO by encouraging them with their talks on environmental goods and services (EGS; see related story, this issue).
SBSTTA provides scientific advice to the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the CBD to help its Parties implement the objectives, namely the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of genetic resources. At its 11th meeting in Montreal, Parties discussed most notably positive incentive measures, the process the CBD has been using to talk about incentives along with access and benefit-sharing of biological resources.
WTO, CBD involvement in environmental goods and services questioned
The CBD has been talking about the role of positive and perverse monetary and non-monetary incentive measures since 2000, but negotiations have become politicised in recent years, most notably at COP-7 in Malaysia on 9-20 February 2004 (see Bridges Trade BioRes, 5 March 2004) and at the last SBSTTA meeting held in Thailand on 7-11 February 2005 (see Bridges Trade BioRes, 18 February 2005). Discussions on incentives at these meetings focused on so-called ‘perverse incentives’ (e.g. land-use policies that encourage wetland ‘reclamation’), a term that has increasingly been equated with ‘agricultural subsidies’. However, the heavily politicised discussions that resulted — and the questions about the CBD’s jurisdiction over the matter vis-a-vis the WTO — led Parties at SBSTTA-11 to call on the COP to change the process for decision-making on incentives, calling for a more structured and inclusive process that gave Parties more control over discussions.
Discussion on incentives at the SBSTTA meeting also looked at a report on positive incentives for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity prepared by the CBD Secretariat. The report analyses existing and new instruments that provide positive incentives, including traditional laws and practices which generate positive incentives, and introduces proposals on the application of such measures. After drawing a link to the WTO negotiations on EGS, the original report recommended that SBSTTA send a recommendation to the CBD COP asking the Executive Director to continue to follow these negotiations and to "communicate to the WTO the importance of enhanced market access and international trade in biodiversity-related goods and services that are produced in a sustainable manner as a practical measure to generate incentives for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity". Owing to resistance from Parties, however, this phrase was cut, leaving only a reference asking the Executive Director to continue to ‘follow’ the WTO negotiations on EGS.
China led the way in supporting the deletion of the paragraph on the communication to the WTO, arguing with New Zealand, Argentina and Brazil that the CBD’s work on monetary incentives should abide by the rules of WTO and take into account its ongoing negotiations, in particular in the case of trade of products derived from incentives. Brazil also expressed concern that non-monetary incentives to support biodiversity, such as certification and labelling schemes, might involve non-tariff barriers to trade. The EU called for the paragraph to be included and said that market incentives are an important tool to promote the objectives of the CBD.
Environmental NGOs strongly criticised the decision to omit the statement directed to the WTO, and contrasted what they described as the CBD’s ‘deference’ to the WTO with the pro-active approach to trade measures taken by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES). In particular, Friends of the Earth International warned against moving these discussions to the WTO Committee on Trade and the Environment. Greenpeace called for the CBD to take the lead in developing an environmental taxation mechanism as a key incentive measure for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, and also said that parties should ensure that rules to protect people and the environment take precedence over WTO rules. Greenpeace also argued that governments must make sure they do not mandate the WTO to set rules and criteria that might restrict countries’ ability to implement environmental tax measures and trade measures agreed to in multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs).
Access, not transfer, to biological resources
During an examination of the strategic plan of the CBD that was agreed upon by COP-7, the balance between access to genetic resources and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from their use came under the spotlight once again. On behalf of Latin American and Caribbean Parties to the Convention, Colombia asked to change the wording of target 10, on the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising out of the use of genetic resources, in order to make the target more in line with the objectives of the Convention. The modifications, which include changing language on "transfer" to "access" and inserting language to call on Parties to craft rules that encourage "fair and equitable" sharing that is in line with the CBD, reflect the importance Latin American countries put on an effective international regime on access and benefit sharing (see related story, this issue). Participants suggested that the heated discussions on the CBD’s vision on access and benefit sharing foreshadows the upcoming 30 January meeting of the Convention’s Ad Hoc Open-ended Working Group on Access and Benefit-sharing, at which discussions on an international regime on ABS are expected to be difficult (see Bridges Trade BioRes, 4 March 2005).
Other issues discussed at the meeting included training of border control officials to prevent the transboundary movement of alien invasive species and a request for information from Parties onforest law enforcement and related trade and its effects on forest biodiversity.
Additional Resources
SBSTTA-11 documents are available at http://www.biodiv.org/doc/meeting.aspx?mtg=sbstta-11
For further information on the 30 January - 3 February Ad Hoc Open-ended Working Group on Access and Benefit-sharing meeting, visit http://www.biodiv.org/doc/meeting.aspx?mtg=ABSWG-04
ICTSD Reporting; ENB Vol. 9 No. 333, 5 December 2005.